HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2012 b1 general plan LUCE task force updatecounc~Meeting Date
1-17-1 2
j
agenOa 1 epoRt item Numbe r
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
BB
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :Kim Murry, Long Range Planning Divisio n
SUBJECT :GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCE FOR LAND USE AND CIRCULATIO N
ELEMENTS UPDATE PROCES S
RECOMMENDATIO N
Adopt a Resolution to create a General Plan Task Force and define its term and responsibilities .
DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
In addition to the extensive public outreach component associated with the update of the Land Us e
and Circulation Elements, it is typical to have a General Plan Task Force (GPTF) comprised o f
residents and stakeholder group representatives to provide a forum for public input an d
participation . The function of the GPTF is to inform the process at key points, provide feedbac k
•
and recommendations to staff, and disseminate information to each member's respectiv e
stakeholder or related interest group(s).
The Land Use and Circulation Elements were adopted in 1994 and have guided the City's decision -
making since that time with minor modifications . The process that culminated in 1994 took ove r
seven years and required two task forces to complete it . Public input to Council during the latte r
end of that process indicated that the first task force did not have adequate representation from th e
environmental community so the Council appointed a second task force to review the draft polic y
language and provide recommendations for changes . Since the majority of the funding for th e
current update process is coming from a grant that has a tight deadline, it will be important to ensur e
that the GPTF adequately represents the interests of the community .
The City is currently in final negotiations with the Matrix Group to prepare the Land Use an d
Circulation Elements . City Staff has assembled a team of urban design, public policy, land us e
economists, and traffic and environmental planners to assist City staff with the update of th e
General Plan . While this team has the technical experience and capabilities to update the Genera l
Plan, it will not be successful unless the update has focused citizen stakeholder representation an d
input as part of the public engagement process . In a memorandum to Council related to th e
discussion of the General Plan Update Council Objective dated December 9, 2011, staff offered th e
model of the "triple bottom line" of People, Planet, and Prosperity as justification to establish th e
GPTF(Attachment 1). This report brings the concept back to the City Council for adoption .
Land Use and Circulation Element Update Scope of Wor k
The Land Use and Circulation Elements have not had a significant update since 1994 . While ther e
is a need to update these elements of the General Plan to address changes in legislation an d
•
B1-1
General Plan Task Force Page 2
•completion of many of the programs, much of the vision and values expressed in the General Plan
elements are still very strong and relevant . The focused update will identify the framework an d
vision that remains strong while addressing those items required to comply with the grant funding ,
including :
•Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental characte r
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, uniqu e
character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibrant economy and addressin g
disadvantaged communities .
•Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainabl e
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 value s
and the need for growt h
•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 Oriente d
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 ..
Attachment 3 shows the project flow with public outreach and anticipated deliverables for eac h
phase .
GPTF Membership
Staff is recommending that the Council approve the attached Resolution forming a 13 member tas k
force . The role of the GPTF will be to "Advise City Staff and develop recommendations to updat e
the General Plan." Attachment 4 shows the stakeholder representation achieved by the proposed 1 3
member GPTF . The number of members should be a workable size (7-13 members) in order to b e
responsive and effective in completing the update within the grant timeframe of 2 years . Whil e
participants may have a primary focus that represents one component, the expectation is tha t
members will have overlapping interests that intersect and create a balanced and representativ e
community vision for the future of San Luis Obispo .
The Resolution also adopts guidelines to clarify the respective roles of the each participant in th e
citizen advisory committee process . The guidelines outline the roles, responsibilities an d
relationship of GPTF and Staff to clarify expectations and understanding of the overall process, s o
that GPTF and Staff contribute to moving toward accomplishing the committee's specific goal s
within the required schedule and budget .
Selection Proces s
Once Council identifies the stakeholder groups to be included in the GPTF, those groups will b e
asked to nominate a member who can commit to and fully participate in the process . A letter would
•
•
B1-2
General Plan Task Force Page 3
• be sent to selected stakeholder groups asking for a nomination . For resident representation, staff
recommends advertising in the Tribune and on the City's website for volunteers . It is recommende d
that Council select a subcommittee to interview the applicants and nominate several participants t o
the GPTF . Both stakeholder group nominations and Council sub-committee nominations would b e
subject to Council confirmation on March 20, 2012 .
Work Effort by GPT F
The work program outlined in Matrix Design Group's scope of work anticipates six communit y
workshops and 11 GPTF meetings . The GPTF will self-appoint a Chairperson who will facilitat e
meetings and serve as the spokesperson for the group . GPTF members should anticipate spendin g
approximately 10-15 hours per month in preparation and attendance of workshops and meetings . It
is anticipated that the GPTF will remain active through the following phases of the project :
1.Program Initiation
2.Issues, Opportunities, and Visio n
3.Alternatives Discussion
4.Policy Document
5.Public Hearings
Successful citizen and stakeholder participation in the General Plan Update process depends no t
only on the substantive technical planning competencies of the staff and consultants, but also on th e
meaningful participation opportunities provided through the GPTF and through other publi c
• engagement opportunities . Factors that contribute to the acceptance of decisions made by appointe d
bodies include : being treated with respect, transparency, perceived lack of bias, and decisions tha t
are responsive to public input and information . The community has the reasonable expectation tha t
any process that affects the outcome of the General Plan should be transparent and fair . To that
end, staff has included proposed ground rules for the GPTF that describes the framework fo r
collaborative communication amongst the GPTF, citizens, and other stakeholder groups .
GPTF meetings will be open to the public and will have meeting notes and recommendations poste d
on the General Plan update website . Regular updates to Planning Commission and Council will b e
provided by staf f
CONCURRENCE S
The proposed GPTF framework was discussed by Department Heads who provided careful insigh t
into an advisory structure that could offer a broad range of perspectives and interests . City
departments have been involved in the work scope development and consultant selection for th e
General Plan update and concur with the approach of forming a General Plan Task Force to hel p
guide the update process .
FISCAL IMPAC T
The City was successful in receiving $880,000 in grant funding from the Sustainable Communitie s
Planning Grant for updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements . Council approved a n
additional $300,000 for environmental review (the grant cannot be used for this portion of th e
project) and $67,500 for Public Works staff assistance due to workload constraints . Th e
•
General Plan Task Force Page 4
•recommended consultant team proposal falls within the $1,180,000 available from the grant an d
General funds available for the work . No additional General Fund impacts are anticipated .
ALTERNATIVE S
The approach described above has been used successfully in many other jurisdictions . There ar e
other models for garnering this type of input and two are listed below :
1.The previous General Plan Update process took over seven years and had several task force s
that participated in sequential order . While the Council could opt to identify several singl e
focus task force groups, this option is not recommended . The grant time-frame makes i t
imperative that timely discussions and recommendations be developed or the City risk s
losing the $880,000 grant for non-performance . In addition, single focus task forces do no t
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 commo n
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 no t
recommended because the goal of the GPTF is to represent the community and a selectio n
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 hear d
and have difficulty in agreeing to the shared vision developed through the process .
ATTACHMEN T
1.Red file memo dated 12-9-1 1
2.Organizational Framewor k
3.Project Schedule with Major Deliverable s
4.Resolution with GPTF Guideline s
T :\ Council Agenda Reports \201[1eu12-u1 1 ; ,FHA ~~uuol fton Tosk I cr :,t,E G:;.<-Cf I I .w:.,.
•
•
Attachment 1
11111111111111 I lla,1 ►;J Ii l
LIf'council mcmoRan Ou m
DATE :
December 9, 201 1
TO :
City Counci l
VIA :
Katie Lichtig, City Manage r
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Department Director
Prepared by :
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Departmen t
SUBJECT :
Item B1 : Major City Goal—Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Updat e
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Council with an update on the LUCE Request fo r
Proposal process and describe the proposed structure and process for forming a Communit y
General Plan Task Force (GPTF).
Six firms submitted competitive proposals for the LUCE update . Four of those teams wer e
interviewed and thoroughly vetted by a local team of City staff, a SLOCOG staff member and a n
advisory body member . All of the submitted proposals were within the approved budget an d
• consistent with the advertised scope of work . Staff is now completing reference checks for th e
top consultant team . As a consent item for January 3, staff will prepare an agenda repor t
providing Council and the public with an overview of the selection process .
On January 17 `h ,staff will bring forward a recommendation for how to structure the Communit y
General Plan Task Force (GPTF). The following is a description of the proposed structure an d
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 Lan d
Use and Circulation Elements, it is typical to have a General Plan Task Force (GPTF) comprise d
of residents and stakeholder group representatives . The
function of the GPTF is to inform the process at key points ,
provide feedback and recommendations, and disseminat e
information to respective stakeholders and related interes t
groups . Staff is recommending the use of the "tripl e
bottom line" concept — People, Prosperity, and Planet — t o
identify organizations within constituencies that coul d
represent the community on the GPTF . While participant s
may have a primary focus that represents one component ,
the expectation is that members will have overlappin g
interests that intersect and create a balanced an d
representative community vision for the future of San Lui s
Obispo . The goal of a GPTF is to bring the varied vision s
of community members to bear on the discussions centra l
RED FIL E
MEETING AGEND A
DAT`.42H!/ITEM #)3 11=_
Attachment 1
Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
2
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 ar e
critically important to the General Plan update process . In addition to resident participation o n
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 t o
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 th e
completion of the General Plan update process .
GPTF Compositio n
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 othe r
groups that will be engaged in the update process, and this list serves as a starting point fo r
discussion and focused public outreach .
People Prosperity Plane t
Residents Save Our Downtown Sierra Clu b
Residents
for
Qualit y
Neighborhoods
Downtown Association SLO GreenBuil d
Students Chamber of Commerce ECOSL O
Cal Poly Administration Home Builders Association Bicycle Coalition
San Luis Coastal School District Financial community CCCM B
CAPSLO Hospitals RideShare
Housing Authority Arts Community
Transitions-Mental Health Caltrans
Community Foundation SLO
Property
Owners '
Association
Parent-Teacher Association TBI D
Youth Sports Association EV C
Non-profit group s
SLOCO G
Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commissio n
County – Health and Plannin g
Area Agency on Aging
The General Plan update will include robust public involvement and interaction, and staff an d
the consultant team will fully engage all representative groups . The consultant team the City i s
currently negotiating with has a dynamic and very engaging public outreach component that wil l
provide multiple opportunities and methods for public input . The GPTF should be comprised o f
community volunteers who can represent the perspectives and interests of their constituencies .
•
B1-6
Attachment 1
Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
3
•
The participants should also view potential conflicts as problems to be solved on behalf of th e
community rather than battles to be won .
At the January 17 meeting, it will be recommended that Council select the make-up o f
stakeholders to comprise the GPTF, with the actual members being determined by the Counci l
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 updat e
within the grant timeframe of 2 '/2 years .
Once Council identifies the stakeholder groups to be included in the GPTF, those groups will b e
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 grou p
nominations and Council selection sub-committee nominations would be subject to Counci l
confirmation . More details of the process along with associated GPTF ground rules an d
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 th e
Council before staff began any stakeholder outreach . Based on preliminary internal discussions ,
best practices and past participation, the GPTF could be comprised of the followin g
organizations and residents :
Number Group (in alphabetical order)Category
•
1 Cal Poly Peopl e
1 Chamber of Commerce Prosperit y
1 Downtown Association Prosperity
1 Home Builders Association Prosperity
1 Planning Commission Al l
2 Residents at large Peopl e
1 RQN Peopl e
1 Save Our Downtown Peopl e
1 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 determin e
the make-up of the GPTF on January 17 .
