Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1991, 1 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - ACCELERATED REVIEW SCHEDULE I�III�I�I►�INIIIIIIIIII�IPIU MEETNCI IuwuE► city or san"lui s OBISPO o-- 5 - -1�� 7 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: / FROM: Arnold B. Jonas,\ Community Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Associate PlannerL"'==^ ' SUBJECT: General plan update - accelerated review schedule CAO RECOMMENDATION: (A) Consider the report of actions to date, (B) provide direction on an accelerated schedule for completing the general plan update, and (C) authorize the Mayor to sign a retainer-type agreement with Mundie and Associates for economic information for the Land Use Element update, with a cost not to exceed $40, 000. DISCUSSION Situation The city has been working on an update of its general plan Land Use Element since 1987 . In April 1990, the Planning Commission sent to the City Council its preferred draft. In September 1990, the City Council referred the draft back to the Planning Commission, with direction to further evaluate certain topics. while the commission has completed work on some of those topics, further review was suspended pending completion of the council 's requested economic evaluation. Deciding the scope of that evaluation has involved the Planning Commission and the City Council over the last several months. On June 4, the City Council directed staff to prepare a schedule of critical steps in completing the update, including a timely start for the environmental evaluation, and substituting a quick- i response "question and answer" approach to economic information. The city is also updating its general plan elements dealing with circulation, housing, and open space. The housing update has a state-mandated July 1, 1992, adoption date. All the elements must be consistent. An update of the general plan Noise Element and preparation of a separate downtown design plan, also underway, are omitted from the following discussion for simplicity. The noise element may be ready for adoption during the summer. Staff is summarizing work to date and asking council to approve an ambitious schedule and abbreviated economic consultant services, to re-energize the update process. Approach summary Attachment I is a schedule of steps needed to draft, conduct environmental review and hearings, and adopt the four elements r�i��il�llllllll 11° i��IIN city of san , ,s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT daztny tht: next 12 munths to 18 13011thS. Oul. first task is to decide the form of the land use element and circulation element updates, as "a project" for environmental review. While the council is making that decision over the next month or two, staff will be getting an environmental consultant under contract (council approval required) and started on the "setting" section of the environmental impact report (EIR) . Meanwhile, staff will work on drafts of the housing and open space updates. j I Once the land use and circulation elements have preliminary council endorsement, the draft EIR will be completed and published for public comment. In the winter of 1992, the public comment period will end and responses will be written. In the spring, the Planning Commission will hold hearings and send its recommendation to the City Council, which will hold hearings leading to adoption by summer. Environmental review (probably negative declarations) for the housing and open space elements, and hearings for those documents, will be woven in among the land use and circulation hearings, hopefully culminating in adoption of a complete update package. i The Attachment I schedule is intended to include all important milestones and public participation steps. In approving it, the council will be endorsing a review process, setting deadlines, and establishing limits on the amount of advisory body involvement at various stages. Staff believes these boundaries are necessary to keep the update on schedule and avoid the types of delays which have occurred over the last year. The council should ask staff about any confusing items and be comfortable with the result'. Once we have agreement on the basic approach, we can translate the schedule into a critical path diagram or other graphic format. ! Initial meeting schedule I We need a definite schedule for the next steps in the process. Attachment II shows two alternative council meeting schedules, "Plan All having three, long daytime meetings, and "Plan B" having five, shorter, evening sessions. The Attachment I schedule uses the "Plan B" approach, but staff thinks "Plan All would work just as well, perhaps more efficiently. Once the council chooses initial meeting dates, staff will complete the task schedule and make it available to those interested in the update. Staff will periodically update and re- issue the schedule. I Approach to Decision-Making When the Council began reviewing the draft LUE last July, it was on a chapter-by-chapter, line-by-line basis. This method of review and decision-making can be quite cumbersome and frequently requires a substantial amount of discussion and debate over many relatively smaller issues. As an alternative to this approach, '���iu�l►Illilll�' II�III city of san .4is oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT start is recommenaing the o 0 1. Identification of major LUE issues (finalized on June 25) 2. Major issues review/decisions by Council (per established meeting schedule) I 3. Redrafting of text by staff to integrate major decisions I 4. Detailed text review to assure consistency with Council direction 5. Approval of Draft LUE In terms of the identification of major issues, staff is developing a list for review and completion by the City Council during the June 25 study session. Issues which are readily identifiable to staff as "major issues" are: I • Retention of agriculture within the City (the Dalidio property) • Jobs/housing balance • Commercial growth control levels • Consolidation of auto dealerships/reuse of vacated properties • Airport area • Affordable housing Staff would bring one or more major issue to the Council at each scheduled meeting. Staff report format for presenting these major issues could use the following subheadings: • Major issue description i • Planning Commission recommendation • Alternatives to the recommendation • Possible fiscal/environmental questions (if any) Use of facilitator During discussion by Council leading up to the decision- to reactivate consideration of the LUE, a suggestion was made that use of an outside facilitator during Council review would expedite and enhance the overall process. Council should determine whether the services of a facilitator should be retained, and the extent of services desired. Staff is investigating the availability of facilitators with experience in °'h�l�l!Ililll�� IIIIIII city of san L...ds OBISpo Mow COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT e muntutpai panning area, and search at the meeting. Consultant services agreement - economic information The draft consultant services agreement (Attachment III) will make available the consultant, Mundie and Associates, now working under a limited agreement for initial advice on the economic study scope. The agreement assumes that the council will pose specific questions as it reviews the land use element draft, and that the consultant will respond with brief reports at following meetings. Total cost is not to exceed $40, 000, with a $4, 000 "retainer, " and no single task cost to exceed $3 , 000 unless the council approves. i What other cities have done Council members have asked whether other cities ' experiences in adopting general plan updates would offer insight into completing j the effort in a reasonable time while accommodating public participation. Staff has contacted Santa Barbara and Petaluma, j mentioned specifically, and Arroyo Grande. Their comments are summarized in Attachment VII. Documents from Santa Barbara are available in the council office for reference. Actions to date The council first considered the Land Use Element Planning Commission draft on July 31, 1990. The staff report for that meeting is on file in the council office for reference. Attachments to that report were the following; those attached to this report are marked with an asterisk (*) : (A) "Land Use Element Comparisons" noting the major differences between the adopted and commission- recommended elements. (B) A table "Estimated Capacity of Planning Commission Draft, " showing