In addition to the GPTF, the LUCE update effort will include a robust public engagemen t
process with many opportunities for residents and other community members to participate an d
• help shape the vision . Workshops, newsletters, public service announcements, social media, an d
other tools will be used to help inform and engage the community . Advisory Body input will b e
garnered for each body's particular area of expertise . In addition, stakeholder interviews ar e
Attachment 1
Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
4
proposed to capture the ideas of various groups that have a more focused mission or charge . Th e
GPTF is expected to be an important additional method, and noticed venue, to captur e
community input as part of the process .
Alternative s
The approach described above has been used successfully in many other jurisdictions . There are
other models for garnering this type of input and two are listed below :
1.The previous General Plan Update process took over seven years to complete and ha d
several task forces that participated in sequential order. While the Council could opt t o
identify several single focus task force groups, this option is not recommended . The
grant time-frame makes it imperative that timely discussions and recommendations b e
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 fro m
dialogue between interest groups . The community vision will be stronger if divergen t
ideas can be explored and common ground found by members expressing points-of-vie w
and discussing them with each other .
2.The Council could hold open nominations and select participants . This option is no t
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 thei r
voices were not heard leading to difficulty in agreeing to a shared vision, which is th e
goal of the process .
Next Step s
Staff will return on January 3 `'with more details on the consultant team selection process . On
January 17 `h , the Council will be asked to adopt a resolution establishing the General Plan Tas k
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-larg e
volunteers . The resolution will also include proposed ground rules, and will outline the term an d
role of the General Plan Task Force .
•
bard co
p CITY MGR
p ASST CM
a ATTORNEY
o CLERKIORI0
aPID
p TRIBUNE
p NEW TIMES
a SLOCITY NEWS
email:
p CDD D1R
o FIT DIR
a ORE CHIE F
C PPOOLIC
DIR
E CHIEF
p PARKS&RECDIR
o UTILDIR
o HR DIR
o COUNCIL
p CITY MOR
o CLERK
•
Attachment 2Mincity o f•Mai sari tins oBisp o
GENERAL PLAN PROCESS ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWOR K
Allocates funds to Genera l
Plan update process ;
formally adopts Genera l
Plan update.
Considers
recommendations from
City Staff, Consultants, an d
recommends adoption o f
General Plan to the Cit y
Council.
Provide s
Inpu t
and Feedback
City Counci l
I
Planning Commissio n
I
Provides
Input
and Feedback
Advisory Bodie s
(CHC, ARC, P&R, MTC, BAC)
Provides technical input o n
related subject matter .
Community Developmen t
Department
Manages overall General
Plan update process,
responsible for managin g
consultants to write
General Plan. Day-to-day
project support.
StaffTechnical Advisory
Grou p
•
I
•
General Public Provides General Plan Task Forc eCityInput andand Res dents Feedback (GPTF)
Responsible for developin g
General Plan goals and
recommendations .
B1-9
201 4
ject Workplan
e Maps
and Report
Tr nsportation Model Modification"
Admi nistranve Draft Bad'grnund Repor t
Pnhh:Review Draft Rarkground Report
Issues, Opportunities and Visio n
Issues and Opportunities Summary
Community Workshop Memo
Alternatives Report
Admin Draft :Policy Directions Repor t
Public U1-,ft :Aliemalives F:eport
wort-:flop Summary Memo
Polley Documen t
Admin Draft: General Plan Policy Documen t
Land Use and Circulation Diagram s
Fiscal Analysis (Preferred Alternative)
Infrastructure Financing Pla n
Public Draft : General Plan Policy Documen t
Environmental Impact Report {EAR )
Adinirt'.Dr~sft }JE~,:`~.r -
:s.Dli- P ublicR vwrwl)laft -
Ctraft'JIRapd CiaperalIt n .l)ndat e
ts.Public Workshops and Hea irng s
er Outraxh and Communication,below
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update, Fiscal Analysis, and EI R
2012 I 2013
..._
'
.
F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M
Matrix mintierharnis hDESIGNGROUPTm+••a+'rc6n'
OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS
ImmmeLteNiL i
~;3c4r ,5 .General?Fan Task Forr.-''-.
'tcCity Cnei'ncl/Pladn ink Corn
•••
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO . (2012 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
CREATING THE GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCE AND DEFINING ITS TERM AN D
CHARGE
WHEREAS,the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo appointed two General Pla n
Advisory Committees to advise the City of San Luis Obispo during the last major update of th e
Land Use and Circulation Elements adopted in 1994 ; an d
WHEREAS,the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount o f
$880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City's Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements ; and
WHEREAS,in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011-2013 Financia l
Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements ; and
WHEREAS,public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the Cit y
of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use an d
Circulation Elements ; an d
WHEREAS,the public participation strategy calls for a General Plan Task Forc e
•
(GPTF) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendation s
and disseminate information to each respective stakeholder's related interest group ; and
WHEREAS,previous direction from the City Council and good planning principle s
confirm that city residents are critical to the General Plan update process ; and
WHEREAS,the composition of the General Plan Task Force should be representative o f
the community interests with a preference for participants who live in the City ; and
WHEREAS,establishing GPTF Ground Rules and Terms of Engagement will provide a
framework for collaborative communication among stakeholders and decision-makers ; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo that a General Plan Task Force is hereby created with a composition, term, charge ,
ground rules and staff support as follows :
SECTION 1 . GPTF .The General Plan Task Force shall be comprised in accordanc e
with the following categories of representation with positions to be appointed by the Council :
•
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 2
•Number Group (in alphabetical order)Categor y
1 Cal Poly Peopl e
1 Chamber of Commerce Prosperit y
1 Downtown Association Prosperity
1 Home Builders Association Prosperit y
1 Planning Commission All
2 Residents at large Peopl e
1 RQN Peopl e
1 Save Our Downtown Peopl e
1 Sierra Club Plane t
1 ECOSLO Plane t
1 SLO Property Owners' Association Prosperity
1 Student People
13 TOTA L
1.Direct Staff to request nominations for one member to serve on the GPTF from th e
groups listed above by February 17, 2012 .
2.Direct Staff to provide notice and solicit applications to serve on the GPTF to b e
submitted to the City Clerk by February 17, 2012 .
3.Form a sub-committee of Council members to review GPTF applications and mak e
recommendations to the full Council to be considered on March 20, 2012 . Staff wil l
provide a map for each application to identify residence location . The Council sub -
committee may consider geographic distribution of task force applications whe n
making recommendations .
4.Task force members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may, by a
majority Council vote, be appointed, dismissed, or replaced .
5.The GPTF is hereby established until March 1, 2015, at which point it will no longe r
be a standing committee with the possible extension of this term to be considered b y
the City Council prior to that time .
6.The purpose of the GPTF is to advise City Staff and develop recommendations to
update the General Plan .
7.The City will provide staff support to the GPTF, with the Community Developmen t
Director to be primarily responsible for providing this support, to include preparatio n
of agendas, and minutes, compilation of material for discussion at GPTF meetings ,
and assistance with public outreach efforts .
8.The GPTF Guidelines as shown in Exhibit A, and as may be amended by the Cit y
B1-12
•
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 3
•Council, shall apply to the GPTF upon formation by the City Council, includin g
compliance with the Ralph M . Brown Act governing open meetings for loca l
government bodies .
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this , 2012 .
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST :
Elaina Cano, City Clerk
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
/s/ J .Christine Dietrick
Christine Dietrick, City Attorne y
•
B1-13
ATTACHMENT 4
EXHIBIT A •
GPTF GUIDELINE S
Guidelines for the General Plan Task Forc e
City of San Luis Obisp o
Community Development Departmen t
1 .Introductio n
The purpose of these Guidelines is twofold :
1)To clarify the respective roles of the each participant in the citizen advisor ycommittee process ; an d2)To outline the roles, responsibilities and relationship of GPTF and Staff t oclarify expectations and understanding of the overall process, so that GPT Fand Staff contribute to moving toward accomplishing the committee's specifi cgoals within an appropriate schedule and budget .
The advisory committee process is a collaborative one involving an often diverse arra yof individuals, stakeholders, and viewpoints, levels of expertise and matters of concern .•The public, GPTF appointees, and respective Community Development Departmen tstaff (CDD staff), and staff from other agencies and offices all benefit in having a clea runderstanding of their respective roles and responsibilities in the committees' conduct oftheir official business .
An effort has been made to cover all essential aspects of the committee operations ,such as how appointments are made, how long each member's term is, th eresponsibilities of different participants, conflict of interest issues, and meetin gprocedures. Nonetheless, these Guidelines are not exhaustive, they do not incorporat estatutes and regulations which may apply to GPTF operations, e .g . State open meeting slaw (Brown Act). The Guidelines strive to make adequate reference to other rules, a sappropriate.
2 .Applicabilit y
These Guidelines apply to the Council-appointed General Plan Task Force whos eprimary mission involves products and activities of the General Plan Update process .
3 .Establishment of GPT F
The GPTF is being established to advise City staff on matters related to the update o fthe Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan . The advice provided by th e
B1-14
•
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 5
GPTF is communicated to City staff which is tasked with providing recommendations toAdvisory Bodies and City Council . This task force is appointed by the City Council ; itsestablishment is not specifically required by any State laws or regulations . Therefore ,the City Council has discretion to create, modify, and terminate the GPTF, it smembership, mission statement, schedule, etc . at any time . The GPTF is an agent o fthe City of San Luis Obispo and members should be cognizant that their actions a sindividuals or as a whole can have consequences to the City .
4 .Committee Authorit y
The GPTF is advisory in nature and have no authority to approve, deny, or requir emodification to any policy or project under the task force's consideration . Furthermore ,the task force's advice shall be conveyed to Advisory Bodies, Planning Commission an dCity Council in any staff report . City staff will acknowledge GPTF input in formulation o frecommendations for action by Advisory bodies and City Council . Staff is assigne dresponsibility for the timely completion of Council-approved General Plan update wor kprogram.
•5 .Appointment Process and Membership Ter m
A)Size
The size of a GPTF shall be established by the City Council upon creation of the tas kforce. The GPTF shall consist of no more than thirteen (13) members . The task forceshall have an odd number of members ; this eliminates ambiguity as to what constitute sa quorum, and minimizes the possibility of tie votes .
B)Compositio n
The composition of a GPTF shall be determined at the time of its creation, to ensur ethat specific community segments and/or other interest groups are represented in th emembership. The GPTF will be created by Council resolution .
C)Vacancies and Application Proces s
A vacancy or vacancies on a GPTF shall exist :1)When the committee is create d2)When a member or members is/are formally removed by the City Council, o r3)When the Council receives and acknowledges a letter of resignation from a nincumbent.
•
Vacancies on the GPTF shall be advertised by the City Clerk in the same manner as th eoriginal appointments by the Council . If the vacancy is from an identified stakeholde r
•
B1-15
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 6
group, the City Clerk will request a nomination for participation from that or simila r
stakeholder group subject to Council confirmation . If the vacancy is a general residen t
representative, the City Clerk will be asked to advertise the vacancy within ten (10 )
calendar days of being notified of the vacancy . Applications for GPTF membershi p
shall be submitted on forms provided by the City Clerk, and shall be accepted by th e
Clerk . The temporary absence of members to fill vacancies as described in this sectio n
shall not affect a recommendation by staff and/or the GPTF to Advisory Bodies or to th e
Council .
D)Selection Proces s
Upon the close of an application period, a copy of each application submitted will b e
given to the sub-committee of Council members for review . Appointment(s) shall b e
recommended by the sub-committee to the full Council for confirmation .
E)Term of Office
The term of office for a GPTF and its members is established by the City Council whe n
it creates the committee . The GPTF shall serve at the discretion of the Council for th e
term of appointment outlined in a resolution .
6 .Task Force Operation s
A)Task Force Mission and Responsibilitie s
The specific mission for the GPTF and its term of service shall be to :
1)Advise City staff in the development of recommendations during the proces s
of discussing issues, opportunities and vision ; reviewing alternatives ; an d
developing policy as part of the General Plan update .
2)Review and comment upon other matters related to the GPTF's function a s
part of the General Plan update, upon specific direction by the City Council .
B)Officers and Rules of Conduct
The responsibilities of the GPTF also include an election of officers, consisting of a t
least a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Recording Secretary . The Chair shall lead all meetings ,
be the primary spokesperson for the GPTF, and be the primary committee liaison to Cit y
staff and the public . Staff in consultation with the Chairperson shall develop the agend a
for each GPTF meeting . The Vice-Chair shall fulfill the duties of Chair in the latter's
absence . The Recording Secretary will be the Community Development Director o r
his/her designee, who will take action minutes of motions and make a digital recordin g
of each meeting . At a minimum, these minutes shall clearly convey actions and motion s
taken by the GPTF . These minutes are to be considered, amended as needed an d
approved by the full task force at the earliest possible time, and signed by th e
Chairperson . In addition, the task force may adopt specific rules of conduct and
•
•
•
B1-16
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 7
procedure, as long as such rules are consistent with applicable laws and regulation s
(including these Guidelines).
C)Meeting Procedur e
The GPTF is subject to the Brown Act, which set standards for public notice as t o
meeting time, date and location as well as items to be discussed . Significan t
implications are as follows :
1)Noticing of all GPTF meetings, including time, location and an agenda, mus t
be posted in a public place within the applicable area . Efforts should be mad e
to provide adequate public notice beyond minimum Brown Act requirement s
of seventy-two (72) hours .
2)All GPTF meetings must be .open and public . Meetings are to be held in a
facility which makes adequate provision for attendance by all interested
members of the public .
3)Members of the public are to be given an opportunity to speak to the GPT F
on any regular agenda item at the time it is being discussed . Members of th e
public will also be given an opportunity to speak to any relevant non-agend a
item . All public speakers are subject to reasonable time constraint s
established by the GPTF Chairperson and any adopted procedures . All publi c
speakers are to identify their names and relevant business and/or persona l
interests they are representing for the record .
4)The GPTF will attempt to establish a consistent regular meeting time an d
location in their rules of conduct .
5)Minutes of GPTF meetings will be kept on file by the Communit y
Development Department . These minutes shall be available for any intereste d
person to examine .
6)All GPTFs will elect officers no later than its second meeting and until suc h
time, the Community Development Director shall serve a the Chair Pro-Tern .
7)Meetings shall run in a parliamentary style . Substantive issues will hav e
higher priority than matters of procedural detail . The Chair has discretion i n
guiding discussion of items among GPTF members while allowing fo r
appropriate public input .
8)Staff may address the GPTF at any time, with timely recognition by the Chair .
9)Quorum : A majority of the members of the GPTF constitute a quorum .
Decisions are made by a majority of the members present and voting . N o
business may be transacted if fewer than a quorum is present . Formal vote s
by a committee are to have a motion and second, prior to allowing furthe r
discussion and a vote .
10)Members of the GPTF shall not vote on issues which involve a legal or ethica l
conflict of interest or duty (See section 7 )
11)Subcommittees : GPTFs may select subcommittees to focus on issues o r
subjects meriting more detailed work outside of the full task force .
Subcommittees are made up of GPTF members only, and must number fewe r
than a quorum of the full GPTF . Subcommittee meeting arrangements ma y
be set by either the staff or the GPTF . Such meetings are not legally require d
B1-17
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 8
to be noticed or posted, but every effort should be made by a subcommitte e
officer or member to notice and/or post the meetings, as they are open to an y
interested member of the public . Information about their time and location i s
to be made available through the overall GPTF secretary and through CD D
staff . Subcommittees shall choose a Chair and a Vice-Chair, and may choos e
a Recording Secretary for preparing informal minutes . A report from an y
subcommittee meeting shall be made at the next full GPTF meeting . Staff
support for subcommittee meetings may be provided, but is not required .
D)Attendanc e
GPTF members shall make every effort to attend regular meetings . Any member who i s
unable to attend any meeting shall contact the GPTF Chair or Community Developmen t
Department staff at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting . Three (3 )
consecutive unannounced absences or five (5) consecutive absences by a membe r
shall be grounds for dismissal from the GPTF, subject to the discretion of the Council .
E)Appearance on GPTF's behal f
The Chair, Vice-Chair, or other duly authorized GPTF member shall speak for the tas k
force at any applicable non-GPTF public hearing or other meeting as authorized by th e
GPTF . Individual members of GPTF not so designated, who do testify at a publi c
hearing or other meeting, shall clearly identify themselves as speaking individually as a
member of GPTF, and shall clearly indicate that they are not authorized to speak for th e
full committee .
F)Timely adjournment of evening meeting s
To encourage public participation, evening meetings of GPTFs will be organized ,
agendized, and run so as to finish at a reasonable hour . If a particular GPTF finds it s
evening meetings habitually running past 9 :30 PM, staff and the Chair will work togethe r
to shorten the agendas and , if necessary, to expedite task force discussion and actio n
on items .
7 .Conflicts of Interes t
GPTF members are not considered to be "public officials" as defined in § 82048 of th e
California Government Code, and therefore are not subject to the State Political Refor m
Act and its disclosure provisions (Government Code §§ 81000 et seq .). Nevertheless ,
GPTF members shall remove themselves from all discussions and votes on matters i n
which they have any direct personal financial interest, or where the member's
professional allegiance and/or personal bias cannot be set aside to allow the member's
fair consideration of the issue(s) at hand .
•
•
•
B1-18
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 9
•In gauging such extra-legal conflicts of interest and/or duty, each member shall exercis ecareful judgment and introspection in giving priority to the interests of fairness an dobjectivity; if there is any reasonable doubt that the member has a conflict, the membe rshall refrain from participation in the task force's deliberations and vote(s). Should amember not refrain voluntarily, and should the member's participation specifically b echallenged by another GPTF member, staff, or the public, the member's participation o nany item of official task force business may be prevented by a two-thirds majority vote o fthe full GPTF (i .e ., at least two-thirds of the total incumbent membership, including th emember in question). Pervasive or recurring conflicts of interest and/or duty should lea da member to resign voluntarily from a GPTF, and may be grounds for a dismissal by th eCouncil.
8 .GPTF and Staff Responsibilitie s
A)GPTF Member Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the individual GPTF members include :1)Punctually and fully attend all regular and special meetings of the GPTF an dall relevant subcommittee meetings, to the maximum possible extent ;2)Come to all meetings fully prepared, having reviewed the agenda and al l•related written/graphic material available before the meeting ;3)Conscientiously follow high ethical standards in putting the broad publi cinterest ahead of any personal interest and/or bias, and to abstain from al ldiscussions and votes where this is not possible ;4)Promote full and open discussion of all matters of official task force business ;5)Support the task force Chair, Vice-Chair, and staff in maintaining order ,keeping discussions relevant to the business at hand, and following prope rprocedures, while giving primary attention to matters of substance .6)Be cognizant of the grant time frame and constraints and strive to commen ton products/concepts presented in a productive and expeditious manner .
B)CDD Staff Responsibilitie s
Staff responsibilities in supporting the GPTF include :1)Timely completion of deliverables within budget .2)Schedule all GPTF meetings pertaining to General Plan update issues, mak earrangements for all facilities, distribute written/graphic materials, notices ,agendas, etc . For such meetings, coordinate necessary staff participation an dguest speakers ;3)For GPTF meetings as appropriate, prepare recommendations and othe rmaterial for GPTF review and comment. Advise the GPTF on matters of bot h
•
substance and procedure ;
B1-19
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series )
Page 10
4)Assist the GPTF Chair in promoting full and open participation by all GPT F
members and other people in attendance at any meeting, keeping discussio n
pertinent to the business at hand ;
5)Handle information requests for material and general information related t o
the official business of the GPTF ;
6)Report the GPTF's activities, recommendations and comments to Advisor y
Bodies or other decision-makers and officials within the framework of th e
overall presentation of staff recommendation on a task force product-goal (i .e .
a draft element policy update, a technical element or portion thereof);
7)Coordinate with the Chair and Secretary on GPTF meeting schedules .
C)City Attorne y
Staff support to the GPTF will not be provided by the City Attorney . Specific legal issue s
are to be directed through CDD to the City Attorney for response .
•
•
•
B1-20
To :
San Luis Obispo City Counci l
From : Jan Marx, Mayo r
Re : Item B-1 (LUCE Update )
Date : January 17, 201 2
The following are my thoughts regarding the LUCE Task Force and process . Council ha s
repeatedly stated that the process is to be resident-centered . Making it so, startin g
tonight, will allow the LUCE Update to be truly owned and affirmed by residents . It also
will allow the process to proceed in an orderly, timely manner .
A . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateTask Force
1.
It should be called the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Task Force .
(Using a different title is confusing).
2.
The Task Force should consist of residents of the City of San Luis Obispo in al l
categories . If a given stakeholder group does not have any city residents willing to serve ,
then it can just submit comments and testify .
3.
Members should also be volunteers, not paid advocates . Selection should reflec t
geographical distribution of residents, living throughout the city .
4.
All residents should receive information about how to participate at the ver y
beginning of the process, possibly as a hand out in the utility bills .
5.
Selection of members should not be delegated to organizations, but should b e
done by council . Council should take open applications, like the advisory bod y
applications, including resumes .
6.
It should have equal representation from the environment, neighborhood an d
business communities . It should be chaired by a Planning Commissioner .
7.
There is no reason to limit membership to 13 . The City Manager's Economi c
Sustainability group had nearly 30 people on it and worked well . Other cities hav e
varying numbers of participants .
8.
In any category, overlapping experience--such as in land use and planning, th e
law, advisory groups, local history, real estate, social services, education, the economy ,
technology, natural resources, conservation, healthy communities, agriculture ,
transportation, recreation, the arts or non-profit organizations and other relevant
expertise—should be considered a "plus" in selection of members . It is not needed t o
have a person representing Cal Poly (a state agency), or any other state agency on th e
Task Force, but a resident who works at a state agency could have special insight whic h
could be useful .