build-out potential for various types of development. * (Attachment IV) (C) A table "Components of Land Use Element Growth Capacity, " showing how the various types of development i would be accommodated. * (Attachment V) (D) Discussion of issues previously raised by the council: Replacing houses with offices in the central area; - Potential neighborhood commercial centers in the South Higuera Street area; Tri-polar government office policies; Potential car dealership locations. /-// I j�lllllll city of San "IS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT iscussion or items seen y staff confusing or inconsistent. (F) Discussion of certain privately initiated map amendments not covered in item (A) . (G) Comments from county Planning Commission and staff. (H) Discussion of traffic implications. When the City Council sent the Land Use Element draft back to the Planning Commission, the following issues were identified. The commission has considered the first three topics. The commission's response is noted below each. (Minutes of the commission meetings are Attachment VI. ) A. Apparent conflict between expansion of the South- Higuera/Prado social services area (of the "tripolar" government offices approach) , and low-intensity recreational use of the drive-in theater area. i Commission statement: There is ample space within the general area designated in the Planning Commission draft for social services (Figure 5) , for the city size envisioned by the Land Use Element. B. Provision of adequate sites for expansion and relocation of auto dealerships. Commission statement: Potential sites for car dealerships under current zoning and proposed Land Use Element designations will be adequate; the discussion of major expansion areas in the Land Use Element text should more i clearly acknowledge the intended potential for car sales within the Irish Hills major expansion area (roughly six- acre portion of Froom Ranch fronting on Los Osos Valley Road, opposite Auto Park Way) . C. Approaches to determining residential densities (such as bedroom counts or square footage) . j Commission statement: There should be no change in the way the city regulates residential density. The previously suggested feature in the Land Use Element Update, Planning Commission draft, which would exclude creeks and other sensitive site areas from density determinations (policy 2 .20) , should not be pursued. The idea of allowing no more than one dwelling to be added to a site with an existing dwelling, as discussed by the council, should not be included. D. Establishing pedestrian *linkages throughout the city. ! ii�li�1111111P1dlIllljl city of san L,Ais osIspo Ni& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT prepared by the county. F. Use of privately owned land next to the Cal Poly campus, both inside and outside the city, for additional student housing, including special zoning for group housing next to the campus inside the city. [The council is scheduled to consider on June 18 a work j scope for a joint study with Cal Poly. ] i G. Designing the city to accommodate cars vs. other means of personal mobility. i H. Traffic management and trip reduction measures for j commercial and industrial development. [The County Air Pollution Control District has recommended rules for a countywide trip-reduction j program in the draft Clean Air Plan. ] I. The apparent contradiction between the city being a regional trade and service center, and trying to balance job opportunities and housing opportunities. J. Recent council policy direction concerning areas at the edges of the city (examples: urban use for the Dalidio area; the airport area concept plan) . K. Goals for re-use of downtown (Monterey Street) sites vacated by auto dealers, including the type and intensity of development in relation to the commercial core. L. Evaluation of economic impacts and economic feasibility for: - commercial growth controls, especially in relation to downtown development and citywide retail development; - fiscal impacts on city government; - development fees; - affordable housing (including the possible result of some occupants paying more for housing so that others would pay less) . M. The viability of maintaining agriculture within the city. r r���� ltllli I►�' ll�lil city of san pais OBlspo ONEEW" COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FISCAL IMIJACTIS No budget has been established specifically for the economic consulting services or the EIR. The City Council budgeted $100, 000 for outside technical help with the general plan update for 1989-90; none of this amount has been spent. (The initial consultation with Roberta Mundie & Associates is not to exceed $7, 000, and will come from this budget item. ) The proposed second phase of economic consultant services, Attachment III, will not exceed $40, 000. Preparation of an "economic impact report, " if desired, would be an additional cost, perhaps $10, 000 to $30, 000 if done by a consultant. An EIR covering both the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element is expected to cost about $85, 000. (The 1991-93 budget includes the following amounts for environmental review for advance planning projects: land use - $45, 000; circulation - $40, 000; open space - $30, 000; j downtown design plan - $30, 000; total - $145, 000. ) i RECOMMENDATION A. Consider the report section above summarizing "actions to date. " I B. Approve the attached Exhibit I schedule, with any desired changes, for completing the general plan update. C. Authorize the Mayor to sign a retainer-type agreement with Mundie and Associates for economic information for the Land Use Element update, with a guaranteed minimum of $4 , 000, and with a total cost not to exceed $40, 000 (Attachment III) . I i ATTACHMENTS I. Schedule for completing update ► II. Alternate council meeting dates III. Draft consultant services agreement for economic information IV. Table of build-out capacity V. Table of growth components VI. Planning Commission minutes: 11-15-90; 4-14-91 VII. Summary of other cities ' comments gmD:UPDATECC.WP ATTACHMENT I rn d E W O E Lr] C O'NO •`p U G 0 N' d C •�cc V cd rn E C N C E N C O. 7 w d R I.O. R y Q 6. mo Y C d E N [il C N 0 S N d C C N C E > IV 9 O W Z y N- L •y G O C fl n m v N B n y in F.v G � y d 10 m N d $ N a U '� u e W 3 con ; n ui y•yo y N•� C N V � V U I.N. C C C e O ccEE c ` V ld N (� N d RI D. W !2 O W H I.N. (Z E O to O V)9 C O ' C. W Cd ' c ed d7 N O N fdm 3 N n qu d EN E c o m N .s, N W r, .> u 'Iy L W L v 00 oj Q rtn Wo WRE � E U Q G A vI A N d info ino � d S U � c 3 vI Y N 'j 'C w r- o o y � •E'v v �e � � 3 o .�•� yI.. 4 o.o U m•- U �a � Am U y u C rl O t p. N C4 fn C n'Q U H U 0.: h C. O U Ls7 Z V N O e0 O, O O O O O •^ .-. 00 00 QO I ^ 0 § A 0 i ) [ ! E • : AA , M A )/ ; . CL. A o Aue ! . A A ` i ^ . . § A A ^ . ) ' \ A A k A - . ] . A � fq . n A ' A dA A . . A § �f . e ^ � . � � § ^ § e ; . 00 2@2 � Ate § . . 2 § ; Da A ; � ; //] ; CL 77 ` �%© ° . »§ . . <» ; w � ^ q� [ � I 2ua ; § A k . 75 ca $ ' e \ � j . ) k ] § a . = § A ' § ' a(% 2A — A 0 ( } . ] ) OwA e . M. ] 2 �� � , � , ) ] , . � ( — ' ^ � ' A _ ; ^/ w � � 0 / k ® A `\ . § ;V2 ; A � il � ' k ACL= ' \ ) � k/ . A _ , . � Q" . j g8 & ; Au8 ; ; U !2 / — ± r4 c5� R §tA coe / N eq; $ « k � G � G §2 � 2 � k / ƒ / � / � �� u u ep CL ul u : : ! n ; y �A • y �y : ; y W O ; i : : : O ; CL. H@ la i 1 1 i !A 1 i 1 I : ' i 1 1 1 : 1 i i 1 1 1 i i I FA 1 1 i i 7 ' i : d E a W � : v U 1 i u i y y . E m- cd cc E : v O i N V1 u.0 Q 1 C 1 1 V 1 7 d ° E > mi 0 E ° c•� c•o� i W e Cl. N .] S `a N c � e iUoa� o•eo FF i y _ c m. eua - lu d E ; i E � �•� v rV, . . • iy W rl U i i U ; ; U.E W i i i i i i •• 1 1 � I ; 1 i 1 1 V .. a is is is is � ? 7T is is io, e � � ; j/ iL § m ]. § = - ( � § � . { . c � |$ � f (• � ` � ;q � . _ ; \.0� d � u a 4) . ) 0. . CL ) Baa ; j k ( . / j § | . ) ( . � u ■ ; � � � 2� � ; § . u ; aa � a ! LL) . } C 0r- § ; ; < E � E . � § . § ` � a . - � § ] | | E � . o . § f , . $ ; § ) ob § ck � _ \ \ \ \ _ A _ , , 5 \ 8 ! _ A5 \ — . cu . CA ; � 22 ■ : � ■ � / an GO � E to cd \ { & 5 ' f ! � � ' B ■ | ' ) o ; or- .0 §� a . // � | i a � » ; ■ . . 22 . kU-0 91. \ . � . q � . / k m . 3 i ] ' ! . . � ; c . � | r � n . 2 . eq ; $ In § \ § \ § \ @ \ § \ � \ ^ \ � } Ai & A & � A � A � A /42- &a . : / k � k . ■e ; cu o e ' . e / ; ; § I CL. | i ( 00 bo � » � §k � � : - - ca � /® � f . 2 ; Sflo . bo § . � 7 . § � / . 7 . /k � � . cc 19 � . §41 ƒ � - . 3 � d , k= § ' . Co 2 § a cj / | . to ; \ § . » | §2 ; | 7 � %q | i ; . § ; EE . 