9.
Subcommittees of like expertise could caucus and do outreach at their discretion ,
and then present comments to whole task force .
10.
The task force should proceed by vote (recorded) not by forced consensus, wit h
minority reports possible, if need be . Conflicting points of view from various interes t
groups need to be surfaced, not buried, so that Council has comprehensive informatio n
before it when making the final decisions .
B . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateProcess .
1.
This is a focused update . We do not need to fix what is not broken . The updat e
needs to address actual problems . Many of the factors making our city the happiest i n
North America are incorporated in our present LUE . It serves our city well by protectin g
our quality of life and fiscal sustainability .
2.
The process should begin with workshops in the neighborhoods, occurring durin g
the same time that the new questionnaire is in the hands of residents . It should be i n
writing and should be based on the 1988 questionnaire, with additional updated question s
if need be . Workshops and questionnaires input should take place before the LUC E
Taskforce is formed or meets .
3.
Council members should read the elements and give input to staff regarding wha t
does and does not need changing . Staff should identify what language it thinks needs t o
be updated, with documentation of said need .
4.
Review of the Elements should be recognizably based on the present document ,
keeping the same numbering whenever possible . It should proceed in an orderly, sectio n
by section, line by line, basis, so that everyone is given adequate notice of exactly wha t
language will be considered and when . Everyone needs to know at every stage exactl y
what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and b y
whom .
5.
Once the decisions about any proposed language changes in a given section ar e
made by Council, there should be no going back and reconsidering said changes .
6.
Definitions of terms should be consistent with the present LUCE and an y
proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in publi c
hearings .
Residents for Quality Neighborhood s
P .O . Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 6
January 16, 201 2
Re : Item B1, General Plan Task Force for Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Proces s
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) has been involved in this General Plan Land Use an d
Circulation Elements (LUCE) update process since it began in 2008 . Subsequent to th e
presentation of the August 19, 2008, Study Session report (Attachment 1), testimony from RQ N
(Attachment 2), and the initial minutes of the session (Attachment 2a), the City Council gave clea r
direction to staff regarding the proposed plan to update these elements . That directio n
(Attachment 3) included the following :
1.The process should be primarily resident and neighborhood based but still allow for som e
appropriate representation of important sectors of the community by persons who might not liv e
within the City limits (e .g., representatives of non-profits, the medical community, regiona l
interests, etc .) [emphasis added].
2.The proposed sequence of steps outlined in the [proposed Project] plan seems generall y
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 [emphasi s
added].
3.Staff should use legislative drafts as a tool to make it clear to citizens what is being change d
when amending plans . Staff will do so to the maximum extent feasible and practical during th e
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 fo r
ensuring a representative, scientific sampling of community sentiment and vision .
After reading the December 13, 2011, Council Memorandum, Major City Goal—Land Use an d
Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update (Attachment 4), RQN members did further research an d
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 neighborhoo d
based" is not included, nor is it stated that "each major step will start with primarily residen t
involvement ." Council direction is misstated in the following attachments to this report :
Attachment 1, Council Memorandum, Attachment 4, Draft Resolution, and Exhibit A, Attachmen t
4, GPTF Guidelines .
Page 2
2 . Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, Council Memorandum, states on page 2 that "directio n
from Council ... confirms that City residents are critically important to the General Plan updat e
process ." The choice of the words "critically important" does not convey the same message a s
did Council's very clear direction .
a.Per Council direction, the General Plan Task Force (GPTF) should be weighted towar d
residents and neighborhoods, with "some appropriate representation of important sectors of th e
community by persons who might not live within the City limits" (emphasis added]. As currentl y
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 primary
purpose of that individual is to represent his/her stakeholder group . This is not the same as a n
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, Ol d
Town Neighborhood Association and San Luis Drive Association . It would seem proper to hav e
each group designate a representative to serve on the GPTF . By adding these five representative s
to the resident positions currently proposed, it would go a long way toward making the GPT F
primarily resident and neighborhood based . The resulting size of the task force would still b e
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 t o
speak, and there is a public outreach component planned that will provide multiple opportunitie s
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 doe s
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 Tas k
Force (GPTF) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback an d
recommendations and disseminate information to each respective stakeholder's related interes t
group ; and
SHOULD READ :WHEREAS,the public participation strategy calls for a General Plan Tas k
Force (GPTF) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback an d
recommendations and disseminate information to each respective resident's group o r
stakeholder's related interest group ; an d
b.AS WRITTEN :WHEREAS, previous direction from the City Council and good plannin g
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 p lan seems g enerally
agreeable . with the understanding that the staff will review the draft to potentially make i t
clearer that thep rocess, and each maior step, will start with primarily resident involvement ;an d
c.AS WRITTEN :WHEREAS, the composition of the General Plan Task Force should b e
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 u p date process shoul d
be primarily resident and neighborhood based, but still allow for some ap p ropriat e
representation of im p ortant sectors of the community by persons who mi ght not live within th e
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 wil l
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 an d
decision-makers ; an d
e.Page 2, Attachment 4 of the Staff Report (page B1-12) does not provide a task forc e
composition that is primarily resident and neighborhood based .
f.Item 3,Page 2, Attachment 4 of the Staff Report (page B1-12)appears to apply to
business/development/non-profit stakeholders who are also city residents . RQN does no t
recommend that task force members be dual-hatted since that would not comply with state d
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 B1-16 ; we ask this be modified to read resident(s) an d
stakeholder(s) wherever it occurs.
RQN members reviewed the Planning Grant Request, the Request for Proposal (RFP) and som e
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 an d
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 o f
the LUCE update shown by the source of the grant as, "The targeted update to the Land Use an d
Circulation Elements of the General Plan is intended to promote infill development to use existin g
infrastructure to maximize efficiency ."(Attachment 5) The Planning Grant Request (Attachmen t
5a) uses this or similar language multiple times .
Infill development may be appropriate for vacant land, land re-zoned from non-residentia l
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 populate d
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 to p
priorities for the LUCE update .
2.Request for Proposal (Attachment 6). The Introduction portion of the RFP (page B2-13 )
contains a Community Participation section where residents and community stakeholders ar e
described as very informed and engaged . It states the City is seeking an innovative communit y
participation process that is inclusive and validating for the participants, provides some example s
and encourages the consultant to suggest additional outreach opportunities . It does not mentio n
Council direction . How is the consultant to know that the update process should be primaril y
resident and neighborhood based and that each major step will start with primarily residen t
involvement? How will this lack of information affect the tools and procedures the consultan t
suggests or employs? Although stakeholder interviews are listed as an outreach tool that shoul d
be included, it is not clear if residents are to be included as stakeholders, and there is no referenc e
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 ne w
policies . The memoranda between Cal Poly and City staff that we have seen do not mentio n
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 th e
area they consider to be their neighborhood and provide information regarding the needs, as the y
see them, of their neighborhood .
1.RQN strongly recommends that a telephone survey not be used . The objective of th e
survey, to obtain complete and useful resident input may be compromised by utilizing a telephon e
method . Past problems with con artists could make some residents leery of providing informatio n
over the telephone : individuals may respond differently or give partial answers, or they ma y
decline to participate . With a written survey, especially if it is returned to the City, there is n o
question where it goes and what the information will be used for . Additionally, written survey s
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 thei r
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 Regiona l
Blueprint Community 2050, and a Sustainable Communities Strategy . RQN members ar e
unfamiliar with these terms, their meaning and their potential effect on San Luis Obispo . I f
conformity with any of their policies becomes an issue, we would hope the Council would includ e
consideration of a loss of local control as well as the financial costs of compliance an d
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 Memorandu m
3.The Draft Resolutio n
4.The GPTF Guidelines
5.The RF P
6.Any memoranda with Cal Poly that supports this projec t
7.All other LUCE update process document s
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 o f
the city's existing residential organizations, be added to the GPTF and that no task force membe r
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, RQ N
Attachment 1 - August 19, 2008 Study Session - Proposed 2009-2011 General Plan Update Proces s
Attachment 2 - August 18, 2008 Letter from RQ N
Attachment 2a - August 19, 2008 Original Minutes of August 19, 2008 Study Sessio n
Attachment 3 - August 19, 2008 Corrected Minutes of August 19, 2008 Study Sessio n
Attachment 4 - December 9, 2011 RED File, Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Updat e
Attachment 5 - December 3, 2010 SGC Sustainable Communities Planning Grant s
Attachment 5a - Planning Grant Applicatio n
Attachment 6 - September 20, 2011 RFP for Consultant Assistance for LUCE Update Proces s
Attachment 7 - August 6, 1992 Tribune Opinion Editorial
A TAC . M ELI T
council .j acsnaa uEpoa t
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
FROM :John Mandeville, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By : Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Plannin g
SUBJECT : STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009-11 GENERAL PLA N
UPDATE PROCES S
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive a proposed project plan for the future update to the General Plan Land Use, Circulatio n
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 t o
proceed with comprehensive updates of the Land Use and Circulation Elements within the nex t
two years . Ultimately, the Council decided to focus more on Measure Y priorities in terms o f
funding, but to take other important preliminary steps during the next two years so that the Cit y
could be "poised" to tackle a comprehensive update in 2009-11 . The Council approved a wor k
program that identified the preparation of a "project plan" as the first major step in preparing fo r
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 th e
proposed update of the Circulation and Land Use Elements with input from other department s
and other jurisdictions . Staff consulted with municipal consultants, the state, county, and othe r
cities in California to understand timing and cost impacts associated with the proposed genera l
plan updates . The attached project description and timeline (the Project Plan) reflect this inpu t
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 ?
DISCUSSION
Background and Getting Started "on the Right Foot"
Updates of the Land Use and Circulation Elements were identified as an "other Counci l
objective" in the 2007-09 Financial Plan, with direction to develop a project plan describing th e
funding and administrative steps necessary to complete the process . The Council authorize d
8-19-08
kN SSz~
General Plan Update Process Page 2
$200,000 in funding in the 2007-09 Financial Plan to initiate development of a "base year" traffi c
model in preparation for the General Plan update process . The Council also indicated that th e
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 positiv e
and timely outcome . Differences about the process, for example, surfaced late in the update o f
the Conservation and Open Space Element and resolving those differences delayed the proces s
by over one year and caused a substantial amount of confusion and contention . Therefore,
coming to agreement on fundamentals of "the plan" at the very beginning is essential and is th e
foremost purpose of this report .
The Project Plan for the General Plan Updat e
Over the last several years, City staff has used a standard format to prepare internal plans t o
implement major projects and complex undertakings . This format is often called a "projec t
plan ." Project plans are helpful as an organizational tool and for providing a commo n
understanding about a forthcoming process, in terms of opportunities, constraints, expecte d
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 whic h
they occur, and a list of tasks associated with each phase . Some of the phases overlap and som e
must run sequentially. The graphic later in this . report summarizes the key components of the
process,including:community participation, environmental review, and the expected product s
from each phase .