2 . cc ' e © ; o . § ] u ! | ulla ; O ! e4 eq ' t-4 ; 7 � 7 ) 7 � N C4 � 7 � 7 eq C4 r4 . ] � . � A ! ® ; ® ! ® ! ® i» ; ® i l 'oA ' � A � 6ik /�� cl x m E O a 0 y 4 iq) t j i v , . 01U O . O U CJ CJ in i 1 1 i 1 i Y 1 1 C ; d 1 1 1 1 W ' 1 t ' 1 ; h � 7 � 1 Q S i i Y E � ' t e o m ' I 1 1 1 i 1 � 1 i e i i o I 1 W 1 i i E ' O ' 4O , O i i O O ca Q i i i C i V � Liz 0 1 a a > t U Wy i F i ' f O EI a i 1 1 1 d V! ; 6 G9 is a icr, y u o LU 4 ATTACHMENT II } cn a Z � g � J a � W � W Z V rw. 33irfi :i6<. O Z +� 0 : x>' : z CD ` ''9 _ x m ' U w E N O E C j J QU U v � s ,.. w EQ QQ� -E IN E zm y W W m D CL m COCL s m Om W - N O , 4- V c Myy. ' : (a cis cm Q m D v y,y 'Vi= (� { 0) W $ . > a d O s:t a : r a IL Lu oc C,; g $ o $ $ $ � � m g. 2 rviQ W � m W 90l� V N M e EaM= a O y_y ¢ ~ h ar �Ni9YH z 0 CL c a W J W W m cc m m c a 3 g g � Z N v m CL a a a � m W U) 0 J U O O Z U n w V a m m x:. k cc r E CL to W 0 m Rl a ca ::> �. a<{: �; o tow oC U c < � o W v m 33 mfg`' O M F wM. ?> ca TQ tts ::75 C co , Tui o cm a) a, m s o aR >a= 0 rn a a m M; m } m m m ?Z LLI > - a a o a tn; a ± � a CD � r tib ids IN � t0 ;.,.. N .� 3 x'# d max.' 3 m o F rd x }}� ,>:'`3:ty> .ter• � � v c c c UJ co Qca cc : y '8 i . E: . 'a m a 2a N # %'aJ N I:: > 4 N c U os gw- a o m=CD JLC ff 73 t!T O I * W V to t�0 # ti T lis ti CSD c ATTACHMENT III CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT Land Use Element Update Economic Studies This agreement, made on the day of , 1991, is between the City of San Luis Obispo, California (referred to as "City" in this agreement) , and Mundie & Associates. (referred to as "Consultant") . The service to be provided by Consultant under this agreement consists of brief written reports to answer questions about the fiscal and economic impacts of various features of the proposed update of the general plan Land Use Element. City desires to engage Consultant to provide these services because of Consultant's qualifications and experience for performing such work. Consultant has offered to provide the desired services on the terms and in the manner described in this agreement. In consideration of their mutual covenants, the City and . Consultant agree as follows:• 1. PROJECT COORDINATION a. City. The Community Development Director shall be the representative of the city for all purposes under this agreement. The director, or his designated representative, Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, hereby is designated as the Project Manager for the City. He shall supervise the progress and execution of this agreement. b. Consultant. Consultant shall assign a single Project Manager to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this agreement for Consultant. Suzanne Lampert is hereby designated as the Project Manager for Consultant. If circumstances change following execution of this agreement so that a substitute Project Manager is required, the Project Manager designee shall be subject to the prior written acceptance of City' s project manager. Consultant' s Project Team is further described. in Exhibit "A, " attached to and a part of this agreement. The individuals identified and the positions held as described in Exhibit "A" shall not be changed except by prior approval of City. 2 . DUTIES OF CONSULTANT a. Services to be furnished. Consultant shall provide all specified services as set forth in Exhibit "A, " attached to and a part of this agreement. Consultant Services Agreement 2 Land Use Element Economic studies b. Ouality Control. All products shall reflect high standards of professional research, analysis, and written and graphic communication. City's project manager shall be responsible for evaluating quality of work and for the issuance•of consultant payments upon satisfactory delivery, completion, and city acceptance of work. C. Laws to be observed. Consultant shall: (1) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful performance of services by Consultant under this agreement; (2) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or employed under this agreement, any materials used in Consultant's performance under this agreement, or the conduct of the services under this agreement; (3) At all times observe and comply with, and cause all of its employees to observe and comply with all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above. (4) Immediately report to the City's Project Manager in writing any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions of this agreement. d. Release of reports and information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, or prepared or assembled by, Consultant under this agreement shall be the property. of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without the prior written approval of the City's Project Manager. e. Copies of reports and information. If City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the services under this agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are l0 consultant Services Agreement 3 Land Use Element Economic Studies requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the costs of duplicating such copies at Consultant' s direct expense. 3 . DUTIES OF CITY City agrees to cooperate with Consultant and to perform any work that is described in Exhibit "A, " attached to and a part of this agreement. 4 . COMPENSATION The Consultant will perform the work in phases as described in Exhibit "A" . Consultant will bill City for actual time and material expenses monthly. City will pay invoices according to its normal accounts payable schedule, generally within 30 days of receipt. The Consultant may not charge more than the amount shown in Exhibit "A" without prior approval of the City. 5. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK Completion of work phases shall follow the attached Exhibit "A, " unless revisions are approved by the City' s Project Manager and Consultant. Time extensions may be allowed for delays caused by City, other governmental agencies, or factors not directly brought about by the negligence or lack of due care on the part •of the Consultant. 6. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION The Community Development Director shall have the authority to suspend this agreement wholly or in part, for such period as the director deems necessary due to unfavorable conditions or to the failure on the part of the Consultant to perform any provision of this agreement. Consultant will be paid the compensation due and payable to the date of temporary suspension. 7. SUSPENSION; TERMINATION a. Right to suspend or terminate. The City retains the right to terminate this agreement for any reason by H(. Consultant Services Agreement 4 Land Use Element Economic Studies notifying Consultant in writing seven days prior to termination and by paying the compensation due and payable to the date of termination; provided, however, if this agreement is terminated for fault of Consultant, City shall be obligated to compensate Consultant only for that portion of Consultant services which are of benefit to City. Said compensation is to be arrived at by mutual agreement of the City and Consultant; if they fail to agree, then an independent arbitrator is to be appointed and the arbitrator's decision shall be binding upon City and Consultant. b. Return of materials. Upon such termination, Consultant shall turn over to the City immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by Consultant, and for which Consultant has received reasonable compensation, or given to Consultant in connection with this agreement. Such materials shall become the permanent property. of City. Consultant, however, shall not be liable for City' s use of incomplete materials or for City ' s use of complete documents if used for other than the project contemplated by this agreement. 8. INSPECTION Consultant shall furnish city with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City' s Project Manager's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consent of any .of its obligations to fulfill its agreement as prescribed. 9. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS All original reports and other materials prepared by or in possession of Consultant pursuant to this agreement shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. Any document which passes into the public domain is not covered by this provision. 10. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT Failure of City to agree with Consultant's independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under /-o2a Consultant Services Agreement 5 Land Use Element Economic Studies this agreement, on the basis of differences in matters of judgment shall not be construed as a failure on the part of Consultant to meet the requirements of this agreement. 