"General Plan 101" Overvie w
California state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term genera l
plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundarie s
which bears relation to its planning" (Government : Code Section 65300). A city's general pla n
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 basi s
for local decision-making and involves the community in the process of identifying goals an d
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," whic h
state that the general plan is a tool for planning over a specific time horizon . The planning perio d
associated with this time horizon may vary depending on the issues - for example, geologi c
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 it s
particular needs, most cities develop general plans that look forward 15-20 years in order to pla n
for future needs . The exception to this rule-of-thumb relates to the housing element which, b y
state mandate, must be updated every five years to address a seven-year planning period .
General Plan Update Process Page 3
Regardless of the time horizon addressed in the City's General Plan, planning is a continuou s
process . The General Plan needs to be reviewed and revised regularly to keep it current whe n
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 fmds itself making frequen t
piecemeal amendments or if existing policies do not seem to provide guidance for projects unde r
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 sinc e
1994 to incorporate minor adjustments, they have not had a recent, thorough review of how wel l
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 th e
Conservation and Open Space Element in April 2006 and when the Housing Element wa s
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 hearin g
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-goin g
or have been completed (The Council Reading file contains the latest annual report on th eGeneral Plan). As can be expected, environmental, economic, and societal trends have likel y
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 Circulatio n
Element to chart a vision and plan for growth over the next 15-20 years . This process must b e
based on community participation and stakeholder `buy-in". Since land uses and traffic an d
circulation decisions are interwoven, the Circulation Element and Land Use Element should b e
developed and considered concurrently .
1. Land Use Element Situation
In January 2006, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted significant change s
to the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which identifies "... the probable physical boundary an d
service area of a local agency or municipality ." As a result, the SOI, which is considered to be a
20 year planning tool, was expanded in eight areas to encompass an additional 3,328 acre s
around the City limits . The property owners of one of the larger areas added to the SOI, the are a
roughly bounded by Los Osos Valley Road, O'Connor Way,. Foothill Boulevard and the existin g
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 show s
these areas as greenbelt/open space, suggesting a need for coordination and public review in th e
context of an overall planning strategy .
SSZ-3
General Plan Update Process Page 4
2.Circulation Element Situatio n
The Circulation Element was developed in tandem with the Land Use Element and its policie s
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 t o
address associated street network and operational changes . In addition, the Circulatio n
Element's policies and programs should be updated given on-going changes in land use, trave l
behavior, regional traffic patterns, environmental conditions, transportation technology, an d
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 wa s
based on information generated from a road-based traffic model . Given the desired (an d
increasingly necessary) shift away from single-occupant vehicle trips to bicycle and mass transi t
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 Anticipate d
The evaluation and revision of these two mandatory elements may prompt the need to revis e
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 bee n
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 ha s
requested that the update process for the Land Use and Circulation Elements include an update o f
the Parks and Recreation Element . This will involve the evaluation of parks facilities an d
programs in addition to looking at demographic trends in order to develop revised policies an d
programs to better serve the community . Since much of the background work will be done wit h
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 elemen t
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 th e
growth envisioned with General Plan "build out "
Now that the Nacimiento Water Project is under construction, operational and service issues nee d
to be re-evaluated to confirm existing policies and make modifications where appropriate . Thes e
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 ar e
not expected to change . However, if there is a change in the General Plan buildout, this would
General Plan Update Process Page5
affect the acre feet of water needed, and would be addressed as a subsequent amendment to th e
Water and Wastewater Element at the time the Land Use Element is updated and adopted .
Work .Underway to Begin Updat e
Because of the time that has passed since the last comprehensive General Plan update and . th e
previous Council direction, several activities are already underway . As previously noted, th e
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 communit y
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 th e
General Plan .
The contract to update the base-year traffic model was awarded to LSA Associates in Februar y
2008 . The initial stage will update the base-year traffic model to a multi-modal based mode l
analyzing new trend information and city/county demographics for trip types . Vehicle, bicycl e
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 th e
forecast model . Forecasting will be important in order to evaluate different land use an d
development scenarios proposed as part of the Land . Use Element and Circulation Elemen tupdate. 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 i n
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 wit h
a graduate student from Cal Poly who is collecting the necessary data and .performing the dat a
entry into the modeling software . We expect to have preliminary results to share by the end o fAugust. This information will be used when evaluating land use and circulation alternatives i n
the General Plan update process .
The Proposed Project Plan for Completing the Updat e
As mentioned earlier, the Community Development Department staff has been working t o
develop a project plan for the proposed update with input from other departments and othe r
jurisdictions . Staff also consulted with municipal consultants, the state, county, and other citie s
in California to understand timing and cost impacts associated with the proposed general pla nupdates. The attached project description and timeline (the Project Plan) reflect this evaluation
and the graphic below summarizes the key components of the process, including : communit y
participation, environmental review, and the expected products from each phase .
General Plan Update Process Page6
X1 1
r
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 Impact
Report (EIR), review by advisory bodies, and Council adoption of the Plan and certification o f
SS2-t o
b
g
General Plan Update Process Page 7
the EM . The public review process and the environmental review process (called CEQA —
California Environmental Quality Act) will happen concurrently within these components of th e
planning process .
2.CEQA :
The Background Report (listed as a product of Phases 1& 2 in the chart above) is also used t o
document the current status of the City for purposes of environmental review . As impact an d
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 Pla n
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 representin g
diverse community and stakeholder interest groups, advisory body members, neighborhoo d
groups, and Council appointments . The selected General Plan update consultant will be require d
to assist with developing a public participation plan to include speakers' bureaus, the citizens '
advisory committee, newsletters, surveys, workshops, interviews, and media outreach .
Update Timefram e
It is important that the City set realistic timeframes for completion of the various stages of wor k
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
terms of staff time and consultant fees .
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research notes that most jurisdictions nee d
approximately two years to complete a new general plan . Depending on the complexity of issue s
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 fou r
to six months for preparing background data and reports, this time will be spent providin g
information to the public through various types of media and creating forums for input an d
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 updat e
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 incorporate d
into the plan .
FISCAL IMPAC T
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 8
involved in the update process . In reviewing the experience of other communities, the typica l
commitment is an average of two full-time equivalent (1' 1'E) staff positions for an update proces s
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 Communit y
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 $ 550,00 0
Consultant fees Environmental Review $ 400,000
Public outreach Survey, charrettes, outreach, public meetings $ 100,000
Consultant fees Traffic model enhancement $ 200,000
Printing & mailing Draft and fmal documents $40,000
Contingency , Estimated at 5%$67 ;000
TOTAL $1,407,000
Funding the Update : Key 2009-11 Goal-Setting Issu e
Community Development staff surveyed other jurisdictions to understand how each paid for thei r
general plan updates . The following summarizes this information :
1.Pay for updates with the General Fund . A vision for the community benefits the entir e
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 issu e
building permits or entitlements, a city must have a valid and up-to-date General Pla n
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 t o
the cost to provide the service .
a.Cost of General Plan Update is estimated to occur every 10 years . This cost i s
divided by 10 to capture a yearly fee . The yearly cost is divided by the annua l
construction valuation to obtain a % of project construction value amount that i s
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 al l
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 Pla n
maintenance (i .e . San Rafael)
d.General Plan implementation fee (.001) is charged against the assessed value o f
every building permit. (i.e. Stockton)
SS2-S
General Plan Update Process Page9
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 th e
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 fo r
updating the General Plan in the near future will need to be paid for out of General Fund monie s
and approximately $1 .4 million will need to be budgeted when the project is launche d
For this reason, the commitment to move forward on a comprehensive update to the City's Lan d
Use, Circulation, and Parks and Recreation Elements Update will be a major resource allocatio n
decision for the Council as it considers major City goals as of the 2009-11 Financial Pla n
process . And even with Measure Y funds, funding initiatives like this will be difficult given th e
fiscal challenges facing us from possible State budget takeaways, uncertain performance of ke y
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 o n
changes to the project plan if the document is satisfactory as written .
2.Continue Discussion .The Council may choose to continue discussion if more informatio n
is needed on any particular component of the project plan .
3.Defer Comprehensive Update .Proceed with a more issue specific update, with issues to b e
identified at a subsequent Council meeting .
ATTACHMEN T
Project plan for Land Use Element , Circulation Element, and Parks and Recreation Elemen t
update
COUNCIL READING FIL E
2007 Annual Report of the General Pla n
T :\Lt E Update\Project 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 fo r
general fund monies as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan process . Consultant services will b e
secured through a request for proposal (RFP) process (most likely separate consultants for th e
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 existin g
General Plan policies and goals will be conducted . A working group of City staff will form .
Collection of data begins .
Background Report/Data Collectio n
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 an d
police services), a housing inve>tory, parks and open space inventory, environmental resourc e
inventory, land use inventory (including properties included '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 fo r
the subsequent update to the General Plan .
The data required for development and validation of the traffic model includes details of lan d
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 traffi c
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 o f
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 Developmen t
The City's existing traffic model has worked fairly 'well in predicting vehicle traffic behavior an d
impacts for the last several years . The model is deficient in that it does not take into accoun t
multi-modal behavior and regional and local land use and transportation . As such, bicycle, mas s
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 th e
base-year traffic model . The model will need to be updated to provide forecasting an d
alternatives analysis . This may involve data collection including : Origin-Destination Trip
Collection, trip logs, frequency and travel time data collection .
.S52 -I D
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 – Project Pla n
Issues and Opportunity Repor t
To understand the extent of review' and update required for the Land Use Element an d
Circulation Element, it is necessary to understand how well the existing policies and program s
are serying 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 Cit y
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, worksho p
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 t o
determine where changes may be appropriate (i .e. completed programs most likely do not need t o
be re-evaluated). These goals, policies and programs will provide the core of topics for publi c
review .
The report will not reach conclusions or suggest the manner in which the City should proceed i n
the development of the General Plan, but it will identify issues of critical importance . Question s
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 way s
to achieve that vision that weren't available or utilized 15 years ago? Knowing what th e
community vision is and how it may have changed will guide the scoping for the update process .
Alternatives Evaluations & Selectio n
Staff and the consultant will work with the community, the advisory bodies, and City Council t o
develop, evaluate, and select land use and policy alternatives for evaluation . There will b e
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 descriptio n
defined for environmental review .
General Plan Preparation & Environmental Revie w
Policies and programs are developed at this stage to respond to the land use plan . Where lan d
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 environmenta l
review process . A draft EIR is then prepared based on the project description and a selecte d
range of alternatives . Fiscal analysis of the General Plan is included at this stage .
Public Hearings and Adoptio n
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 an d
ordinances are prepared .
The chart on the next page shows how the community participation, general plan update an d
environmental review interact throughout the process .
SS2 -1 I
General Plan Update Process
Attachment 1 — Project Plan
TASK DEFINITIO N
Staff from all departments will be involved in the update process . In reviewing the experience o f
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 F:1'rs to this effort. City staff involved to th e
greatest extent will be Community Development and Public Works staff, but staff from Park s
and Recreation, Utilities, Fire, Police, Finance and Administration will also be involved in thi s
process .