11. ASSIGNMENT: SUBCONTRACTORS: EMPLOYEES This agreement is for the performance of professional consulting services of the Consultant and is not assignable by the Consultant without prior consent of the City. The Consultant may employ other specialists to perform services as required, with prior approval by the City. 12. NOTICES All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by Certified Mail, addressed as follows: To City: Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 To Consultant: Mundie & Associates 3452 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94118 13. INTEREST OF CONSULTANT Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any- manner or degree with the performance of services under this agreement. Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. Consultant certifies that no employee or subcontractor who has or will have any financial interest under this agreement is an officer or employee of City. It is expressly agreed that, in the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City. 14. INDEMNITY Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees of and from the following. Consultant Services Agreement 7 Land Use Element Economic Studies 15. WORKERS COMPENSATION Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement. 16. INSURANCE The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement insurance which meets the requirements of attached Exhibit B. As evidence of this insurance, Consultant shall provide City a Certificate of Insurance and an Endorsement naming City as "Additional Insured. " 17. AGREEMENT BINDING This agreement shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and subcontractors of City and Consultant. 18. WAIVERS The waiver by either City or Consultant of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any provision, ordinance, or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any .fee or other money which may become due under this agreement shall not. be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance. 19. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES The prevailing party in any action between the parties to this agreement brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or arising out of this agreement may recover from the other party its reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with such an action . Consultant Services Agreement 6 Land Use Element Economic studies a. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against City, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of any person or corporation caused by any activity or omission of Consultant under this agreement or of Consultant's employees or agents; b. Any and all damage to or destruction of the property of City, its officers, agents, or employees occupied or used by or in the care, custody, or control of Consultant, or in proximity to the site of Consultant's work, caused by any activity or omission of Consultant under this agreement, or of Consultant's employees or agents; c. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against City, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of, or damage suffered or sustained by, any employee or agent of Consultant under this agreement, however caused, excepting, however, any such claims and demands which are the result of the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees; d. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against City, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of any patent rights or claims caused by the use of any apparatus, appliance, or materials furnished by Consultant under this agreement; and e. Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any. permit, when such violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit is due to any willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant. Consultant, at its own costs, expense, and risks, shall defend any and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings that may . be brought against or for employees on any such claim. or demand of such third persons, or to enforce any such penalty, and pay and satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered against City, its officers, agents, or employees in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding, when same were due to negligence of the Consultant. /-aZ3 Consultant Services Agreement 8 Land Use Element Economic Studies 20. DISCRIMINATION No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons under this agreement because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion or sex of such person. If Consultant is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of federal law or executive order in the performance of this agreement, it shall thereby be found in material breach of this agreement. Thereupon, City shall have the power to cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to Consultant the sum of Twenty-five Dollars ($25) for each person for each calendar day during which such person was discriminated against, as damages for said breach of contract, or both. Only a finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer shall constitute evidence of a violation of contract under this paragraph. If Consultant is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement or the applicable affirmative action guidelines pertaining to this agreement, Consultant shall be found in material breach of the agreement. Thereupon, City shall have the power to do either or both of the following: (a) Cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or in part; (b) Deduct from the amount payable to Consultant the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for each calendar day during which Consultant is found to have been in such noncompliance, as damages for said breach of contract. 21. AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both City and Consultant. All provisions of this agreement are expressly made conditions. This agreement 'shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Consultant Services Agreement 9 Land Use Element Economic Studies Having read and understood all provisions above, City and Consultant execute this agreement effective on the date written above. CONSULTANT By Type Name and title: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By Mayor gmD:contract.wp Consultant Services Agreement Land Use Element Update Economic Studies EXHIBIT A Purpose City needs answers to questions concerning economic and fiscal impacts of various features of the draft Land Use Element update in order to. define the update project for purposes of environmental review. The results of work under this agreement may also be used to prepare an economic impact report, with or without additional services by separate agreement. Scope & products This agreement supersedes that agreement between the City and Mundie and Associates dated April 30, 1991, for economic study initial consultation. As the City Council reviews the draft Land Use Element update recommended by the Planning Commission, it may ask questions concerning the consequences of alternative policies or programs on aspects of the city and county economies, including but not limited to: employment and housing opportunities; personal income and expenses; government revenue and expenses; levels of service and means of financing; market demand for types of development; the costs and benefits of various land use changes. Generally, the council is expected to pose questions during discussion of the update at public meetings. Consultant need not be present at all meetings, but may be requested to attend, with not less than ten. days notice, to present answers and participate in the discussion of issues. Answers will be presented at future meetings, in the form of brief written reports. Each report shall include the question, a summary answer, and a more detailed answer incorporating explanation, methodology, and data sources. Answers will be based on Consultant's experience and general knowledge as well as secondary data sources. Primary research or field surveys are beyond the scope of this agreement. Consultant may, but is not required to, prepare a background "economic base" evaluation or an economic or fiscal model of the local economy to facilitate answering the questions. Consultant Services Agreement 2 Land Use Element Update