GENERAL PLAN PREPARATION PROCES S
PHASES COMMUNITY PLANNING TASKS CEQA PRODUCTS
PARTICIPATION
Iownitall Meetings. Surveys,Identifying the IssuesandIntetytewsI&2 BackgroundfCreation of Community Environmental Setting KPT
Advisory Committee Collecting and Analyzing intbrntation{f?sistina Condition s
Developing a Visio nTownhall Meetings. Surveys,
and interview s
Townhall Meetings an d3-6 Reviewing Alternatives ~--->L Alternatives Evaluatio nWorkshops
initial Draft
Committee Workshops Preparing the Plan Project Description
.D.BI RPreparingtheEIR-ewtcIA *lyai s
7&8 Public HearingsPp61ieReviewTownhall Meetings and Reviewing the Plan and EIRHearings PC/CHC/CC/
Certifying the EIR and Adopting the Response to Comments, Findings,Others
Plan and Certification
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, meetin g
with the Planning Commission and Council and initiating the public outreach program .
Task 1 .1 Initiate Program
Authorization from Counci l
Consult Office of Planning and Research websit e
Distribute RFP
Evaluate RFP responses and select consultant tea m
Identify internal project team – together with consultant this becomes th e
"General Plan Team"
Task 1 .2 Scopin g
Develop a detailed work schedule w/consultant including schedules fo r
community outreach and participation .
SS2-1 l
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Pla n
Review and discuss overall format and organization of the G P
Determine planning area boundar y
Review GIS and other data source s
Task L3 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session : Project Initiation an d
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 Genera l
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 provid e
a forum for public comment submittal to the City .
Task 1 .7 Newsletter — The General Plan Update Process — create and distribute (possibly vi a
utility billing )
Task 1 .8 Community Workshops — General Plan update proces s
Provide community and citizen groups an overview of what the General Plan doe s
and how the process will progress over the next two-three years .
Phase Products :
•Detailed Project Schedul e
• Staff Reports
•Project Base Maps
•Land Use Databas e
•Newsletter
Website
•Community Workshop Summar y
Phase 2 — Background Report : 6 months August 2009- February 201 0
During this phase, the General Plan Team will update information on existing conditions an d
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 existin g
General Plan elements, Specific Plans, SOI report, Airport Land Use Plan, EIRs, Chamber o f
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 fo r
traffic model .
SS2-t3
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 - Project Pla n
Task 2 .2 Administrative Draft Background Report-data collection to address topics :
Introduction
Regional Setting
Planning Area Boundar y
Organization and Purpose of the Background Repor t
Land Use
City Limits and Planning Are a
Land Use Planning in San Luis Obisp o
General Plan Summar y
Zoning Summary
Existing Land Us e
Sphere of Influence (SOI )
Annexatio n
Other Plans (i.e . Cal Poly Master Plan, County SLO plan)and Land Us e
Regulations Affecting San Luis Obisp o
Agencies Concerned with Land Use Planning in San Luis Obispo (i.e. Airport Land
Use Commission)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Result s
Housin g
Housing Unit/Land Capacity Inventor y
Progress Report on Housing Element Updat e
Demographics and Economic Condition s
Historic Population Growth
Population Characteristic s
Population Projection s
Employment Projections
Economic Conditions in San Luis Obisp o
Chamber of Commerce Economic Strategy Repor t
Fiscal Considerations
Revenue Sources/Available Capital Improvement Plan funding mechanism s
Expenditure s
Transportation and Circulation .
Street and Road System
Parkin g
Bus Servic e
Rail Service
Air Transportatio n
Taxi Service
Ride Sharing
Pedestrian Networ k
Bikeways
ss 2-~q
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Pla n
Public Facilities and Service s
General Governmen t
Water Service
Sewage Collection and Treatmen t
Storm Drainage and Flood Protectio n
Schools
Fire Protection
Law Enforcement
Communication s
Solid Waste Disposal
Emergency and Medical Service s
Recreational Resources
Parks and Recreation Facilitie s
Recreational Programs — Public and Commercia l
Natural Resource s
Open Space & Viewshe d
Water Resources — Supply & Quality
Air Resource s
Historic and Cultural Resources
Energy Resources
Native Minerals Resource s
Riparian and Wetland Resource s
Wildlife and Habitat Resources & Corridor s
Agricultural Resources
Health and Safet y
Seismic and Geologic . Hazards
Flood Hazard s
Fire Hazards
Noise (Traffic, Railroad, Airport, Commercial Activity — Noise Contours )
Air Quality (Stationary Sources, Sensitive Receptors)
Emergency Respons e
Airport Hazard s
Hazardous Materials/Waste (Summary of Major Producers/Users )
Urban Form and Design
Major Physical Elements
Community Form and Character
Commercial Areas
Industrial Area s
Neighborhood Area s
Streets and Highway s
Principal Landmarks/Historic Resource s
Major Developments in the Planning Stages
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 —Project Pla n
Task 2 .3 Develop Survey/Outreach Question s
Task 2.4 Interview and Outreach to Interest Group s
Task 2 .5 Appoint Citizen's Advisory Committee and hold meeting s
Task 2 .6 Transportation Forecast Model Developmen t
Finalize Transportation Data collection
Origin-Destination Trip Collectio n
Trip Logs, Frequency and Travel Time Data Collection
Transportation Model Review and Determinatio n
Collect County & Other Jurisdiction Land-Use and Traffic Forecasting Dat a
Prepare deficiency reports and future needs assessment s
Task 2 .7 Public Review Draft Background Repor t
Task 2 .8 Community Workshop – Background Report – Discussion of Issue s
Task 2 .9 Newsletter – Background Report Overvie w
Phase Products :
•Administrative Draft Background Repor t
•Survey Instrumen t
•Interview Responses
•Public Review Draft Background Repor t
•Newsletter
•Website Update
•Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summar y
•Community Workshop Summary ,
Phase 3 – Issues, Opportunities, and Vision – 4 months January –Mav2010
During this phase, the General Plan Team will summarize key issues and opportunities based o n
Draft Background Report Findings, input from the community through workshops an d
stakeholder interviews, City staff and consultant observations, and feedback from the Joint Stud y
Sessions . Following community workshops, the General Plan .Team will develop an overal l
Land Use and Circulation vision for the future of San Luis Obispo based on community input .
Task 3 .1 Issues and Opportunities Summar y
Task 3 .2 Newsletter- Overview of Issues and Opportunitie s
Task 3 .3 Community Workshops : Issues and Opportunities
Address General and Specific Areas : Dalidio, SOI areas, Special Design Area s
charrettes (Foothill, Madonna, Grand, Monterey, Sunset Drive-in )
Task 3 .4 Joint City CouncilPlanning Commission Study Session
SS2- '
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Pla n
Phase Products :
Summary of Key Issues and Opportunitie s
Draft Vision Statement
• Staff Report s
Newsletter
•Citizen's Advisory Committee Meetings Summar y
•Community Workshop Summar y
•Website Update
Phase 4 - Alternatives Report – 6-7 months Mav – November 201 0
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 circulatio n
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 an d
population projections for the area . Supporting maps, graphics, and narrative suitabl e
for public review to illustrate the range of alternatives will be developed. The Team
will develop policy alternatives to address the key issues and opportunities identifie d
in Phase 3 .
Task 4 .2 Evaluate Growth Alternatives – The Team will evaluate the three selected alternative s
to understand impacts to existing/programmed public facilities, impacts to th e
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 Internal Review/Commen t
Task 4 .5 Newsletter – Alternative s
Task 4 .6 Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings - Alternative s
Task 4 .7 Community Workshops – Alternative s
Task 4 .8 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Sessio n
Phase Products :
•Administrative Draft Issues and Alternatives Report
•Public Review Draft Issues and Alternatives Repor t
•Staff Reports
•Newsletter
•Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summar y
• Workshop Summar y
•Website Update
SS2-fl
General Plan Update Process . Attachment 1 - Project Plan
Phase 5 – Policy Document – 7 months October 2010-April 201 1
During this phase, the General Plan Team will draft a set of goals, policies, and implementatio n
measures for the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to changes that are needed t o
other elements to ensure consistency .
Task 5 .1 Administrative Draft Goals and Policy Report to include vision statements and goals ,
policies and implementation measure s
Land Use Element including economic development policies. Appropriateness of
current land use designations & policies for meeting residential, commercial an d
industrial needs of community . Land use guidance needed to achieve .urban for m
desired . Economic balance . Identifying new SOI boundary .
• Circulation Element – establish baseline of circulation improvements needed t o
support projected growth within City at acceptable service levels . Identify scope an d
timing of improvements .
•Global climate change policy identificatio n
•Housing Element updates resulting from other change s
•Noise Element updates resulting from other change s
•Safety Element updates resulting from other change s
•Water/Wastewater Element updates resulting from other change s
•Conservation and Open Space Element updates resulting from change s
•Parks and Recreation Element updates resulting from other changes
•Setting information from Background Report will be bound separately to be shared b y
General Plan and ER
Task 5 .2 Land Use Diagram – draft diagram that shows preferred alternative . Identify land us e
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 Workshop s
Task 5 .6 Public Review Draft Policy Documen t
Task 5 .7 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Sessio n
Phase Products :
•Administrative Draft Policy Documen t
•Public Review Draft Policy Documen t
•Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summar y
•Community Workshop Summary
• Staff Report s
•Website Update
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Pla n
Phase 6 – Environmental ImpactReport – 7-8 months January – August 201 1
During this phase, the consultant with input from staff, will prepare a Draft EIR analyzing th e
potential impacts of the Draft General Plan (project description). The EIR will be designed t o
meet the requirements of CEQA and to streamline future City consideration of development an d
public.works projects consistent with the General Plan .
Task 6 .1 Notice of Preparation Distributio n
Task 6 .2 Planning Commission Scoping Meetin g
Task 6 .3 Administrative Draft EIR
Executive Summary- setting, impacts, mitigations, & alternative s
Introductio n
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Land Us e
Circulation
Sustainability and Global Climate Chang e
Other Elements as impacted by proposed change s
Alternatives Analysi s
Cumulative Impact s
Other Regional CEQA Issue s
Fiscal Analysi s
Task 6 .4 Internal staff review of Administrative Draft EI R
Task 6 .5 Public Draft EIR – 45 day public review .
Task 6 .6 Citizens' Advisory Committee meeting s
Phase Products :
•Staff reports
•Administrative Draft EIR
•Public Review Draft EI R
•Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summar y
•Website Update
Phase 7 – Public Review – 6 months August 2011 – March 2012
During this phase, the General ,Plan Team will assist the community, advisory bodies, Plannin g
Commission and City Council in the review of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR ,
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 EI R
Task 7 .2 Advisory Body Hearing s
Task 7 .3 Planning Commission hearings
S32-19
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1'- Project Pla n
Task 7 .4 City Council Hearing s
Phase Products :
•Newslette r
•Staff report s
•Website updat e
Phase 8 – Final Documents and Adoption – 5-6 months March 2012 – August 201 2
During this phase, the General Plan Team will prepare the final versions of the General Pla n
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 encourage d
to attend and participate during the public hearings .
Task 8 .1 Respond to Public Comments on Draft EIR (DE1R )
Comments received during public review of the DEIR are responded to b y
Consultant .
Task 8 .2 Prepare Final EIR (FEIR)
Overriding considerations (if needed) developed for certification .