Economic Studies Exhibit A Consultant team Work will be performed by or under the direction of Roberta Mundie. Suzanne Lampert and David R. Clore will have primary responsibility for research and writing reports. A brief resume for each team member is attached. Schedule City anticipates that services under this agreement will be performed between June 25 and September 30, 1991. Compensation Total cost of services under this agreement shall not exceed $40, 000. Any additional services desired by City which would exceed this amount shall be subject to separate agreement. City shall pay Consultant a fixed amount of $4 , 000 as compensation for having staff and facilities available for anticipated work, regardless of the specific questions which may need to be answered, and for any background research undertaken prior to answering specific questions. Prior to completing a report on any question posed by the council, Consultant shall provide a cost estimate. This cost estimate may be provided orally to the City's Project Manager. The cost of services for answering any specific question shall not exceed $3 , 000, except as the Project Manager may expressly authorize. Consultant will bill City for time and materials actually provided, according to the following "Fee Schedule. " 1�� f 3452 Socramento Street San Francisca CA 94118 (4151441-9640 Fax 14151441-9683 FEE SCHEDULE Hourly billing rates for professional services: 1991 Principal $115.00 Senior Associate $95.00 - 105.00 Associate $85.00 - 90.00 Research Assistant $60.00 - 80.00 Billing rates are subject to revision at the beginning of each calendar year. Rates for litigation-related services involving depositions and courtroom appearances are 1.5 times normal rates, subject to a minimum charge of one half day. In addition to the hourly rate charged, miscellaneous charges for expenses, such as for subsistence and incidental travel costs, publications, express delivery charges and printing, are invoiced at their cost to us. Other expenses are charged according to the following schedule (subject to change 1/1/92): travel in staff-owned vehicles, 27'.5c per mile; in-house photocopying, 25c per page; FAX receipts, 30c per page; FAX transmittals, 25c per page; Pacific Bell telephone (including FAX line) charges, itemized cost x 1.8; AT&T telephone charges, itemized cost x 1.2. MUNDIE & ASSOCIATES /-o(o i ROBERTA MUNDIE PRINCIPAL EDUCATION PROJECTS Radcliffe College/Harvard University, Gateway Fiscal Impact Evaluation ► consultant to City of AB cum laude,1966 Orinda staff in contributing to, and commenting on, a fiscal analysis of the 1,150-acre Gateway project. Harvard University,MCP(Master of Los Alton General Plan s- re ort to General Plan City Plaasiag), 1970 Economic Advisory Committee on economic trends in Los Altos in comparison with neighboring cities, identi- fying implications for community's future fiscal health. Fiscal Analysis of Annexation Proposal ► for California PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Attorney General's office,analysis of the fiscal conse- quences of annexation of proposed Cullinan Ranch American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) project to the City of Vallejo. Analysis reached conclu- The Urban Land Institute sions counter to those of City-sponsored study, and American Planning Association(APA) annexation did not proceed. Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) Fiscal Analysis of Residential Development Options ► evaluation of potential fiscal consequences of alternative development patterns (representing three flood plain management scenarios)of Laguna Creek area, City of AWARDS Sacramento. Fiscal Analysis of Research&Development Facility ► California Chapter APA, 1986 Award for analysis of selected agency costs and revenues associat- Comprehensive Planning ed with the development of a 108-acre, 2,000 emplovee (for City of Petaluma General Plan) research facility on campus land at the University of California, Santa Cruz. AEP Certificate of Recognition for Outstanding General Plan Amendment Fiscal Analysis ► forecast for Environmental Document of 1983 an EIR of fiscal impacts associated with an amendment (for McLaughlin Gold Project EIR/EIS) to the Contra Costa County General Plan to allow a 400- acm mixed commercial and residential project in the San Ramon area. Market Study for Village Center P. identification of types EXPERIENCE and scales of land uses appropriate to expansion of vil- lage center in Clayton, in a content of limited municipal Ms.Mundie founded Mundie &Associates in 1981 fiscal resources. following nine years as senior staff of a San Fran- Cisco socio-economic research firm- Her M&A Fiscal Analysis of Major Development Area ► forecast work has included a broad mix of land develop- of fiscal implications of development of Folsom East, an meat related studies, from general plan work to undeveloped area accounting for one-fourth of the land environmental impact reports to focused market, in the City of Folsom. economic and fiscal analyses. Economic Element of General Plan P. research, consults- tion,to economic issues committee,and preparation of Head of Mundie &Associates from its establish- economic element of award-winning plan for Petaluma. Ment,Ms.Mundie brings to her work a clarity in organization, and in written and spoken presenta- Fiscal and Financial Analysis for Specific Plan ► evalua- tion,that contributes significantly to the quality of tion of the fiscal effects associated with a proposed .M&A's work products. Among her special inter- 3,700-acre upscale residential development in the foot- ests are the interrelationship of land use and hills of Union City and Fremont. Assisted in applica- transportation, resources planning and use of the tion of M&A-developed fiscal impact model to forecast CEQA process in public decisionmaking. costs and revenues. SUZANNE LAMPERT SENIOR ASSOCIATE EDUCATION PROJECTS University of California,Berkeley, Land Development Forecasts ► analysis of recent trends, AB,urban studies, 1971 existing conditions and future prospects to project the amount of development in various areas of northern Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Califomia. These projects,undertaken for a major utili- International Affairs,Princeton University, ty company, have included southern San Mateo County, MPAUP (Public Affairs and Urban northern San Mateo County/San Francisco, south Placcr Planning),1975 County, Napa/Vallejo/Benicia, western El Dorado County and the Tri-Valley area of Alameda County. Economic Background Reports for General Plans ► review of historical and current economic conditions as well as expected future employment and population PUBLICATIONS growth that would affect the demand for various land uses in Susanville and Hollister. "Scoping Meetings: Get the Public Involved with Your Projects',California Planner,July 1990. Economic Analysis for Neighborhood Business District Revitalization in San Jose ► assessment of existing economic conditions and conditions that would affect future change in the Alameda and West San Carlos EXPERIENCE study areas. Recommendations for land use strategies and other actions that would capitalize on the areas' Ms. Lampert has been a key staff member at strengths. , Mundie&Associates since 1987. Her experience encompasses real estate feasibility analysis, mar- Market Analysis for the Clayton Town Center Specific ket analysis, fiscal impact analysis and environ- Plan ► assessment of the functions of smaller city mental analysis for both public and private cli- downtowns; evaluation of existing and projected market eats. Her work has contributed to general and support for the array of commercial uses that could be expected to locate in Clayton; recommendations for the spec plans in addition to land use and devel- )and use plan based on these findings. opment forecasts and the evaluation of private development projects. Real Estate and Fiscal Impact Analyses for Mission Bay ► initial real estate feasibility modeling for the proposed She has prepared economic background reports, Mission Bay project in San Francisco, which led to the market studies,real estate feasibility analyses and fust Memorandum of Understanding between the project fiscal impact studies for a variety of projects and sponsor and the City of San Francisco. plans, ranging in scale from single buildings to general plans. With both the broad perspective Fiscal Analysis of Plans and Annexation Proposals ► of the planner and the specific focus of the real public service cost and revenue impacts of general plan estate analyst, she is able to consider a diverse alternatives for San Antonio (TX), general plan and range of concerns, from policy goals to current annexation alternatives for Spokane (WA), alternative market constraints,in the course of her work. downtown plans for Seattle (WA), annexation alterna- Lives for Dublin (CA) and pians for las Positas New Prior to joining M&A, Ms. Lampert was Vice- Town(CA). President/Senior Planner at Gruen Gruen + survey of Housing Prefavroes ► design and implementa- Associates, a Bay Area economic firm, and a tion of a survey of people who work in Sacramento's finantial analyst for acquisitions of improved real Central City, to ascertain reasons for current housing estate at Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corp. (now choices, perceptions of the Central City as a residential Catellus Corp.) in San Francisco. She has taught environment and potential interest in moving to the a course in Economic Fundamentals for Planners Central City. This survey, which was distributed to at University of California Extension. 