Task 8 .3 Final General Plan Documents – corrections/updates
Task 8 .4 Adoption Hearing s
Phase Products:
•Camera-Ready General Plan and EIR documents, CDs, and PDFs or HTML for we b
Public Outreach Progra m
Public outreach is a key part of the update program and the Public Participation Plan will b e
developed with the consultant's assistance . The outreach needs to be initiated early to make th e
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, downloadabl e
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 surve y
E-Updates :
Develop an email contact list and send regular updates to maintain interest and generat e
participation . Work with Chamber of Commerce e-blast to get information out to busines s
community .
SS2 - 2(
General .Plan UpdateProcess Attachment 1 – Project Pla n
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 develo p
contact and conduit for information exchange . Contact radio stations for Public Servic e
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 communit y
groups . The role of the group needs to be clearly defined and establishing membership of th e
group participants can present challenges as there are a multitude of stakeholder groups an d
limited membership available. Size s of the group is critical – too small is not representative ,
however more than about 15 becomes unwieldy . The Consultant will assist with definin g
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 participat e
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 Sa n
Luis Obispo County, 'Sierra Club, County of San Luis Obispo, Land 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, Ga s
Company, Phone company, cable and other utility providers, Regional Transit Authority ,
Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad, Transportation providers (both medical and school), Airpor t
operations, County Visually impaired committee, CalFire, Local Tribal Contacts, Advisor y
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 . Us e
breakout sessions, graphics, walking tours, interactive sessions to get input . Charrettes may b e
used for key design areas .
General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 – Project Pla n
Farmers' Market
Set up an information booth at Thursday and Saturday Farmers' Market . and distribute
newsletters, answer questions, get people involved .
Public Hearings & Study Session s
Advisory bodies and Council .
Other considerations :
Are translation services during meetings and outreach in other language(s) for written material s
needed? If so, which languages? Spanish would be most Iikely need .
City Hall/919 Palm Open House Displays :
Have updates and on-going display area for "PIanSLO" process in City Hall and 919 Palm
S32-22.
General Plan Update Timelin e
Activity Name Start Date Finish Date
GP Update
Pram titan 514109 8131/09
Badulrormd Report 813109 2/11 0
Issues and
Opportunities
1/4110 4/30/1 0
Alternadives 513110 11/12/10
Draft Goals an d
Pbiisies Report
1014110 4/711 1
BR 113111 811911 1
Public Review 8122111 3113/12
Final Documents
and Adoption ,
3119112 8131112
Milestone deports
Media Outreach
Wei:ate
E-updates
Community
Workshop s
News
Public Hearings
201 120102009
J MANMDF J JJSJJJMMaMAAADNSFJA A S a N D J F M A
2012
M J J A S o
Public Oirlreac i
Scheduled Days
A M J J A S Na D MJF
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I
M J J A S No D J F M A M JJ A
as. i MaJm asaec n
N0 D J F M A M J J A S O
.ATrAc:t4ME r 2.
Residents for -Quality =Neighborhood s
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
DATE ;August 18, 200 8TO:San Luis Obispo City Counci lVIA:Hand Delivery
MEETING DATE : 8-19-08, ITEM # SS-2
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009-11 GENERAL PLA N
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 t o
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 . Thi s
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" ar e
used interchangeably when, in fact, they are not the same . Citizens are, by definition ,
residents. Stakeholders may not be City residents, but, they have a large presence in th e
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 o f
either the general plan process or the general plan . The proposed plan [Agenda Report, p.SS2-
3] states that the general plan process for charting a vision and plan for growth "must b e
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 an d
create a "baseline" of their desires and wishes for the community . All council and mayora l
candidates supported this approach for the current update at RQN's last City Counci l
candidates forum . This approach is not clearly incorporated in the plan .
An early survey of residents.was the critjcal component in the City's last Land Use Elemen t
update . It is attached for your convenience .
August 18, 2008
RQN - Study Session Re : General Plan Update
Page 2
We strongly support re-using the same survey with perhaps a few additional questions adde d
to cover new issues . Comparing resident responses .to the same questions regarding issue s
such as growth, traffic, air quality etc . is also the only accurate way to answer staff's questio n
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 i s
certainly not economical .
Taking town hall meetings into the neighborhoods is also good public policy . This was als o
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" member s
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 "Citizen s
advisory committee membership" the plan before you refers to the challenge of choosin g
among the "multitude of stakeholder-groups ". [Agenda Report, p . SS2-21].
There was no public participation in the preparation of this proposal [last . paragraph, p . SS2-5].
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 pla n
shall be to get input from and represent the wishes of the people who live in this City . Th e
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 resident s
who will live with the resulting growth, air quality, traffic and other impacts .
Respectfully submitted ,
Brett Cros s
Chairperson, RQ N
Attachment "A"
Opinion Survey Summary
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
OPINION SURVEY RESULT S
As part of the general plan update, the city conducted a survey of residents' opinions o nbroad development issues . The survey was mailed on May 16,,tof the city'sroughly •17,000 residential addresses . One week later, reminder postcards were mailed .Each residential address .in die city had an .equal .chance of receiving a . survey form . B ythe May 31 deadline,585 (28 percent) of the mail-back survey forms had been returned .Statisticians consider this number of responses adequate for ..a valid sample .
Questions and responses are summarized below.._ The numbers in brackets at the end of eac hquestion or subsection show the percentages .of returned survey forms with some response .
(To encourage respondents to make choices, the "no opinion" option was not included o nthe survey form,though it was included in the tabulations.)
This report does not include analysis 'or comments on 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 committe emeetings.
1 . "How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo?"[97:6%]
High - 77 %
Medium - 22 %
Low - 1%.
"What do you see as San Luis Obispo's greatest 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 th etabulation.
By farthemost frequently mentioned item was excessive growth .(247 responses),followed . by traffic and road conditions (9O , housing aftordabrility and conditio n
(45), water availability (46), job opportunities and wages (38), availability o f
parking (29), and homeless isues (27). About 40 other items were mentione d
--including Diablo Canyon and other public safety issues— with each having fewe r
than 18 responses .
community and cooperation (108),
3 . "What do you see as San Luis Obispo's greatest strength?"
This also was an open-ended question .The most frequently mentionetitem was ;lc
--and en space (19 .9 responses), followed b ygeographic location/climate (158), the sense o
presence of colleges (24), and downtown (18).
This question listed 13 aspects of quality of life and asked whether each was "very,"
"somewhat." or "not" important. The categories with a majority responding "very-
important"(and the percentage responses) were:
Natural environme n
same levels 80%)
Property maintenance and-titter contrO (72%)
Pace of life (61%)
Educational opportunities (61%)
Downtown c e activities (54%)
Convenience in getting''around`(51%)
The t itiee aspecte4irit the highest percentage°responding .somewhat important"were:
Recreation/eate n opportiiflkies (54%)-
Shopping opportunities (50%)
OPOillunities to participate in government decisions (48%)
The three categdrits re6eiving the highest • percentages Air "not important" were:
Cultural diversity (26%)
5 . This question asked people how-satisfied they were with each of the aspects o f
quality of life listed in question number 4 . Possible options included "ver y
satisffied,"."neutral," and "very dissatisfied ."
More than one-half the respondents were vii satisfied,with these aspectx
Natfisal environment (71%)
Pace of life (65%)
Educational opportunities (64%)
Downtown character aid activities {60%)
Aspects with more than one-half "neutral" responses were :
Cultural diversity-(6 r)..-
Opportunities to participate lit government decisions (63%).
Job opportuaities'(60%)
Recreation or entertainment Opportunities (51%)
The three aspects with the highest percentages of "very dissatisfied" responses were :
Housing opportunities (31%)
Convenience in getting around`.(25%)
Job opportunities (25%)
(The housin
bs aspects also received the lOwCst percentages of "ver y
satisfied"respond 1 aDd 1i96~ respectively .)
(Percentages responding for each aspect ranged from 97 .1% to 95 .2%.)
(Percentages responding for each aspect ranged from 98 .5% to 95%.)
~,,.:2'2 .
3
{6.This c[akiisiois asked iple to name one area .o(the,cltyy they particularly enjoyed.
The three most =frequently named places, with the corresponding percent of responses ,
were:
Downtown (33%)
Mission plaza (24%)
Creek areas (15%)
Other places named were Laguna Lake Park ,;tither parks,peaks •and.hides;and the
Old Town area, each with less than 8%. 'Some people named more than one place ;all
were tabulated.'[This question was ans erect by 86 .2%%
7.This question asked people . to name one area of the city they did not enjoy. Th e
three most frequently named places, with the corresponding percent of responses ,
were:
Lower Riguera/!.South Street .area (23%)
lail o tng ocatess 13%)
Downtowiii 19%).
Other places named were Mitchel `Park, Laguna area,and airport/Broad Street, each
with less than 8%. Some people named more than one place ; all were-tabulated . [This
question was answered by 64 .8%.]
"Which of the following approaches . to determining allowable growth in the city .4o you
support?"[99 .1%j
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 .
Keep.grroviit'f within available resources (such as water supplies):.85 %
Avoid -harm to the'Akira environment (such as air quality): 79%
Set a total population number which would not be exceeded: 26%
Set a 'boundary rbich the City would not grow beyond : 30%
Set a maximum growth rate .46%
Let the overall growth, of the common ty:.fo}]ow from specific goals(for example ,
more manufacturing jobs,or preserving certain open space areasr 3386
Ten percent indicated "Do not set growth limits."
9 . "If the city was to set a •maximum population size or a boundary t o
which gfl of the-foll~owing =would'you'prefer ?
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 ih cit'y .'size or population: 39%
A substantial increase in city size or population:29~
I do not favor such limits 17 %
(Does not total to"10096''due to Quailing:)
If the city ' was to set a maximum city growthrate, which gal of the following woul d
you prefer?"[97 .3%]
The possible choices and percent indicating support for each were :
No ,growth: 15%
Some increase, but much slower than the state or the county as a whole : 51 %
Growing no faster 'than'Luis' Obispo `Coiinty as a whole : 19%
I do not favor such a limit : 15%
reserving the' natural qualities of an area can require limits qn development an d
economic growth . What limits.are you will ng to set' for the `following types o f
development, in order to help maintain qualities such as open space and relativel y
clean air and uncrowded parks and roads?`
The percentages of respondentsindicating-each choice are shown below. Totals ma y
not equal 100% due to rounding . [Percentages responding to each item ranged fro m
97.1 to 94.]
outward .growth,
,[97 .41
Extent of Develo p ment
No A little Much No
Tvne of develo p ment 'More° ' More More Limit j
a.Housing
b.Tourist/visitor servin g
c.Manufacturin g
d .Shopping/stores
e.Cultural/entertainmen t
f.Medical, legal ,
financial service s
g.Government agencies /
institutions
21 60 12 6
32 43 13 1 2
33 49 13 S
35 46 14 6
13 47 26 1 3
46 37 8 8
,..—~.i 55 }•36 4 5
Accommgdating development and economic rowth can lead to reduced . qualit in oth
w you willingtoet t e:oowing un es cable actors
increase,to accommodate additional'development andeconomic growth"
Tho percentages'of respondents indicating each choice are shown below . Totals ma y
not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged fro m
97.8 to 94.5 .1
Extent pLiucreaase
None A Little Substantia l
,.a ...Air pollution 83 1 5 2
b.castruck trade noise AZ—30 3
o.Airesaft Weise 54 40 6 .