2,000 employees through their places of work,was part of the Central City Housing Strategy Study. /-30 DAVID R CLORE SENIOR ASSOCIATE EDUCATION PROJECTS University of California,Berkeley,AB, UC Santa Cruz Research and Development Part Socio- political science,1980 economic Analysis ► analysis of socioeconomic issues arising from a proposal to create a high technology Harvard University,MCRP(Master of City research and development park on the campus. Evalua- and Regional Planning),1982 tion of public facilities and fiscal effects followed as separate document. McLaughlin Gold Project Land Use, Socioeconomic and Public Services Study ► background study for EIR/E1S on largest gold mine and processing plant in California, PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS located across three counties (lake,Napa and Yolo). American Institute of Certified Planners(AICP) Construction Period Impact Monitoring ► consulting American Planning Association(APA) assignment for Homestake Mining Company in which Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP) construction workforce statistics were compiled and analyzed as a means of allocating responsibility for funding mitigation measures required by the EIR/E1S. Fiscal Analysis of Annexation Proposal ► consulting AWARDS assistance to California Attorney General's Office on proposed annexation of Cullinan Ranch project to City of Vallejo. Analysis provided key documentation for California Chapter APA,1986 Award eventual rejection of annexation proposal. for Comprehensive Planning (for City of Petaluma General Plan) Fiscal Analysis of Residential Development Options ► evaluation of fiscal impacts of alternative development AEP Certificate of Recognition for Outstanding patterns (representing three flood plain management Environmental Document of 1983 designs)for the Laguna Creek area, City of Sacramento. (for McLaughlin Gold Project EIR/EM Genes plan Amendment Fiscal Analysis ► forecast of fiscal consequences associated with an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan to allow for devel- opment of a 400-acre mixed commercial and residential project in the San Ramon Valley. EXPERIENCE Fiscal and Financial Analysis for Specific Plan ► design Mr. Clore joined Mundie & Associates in 1982. and operation of computerized fiscal model for proposed His research and analysis has focused on land 3,700-acre upscale residential development on hillside use, socioeconomic and fiscal topics in the prep- lands in Union City and Fremont. aration of general plans, specific plans and other technical background reports for both public and Sen Jose Downtown Plan EIR ► environmental analysis of private sector clients. Redevelopment Strategy Plan for the year 2005 allowing for up to 8 million s.f. office space,3,200 hotel rooms He has a strong background in environmental and and 5,800 housing units. planning law, economics and statistics, and has East Third Avenuc/State Route 92 Interchange EIR ► served as a lecturer or panel member in seminars freeway interchange, roadway extension and water and workshops on fiscal and socioeconomic supply line project in Foster City on a site containing analysis and CEQA mitigation monitoring. endangered species, wetlands and shoreline access. He has also directed several multidisciplinary Berkeley Downtown Plan EIR ► central business district environmental analyses of planning documents, revitalization and growth management plan allowing for large scale general plan amendments and specific up to'_'million s.f.of new development including over development projects. 900 housing units. l-3/ EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees. Knimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2 Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code t (any auto). 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. (no cove rage) Minimum Limits of Insurance Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2 Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: 51,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.. 2 For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance.or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3 Arty failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 4. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought,except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. S. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days'prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. AeceptabrTrty of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:NA1. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. * Personal vehicles used by employees are insured separately; separate documentation will be provided. ATTACHMENT - IV � m E u u E_ u — .. O a7`o x= C= R c C4 Cs � m mu O E E_ ox _§p W Q 7 000 O r+ 00 O Esu E8 ° O N � �� � ` u O v p = 3 ra r_ [r 0 -0 t0 c m ego E cz E a u 9 u- u u CLEL_ 3 aE O F Z >y M ccn Ln M M N N N N a E Z � 'fl Ecw cw O o w z o d =N� r= C W C O C O O O O ON 14 c: G G 'y p vv � O M � coi N c r c a ` es CIO ^ ° c }}E! LL >. r7 0t0 EEA o � d U DOo, o� a ow 6. Z V to N N N v r- M m o f > cz G G .:' C No0 Eo C N rQs7 0 a o00 0 o N `Ln cc u� % E FE M ami a . w S O N v fV M N tQo a � O � � 0 E w C p D\ O O O O o Q u O� Gq 000 00 M u V. u= 7 ( � I`O~ N M ~ N - yo � ti u 0 E � p C a O 00 c 6 0 m O ° ° m U 0,> E ��II a •m � u e Lid to G cd y y aroeo � 3m y a� v Q y Na� Neem c, cd 1 /- 3 3 ATTACHMENT V C 6d O O O • O O .�.. co N to F a 0 tn cl. 00 C14 G `o � ° 8 C C C CLW ~ ~ 14 O v " r^jV �r w < v/ � . 0 iG C/1 v IQ O V .-r OA ra `~ rch v N W O I cu a L Occl U Z Z 'A O O O v, O (U �, d = c�15 N -t Z C �° a cid a O � A v, a. y � ri z r 00 m k V o a o a. > U � •a y �' T N O a o ca °p t- cn °o en E 5 0 IS a '" e ` O .. ^ U 111 W Vy VI • � 'O '� Ri 'fl cu h 0 0.1 •� y E w Z o � A3� ATTACHMENT VI MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING November 15, 1990 PRESENT: Commissioners, Barry Karleskint, Fred Peterson, Richard Schmidt, and Chairman Gilbert Hoffman ABSENT: Commissioners Janet Kourakis and Keith Gurnee (one vacancy) Staff present: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner 1. Land Use Element Update (City Council referral) A. Potential for social services expansion Commissioners and staff discussed the previously recommended designations for the social services area and the drive-in theater area, the "tripolar" concept, and office space requirements. By consensus, commissioners present agreed that there was ample space within the general area designated in the Planning Commission draft for social services (Figure 5), for the city size envisioned by the Land Use Element. B. Potential sites for car dealerships Commissioners and staff discussed the size and location of existing dealerships and potential sites, including those for new and used cars, and their service functions. Commr. Schmidt thought there were aesthetic and convenience advantages to not having them grouped in one location. Bret Cross questioned whether car dealerships attracted people who wold shop for other items, thereby reinforcing retail uses of other kinds in the vicinity. Maggie Cox noted dealers' location preferences (including being in one area) and urged the city to accommodate them. By consensus, commissioners present agreed that the potential sites for car dealerships under current zoning and proposed Land Use Element designations will be adequate and, as staff suggested, the discussion of major expansion areas in the Land Use Element text should more clearly acknowledge the intended potential for car sales within the Irish Hills major expansion area (roughly six-acre portion of Froom Ranch frontage on Los Osos. Valley Road, opposite Auto Park Way). mw�) /-3S MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 24, 1991 PRESENT: Commissioners Janet Kourakis, Dodie Williams, Fred Peterson, Barry Karleskint, Keith Gurnee, and Cbairman Gilbert Hoffman ABSENT: Commissioner Richard Schmidt STAFF PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, Terry Sanville,Principal Planner, Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, Whitney Mcllvain, Assistant Planner, Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney 3. General Plan Land Use Element Update (Approaches to regulating residential density) Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioners and staff discussed options for achieving appropriate bulk and arrangement of infill dwellings, and for maintaining desired population densities within neighborhoods. Commissioners were concerned with effectiveness in addressing identified problems, ease of administration, fairness, and impacts on housing opportunities and regional development patterns. The commission's previous recommendations for the update and possible social changes within neighborhoods due to additional residential development were considered. Commissioner Gurnee proposed floor-area limits for dwellings with certain bedroom counts, distinguishing between R-2 zones, on one hand, and R-4 and R-4 zones on the other. The city's differing standards for apartments and condominiums were noted. Staff mentioned the possibility of extending the "six-plus" rules to R-3 and R-4 zones, and of lowering the threshold to five adult occupants. Staff confirmed that few other cities have standards and review procedures for development as comprehensive as SanLuis Obispo's. By consensus, commissioners Kourakis, Williams, Peterson, Karleskint, Gurnee, and Hoffman (Schmidt absent) favored keeping the present approach to regulating residential density in the multifamily zones, because: The alternatives would not substantially improve control over population density; Some of the alternatives would be more complex and harder to explain than the current rules. The currently required architectural review, especially with the more explicit performance guidelines outlined in the draft Land Use Element update, would be adequate to deal with issues of multifamily infill development. Commissioner Gurnee. said that specific plans could include new standards for height and bulk, and Commissioner Kourakis said that neighborhood plans could do the same for presently.developed areas. By consensus, commissioners Williams, Peterson, Karleskint, Gurnee, and Hoffman (Schmidt absent; Kourakis not in support) favored deleting from the Land Use Element update the exclusion of creeks and other sensitive site areas from density determinations (policy 2.20). All commissioners present did not support the idea of allowing no more than one dwelling to be added to a site with an existing dwelling, as discussed by the council. The result of the commission's actions is that there would be no change in the way the city regulates residential densities. *0 �-3� ATTACHMENT VII REVIEW OF OTHER CITIES' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESSES Arroyo Grande 1. Scope/situation: The land use, open space, conservation and housing elements were updated, at the same time. They were years out of date and lacked internal consistency. 2. Production: The land use, open space, and. conservation elements were produced by a consultant. The housing element was done by staff. . 3. Timing: The consultants were hired in September 1988. The City Council adopted ' the revised elements in May of 1990. 4. Public involvement: Hundreds of property owners were concerned about the designation of their properties. Public concerns surpassed initial commission and council concerns. 5. Process: At the beginning, the Planning Commission and the City Council held a joint workshop session to identify key policy issues. The council provided direction at this time on how the issues should be dealt with. Staff and consultants incorporated the council's direction in the hearing draft of the elements. All city residents and property owners were notified. Each person attending the meetings was given a "response card" to identify concerns. The cards were collected and staff and consultants responded in writing. Throughout the process, staff/consultants were making presentations to service groups (Lions, Rotary, etc.). Public hearings drew at least 200 people. The Planning Commission held five or six hearings and forwarded recommendations to the City Council. Most issues were worked out at the Planning Commission level. The City Council needed only two hearings to adopt the elements. The initial direction and relatively short time between initiating and completing the update helped with this. The staff published an "overview" of the plan prior to adoption of the elements. 6. Environmental review: There was little public comment on the EIR, since their environmental concerns had been addressed in the update itself. 7. Overall observation: Public participation was a greater organizational concern than consensus between Planning Commission and City Council. (Doreen Liberto-Blanck, Director; 489-1303) REVIEW OF OTHER CITIES' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESSES Santa Barbara 1. Scope/situation: In 1975, the city updated its plan to relate residential capacity to availability of services. There was substantial commercial development in the early 1980's. In 1986-87, the city started to evaluate downtown buildout. The scope expanded to include citywide commercial buildout's impact on traffic, water service, and housing demand, which in turn required a residential update. The city looked at alternatives ranging from no more commercial development to the commercial development allowed by adopted zoning (an additional 100 million square feet). The city evaluated impacts in terms of traffic, water service, public preferences, regional jobs/housing balance and affordable housing, city fiscal health, and economic impacts to private market activities. Results included rezoning land from commercial to residential designations and encouraging residential components in downtown projects. 2. Production: Staff drafted policies and did the technical evaluation; consultants helped with public participation (preference survey and "facilitating" meetings). 3. Timing: The effort took about three years. 4. Public involvement: According to the staff planner, the council and commission made "an early commitment to following where the public lead them." Consultants conducted a "stratified" survey, which was a random sample, but intended to reflect resident characteristics in terms of age, occupation, income, and owners/renters. Part way through, there was a citizens' initiative calling for a commercial growth limit lower than that in the draft update. The council responded by keeping the draft update's limit of 3 million square feet of commercial development over 20 years, but added a provision that no commercial development could significantly impact traffic, water service, or housing. 5. Process: Initially, there was a "task force" with representatives of all city boards and commissions. Later, a committee including three council members and two planning commissioners screened staff work before it was distributed. 6. Environmental review: The council's action on the commercial growth cap included a rule that project approvals could not occur if there would be significant impacts (no potential to override environmental concerns by making special findings), so the update was granted a negative declaration (no further study required), which has not been challenged. Air quality impacts were found to be "speculative," but apparently managable given the controls on traffic generation due to development and the steps to improve jobs/housing balance. 7. Overall observation: The primary concern was focusing on broad public preferences rather than debating development potential for areas or individual properties. (Terry Lynn Langstef, Senior Planner;.564-5470) A21 i REVIEW OF OTHER CITIES' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESSES Petaluma 1. Scope/Situation The equivalent of all seven elements of Petaluma's General Plan were updated. The city's General Plan is arranged by topic; there are no distinct elements, but the plan contains what is required by state planning law and guidelines. (The Housing Element is the exception to this.) The General Plan was updated to ensure consistency with a new development code that was under revision. 2. Production The City hired a consultant to prepare the plan. The consultant acted as facilitator for advisory committees, synthesized input from the committees, and produced the plan documents. (Total consultant cost for the entire process, including EIR was, $225,000.) 3. Timing In 1985 the city began its updating process. The City Council adopted a revised General Plan in 1987. There were eight months of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Public Involvement Most public involvement occurred through ad hoc advisory committees. About 75 people sat on these committees and provided input into the preparation of the plan. Town meetings were held to talk about the update process and planning issues. A tabloid was published to summarize the recommended plan. A door-to-door survey was conducted by a university class to determine citizen preferences. 5. Process The City Council established five advisory committees: Community Character; Transportation; Public Facilities; Local Economy; Growth Management. Each committee had one member of the Planning Commission and one member of the City Council. The consultant was the overall facilitator of the committees' work. The committees' recommendations were given to the consultant, who synthesized the recommendations into a single General Plan document. While there may be some internal consistency problems with the document (preserving rural character while promoting economic growth), the level of inconsistency is not significant. 6. Environmental Review The EIR was prepared by a consultant. There were several subconsultants involved in plan preparation and environmental review. ��0 7. Overall Observations The consultant was able to keep the committee process on track with the timely production of draft documents. However, the committee process created situations where some committee members are now more supportive of their committee's recommendations than of the resultant plan as adopted by the City Council. This is of some concern when development projects are reviewed by the city for plan consistency, and members of the now-disbanded committees challenge their consistency based on the member's recollection of committee recommendations. The eight-month hearing process was intensive. For Petaluma, eight months of hearings was a long time. (Kert Yeiter, Principal Planner) gmD:GP-PRSS.WP I k Denotes action by Lean Person IN" 11117,40161 rrr-am A1iL1YA nd bftmw 1. 11 LIN mw g Ar 10,10 CLWk c o r� pr,S. al RECEIVED JUN 2 51991 CITY CLERK �//�O� ' LUIS OBIySPO Cin z M IN AGENDA ge 4 by. DAT a-- � erk-orlg d � I-1 q g77 OA al,4 rn jj4 : cl c / RECEIVED JUN 251991 QLD Sc �lC �f CITY CLERK UI _PSISP01 CA •l• - jQ N Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604• San L i 93406 *Denotes action by Lead Person !� �y Respond by: MEETI G AGENDA oil PDATE /VCAO R "01 ITEMS li _ dray Atty. Clerk-prig. '.tiA0 r��endS Pianni.ng Commission _i.v.- o+ E;a.n Luis l_lbisp( Ean L.ul. s Ubispo , Cal i.torn.ia RE: DEV'ELOP'MENT AND CONSERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS POLICIES. . .LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE , Dear Members of Planning Commission: The enclosed material is the of+oris of a committee composed of se✓eral rommunity representatives +rom such organizations such as Residents +ori, a) ity Neighorhoods. San Luis Drive Association and the Friends of Pref UMO Creek. , as well as individual community residents. After several months of meetings to discuss these policies, it. is Our opinion that the enc=losed changes better reflects the Concept of quality in the-protection and enhancement of neighborhoods. Please note that Section 2 .4 should be deleted +rom the Development and Conservation of Neighborhoods and moved to the Circulation Element for the reason stated in the changes. We would appreciate your consideration of these changes when VOL! again discuss the policies for this portion of the Land Use Element Update sincerely, Dotty Conner, Chairperson , Resioent.s for duality Neighborhoods cc : Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glen Matteson , Planner San LUIS Drive Assoc . & Friends of Pre+umo Creel:: all ArRQ Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 , San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ulna .l,c C.it '✓ i it rat San LUiS Clbi.s[io aan LUi.<.=_. Dbispo , California RE: DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS POLICIES. . .LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE. Dear Council Members: Fhe enclosed material is the efforts of a committee composed oT several community representatives from such organizations such as Resident= iorQUa.lity Neignorhoods, San Luis Drive Association and the Friends of Fre+umo Creek: . as well a.s individual community residents. After several months of meetings to discuss these policies, it is our ooinion that the enclosed changes better reflects the concept o* olalir•: in the protection and enhancement of neighborhoods. Please note that Section 2 .4 should be deleted from the Oevelooment , and Conservation o+ Neighborhoods and moved to the C.ircv.lation Element +or the reason stated in the changes . We would appreciate your consideration of these changes when you again discuss the policies for this portion of the Land Use Element Update sincerely, ct, potty Conner, Chairperson , Residents for Quality Neighborhoods cc : Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Glen Matteson , Planner San Luis Drive Assoc . & Friends of Prefumo Creel:: Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF )SOH$W W NEIGHBORHOODS POLICIES Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement: (Refer to page 23) 2.1 The city should assist in identification and designation of geographic 1j.oj-,t fS jaM jfjers ggny neighborhoods. The city should assist in neighborhood planning to preserve and #/)x pYZYAXA yfeXg00,rX0 f prXgxgr zja facilitate development of a sense of place within neighborhoods. 2.2 The city should encourage and support the formation and continuation of neighborhood pxggpijM groups, composed of neighborhood residents. 2.3 Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. Z',ti All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be wide and continuous sidewalks to provide unbroken pedestrian paths throughout the city. Note: Delete from this section and move to policies regarding Circulation Element. Reason: not appropriate; does not deal with neighborhood protection and enhancement. Established neighborhoods may not want sidewalks; this statement might be incorporated into new neighborhoods.) 2.5 The city should view streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open space that links all areas of the city and all land uses. These features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact, and community identity. (Note: Question the purpose of this policy. How does it fit into neighborhood protection and enhancement? How do streets, sidewa ks, and front setbacks act as open space?) 2.9 To foster neighborhood protection and enhancement, the city will: (Refer to page 31) A. Assist in identifying geographic neighborhoods, and help to preserve and enhance their character; i y 9ej[gJ9y0tWgrgrgf0 j(Aif pyo?pBXe ppvzgoFlf}'eAg Jams, B. Encourage the formation of voluntary neighborhood groups, W rfi(x '6' Vsl oyi 16e4jw tnvwxyed gwyy XR pzai eSS. C. Involve residents early in the planning, development and review process of projects with neighborhood impact. Provide neighborhood residents and property owners with written notification of such development and projects. ftazgRw):S p! yivi&YOX)Wjo$ pr1axFAr Y0 help 0rrry qq* j24m X X710 A maze, zo Yoxio-W 'gzJap¢ypad p1r0jWYs for 7WWk0..rxA A fpxl's, ,ant .to 001/vaaze jlogk( ArXPOA pvvy0t tOa 00 o wawo- D. Assign a planning staff member to assist, when necessary, the programs referred to in Section 2.9; A, B and C in order that neighborhood residentrg oups will have a contact within the city to provide information and assistance with neighborhood protection and enhancement. PAM : WOULD YOU PLEAS P. MAKES COPIES AND FORWARD A. S .A.P. TO EACH COUNCIL MEIgBER AND EACH P. COMM. I PLUS ARNOLD JONAS AND GLEN MATTESON. THANKS . 09ECE0VEL; �1) COVER LETTER ANAECOMMENDE JUN 2 ' CHANGES. 1991 G SP yL _ � SAN U! BISp, rq