Crowding/delay :
60 36 4d.On streets & roads
e.At parking Taciltles 52 42 6
f.At parks or recreation
facilities 38 52 1 0
Development on:
-66 26 8g.Peaks, hillsides
h.'Farmland, ranchland SI 41'9
i.Creeks; marshes 67 27 6
j.Overall intensitya development 46 5 0
k.Overall-pace of life 51 '43
'13. "San Luis Obispo and the surrounding-'area include `about one-half of the jobs in th e
whole county, and about one-quarter of the houses and apartments . The imbalanc e
between Jobs and housing results ii commuting.'How much effort do you think shoul d
go into each of the following approaches -to deal with this situation?"
The percentages of respondents indicating each .choice are shown below . Totals ma y
not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages -responding to each item ranged fro m
97 .1 to 94.4.j
No
Effort
Some
Effort
Muc h
Effor t
a .Expand roads and parking facilities .17 56 2 7
b.Discourage commuting by individua l
drivers and encourage use of busses,9 34 5 7
c.
van pools, and carpools .
Discourage additional jobs an d
college enrollment in San Luis Obispo .51 31 1 8
d.Encourage housing development i n
San Luis Obispo .45 37 17
This question also included a fill-in space for other methods to deal with commutin g
pressures. -Very few respondents indicated other methods, and some filled in thing s
they wanted or did not want which were not related to commuting .
I 4 . This quest on asked p p e to indicate which of the following forms of developmen t
they supported toaccommodate 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 approac h
are listed below .[95.2%}
Using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for buildings like those which hav e
been built in the neighborhood: 81 %
In existing neighborhoods, using vacant lots for larger or more closely space d
buildings than have been built there : -14 %
In existing neighborhoods, replacing small buildings with larger one= 13 %
At the city's edges, having small or widely spaced building= 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 forms of developmen t
they supported• to accommodate whatever new stores, banks, and offices would b e
allowed in the city. Respondents could indicate support for any of the followin g
approaches . The possible approaches and the percent of survey forms with a favorabl e
response to each approach are listed below .[932%}
In existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally lik e
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 large buildings:21 %
Replacing housing with commercial buildings : 3%
"16. This question asked people to indicate whether the r wanted . less, the same, or . mor :o
the following types of land uses ii certain areas, compared with current conditions .
The percent indicating each choice is listed . Totals may not equal 100% due t o
rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from 97 .1 to 94 .9.[
Less Same More
a .Small second dwellings (*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 2 5
c .Offices (doctors, fawyers) in smal l
neighborhood shopping centers .26 55 1 8
Nursing homes;churches, or schools 27 57 1 5
e.
in areas that are mostly individual houses.
Bars and nightclubs do*ntoa n .42 49 9
f .Restaurants and movie theaters downtown 14 69 1 7
g.In residential areas, home businesses with n o
employees other than residents of the house o r
apartment, but "involving ._small-scale .. product
assembly or 'euiterier visits 26 53 2 1
h .Convenience stores in .resi ential 'areas 28"57 .1 5
i.Auto repair downtown or in shopping centers 29 63 8
j. ,Small city parks in residential areas 3 31 65
This question also included a fill-in space for other items . Very few respondents
indicated other items. Responses were not tabulated .
his question asked w h . uld • rovi ,e less, about _the same, or more o
categories of service. For seventeen categories, a majority o resp ents
favored the same level of service .These categories and the corresponding percentag e
responses, wer -
Flood prevention/control (73%)
Sidewalk improvements (71%)
Bus service/shelters ; Recreation programs; Sewage system (each 67%)
Emergency services/disaster response ; Law enforcement for traffic safety ; Publi c
art (each 64%)
Law enforcement for'-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 ; Stree t
widening/signals (each 55%)
Performing arts (51%).
three ca epries,majoritl'of respondents favored at reservic
Keeping peaks and:hillsides open (56%)
Additional water siurceS (5l%)
Keeping creeks and marshes open (51%)
In four categories, a majority did not want the same level of service, but there wa s
no majority favoring either more or less service :
Category Less Same More
Bicycle paths*..10 43 46
Keeping farm/ranch land open 11 42 4 6
Housing tor low income 23 40 3 6
Shelter for homeless 24 37 39
For no category did a majority of respondents favor a lower level of service .
However, the three categories receiving the greatestpercentage 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 iL more of a'certain 'type of service was favored, should i t
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 servi the distribution o f
funding-pret erence responses are indicated be ow . That numbers are the percentage s
of those favoring more service for each category who prefer the indicated fundin g
Category Pay More Divert Money Both
'Keeping peaks 'and hillsides open 52 42 2
Additional water sources 63 34 2
400'Keeping creeks and marshes open 57 40 3
Disregarding preferences on levels: of service, the three categories with the highes t
percentage support for paying More in taxes or fees are indicated below . These
numbers are' the' percentages-of those favoring more service for each category wh o
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 th e
highest percentage'support for diverting money from other categories were :
Preserving historic buildings (53%)
Housing for low income (52%)
Law enforcement co'neeri irng' nuisances/zoning (52%)
Flood prevention/control (50%)
(Percentages responding to each category ranged from 91 .1 to 96.9.)
method.
18. This open-ended question asked people to name the _facility or,service not availabl e
in San Luis'0bitOdA vitit ii they Would to'haiire Very few respond is i d'cated
something, few `mea~#d thugs w char already available to some p sent (south
county bcons iia = F'p ntservice art in isistun).Raspos ' were`ab t
tabulated.
Questions a 9 artd ; , toncetning-tcnattCy d e p1Oymcae° status, were to -check whether
survey respon4entg :=sinter La =the :population as a a►holik' About 35% of -resp'e dent s
were renters, while the latest (1980) census figures indicated 53% of 'the city's
households rented . A comparison of employment status shows that retired people wer e
somewhat over-represented, while students were under-represented :
Employe:kw =leaking afar ,.
Surr$ey resaondetttg aty;a *nulati`oa Q,$O ensus )
52%;.''46%
College ...,-13% '31 %
Retired and others no t
in labor force 33%23%
Responses of the various subgroups were compared with those from the whole sample to se e
if the different participation rases by 'the subgroupsSbst~ti allyaffected•th -fits
summarized above:. The ,ma joss eon ss are noted below:.
Student'
The number of students responding (66) was probably not sufficient for a valid opinio n
sample for all questions .
Students agreed that the natural environment was very important as an .aspect of qualit y
of life. Howeverin eemnparison with the wholefpopulatiei.'studeitts educational
opportunities and housing ortunttier as more important',and property°. maintenance and
pace of life • at less hnp aat = `L eels of satisfactionwith the arieu aspic weft'.
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 o f
development or reductions in quality-of-life features also was similar to the whol e
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 colleg e
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 '
Re tired
Retired people saw property maintenance as a little more important and downtown characte r
and activities as less important than the whole sample. They were "slightly less
satisfied with the natural environment .
'..t...!...,:,"Con jnPple most favored cep growth
ECSOUTC% ,.W#f rate west.to the whole
sample.' eyartery sllbtly more willing than the whole sample : to; have limits on-cultura l
and entertainnieni r'aci ities, while their willingness to accept reductions i n
quality-of-life features was about the same .
Unlike stucW"f Aver-fewer bars;..Rad,nishtchtba s downtown; an d
they were ,Tess P.Mari",of k)Me-businesses. 'nterestingly, they were also-slighttyless supportive of °granny units,*..
Rem
Renters av ji,,,vee growth limits baled on city size or growth rate ,
and't .Tess withal ; to accept limited housing development (However,a
substantial majority -64%— favored growing much slower than the county :or the state, i f
at all.) They would be "fitly more accepting .of increasesin intensity of development ,
but matched the whole sample in opposition to more air pollution and traffic noise.:.'
C4211191SMI -
The survey copt,0,erk-w0haa .clPenPendf4f4)POrtunity to,somment on the survey, th e
subjects it covered, or any other items of local .interest :Saveralveople'wrot.e. comments
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. Som e
motes from the comments may be included in the commentary .,
rabulitiona
this summary as survey ter**Ill .:Wended to :repot! the basic findings in en easil y
inderstood fP .P% ,CPPPterei .e*tIal?eOttens -are available for reference at th e..
..ommututy Devehapmeasatpepagmesst -Ciry--F alli 990 Pains StreetlPXL-Box 2100, San Lui s
)bispo, California, 93403-8100; phone 805-549-7160.
m I /multi
Tic,.A 18, 200 8
discussion, Council provide d''thefordWingtomments,and direction to
merttiete std agreed that #lam d
bated.but stilt allow for some /aPP ;o9 .
comma bype 1-
,...d -a,t .s what .,Bing:plans.S'o ,fatoibb'
shoe of steps
that ttheiStEdtwill re via*
Aakfeach,major- step Aid
-Remotion Elements not h w tinier ..
M ;will proceed on own trac k
used in 1908 , s h oul d -beused ae aof aid p 1 tdave p
Cr ? (~ C'
y 'k
p.
gam
1!
7a G~'` -
Zq
4
mI.Elittam:rep.resentbe .:coniregalibnOL Y.sue-Mason .
!}hiMi`''
0w
f
Use and Circulation Element update process,,
In respo fsetor HaMPian,L.
c±o sd.she is not repreeerd t tproperty owned by Clint and Connie Piero(' or PhyiNsM donna .
I'''DA T 10
V
4TTAC14ME~lT 3
Council Minutes Tuesday, August 19, 200 8
Following discussion, Council provided the following comments and direction to staff :
•Council Members and staff agreed that prpcupshould hA primariIVJAGidAnt ar ,
,neighhorlmpd ha but still allow for some ap p ropriate representation of importan t
sectors of the community by persons who might not live within the Ci limits e ..
representatives of non-profits, the media community, regional interests, etc).
and will look at options for phasing an d
eneral Plan updates are ultimatel y
the priority of a Land Use Element updat e
s competing for resources as part of th e
•If the update is established as a Major City Goal by Council in January 2009, staff
will look at ways to accelerate some of the steps that were targeted in the draft pla n
to start in May 2009 .
•Staff should use legislative drafts as a tool to make it clear to citizens what is bein g
changed when amending plans . Staff will ,do so to the maximum extent feasible an d
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 potentially make it cleare r
that the process,and each major step, will start with primarily resident involvement .
•The Parks and Recreation Element shall not be tied to the Land Use Element updat e
and instead will proceed on its own track .
•The survey used in 1988 should be used as a point of departure in developing a ne w
survey, but staff should also . be open to new and more relevant questions an d
methodologies for assuring a representative, scientific sampling of communit y
sentiment and vision .
3 .DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR CONGREGATION BETH DAVID ,
MADONNA, TWISSELMAN PROPERTIES .
De p uty Director of Long Range Planning Murry introduced this item .
Carol Florence,representing Congregation Be-h David, John and Susan Madonna ,Rowly and Cathy Twissleman, and Tim and KE ren Twisselman, reviewed the area fo r
which the owners would like to be allowed to p ocess an annexation, General Pla n
amendment, and development request in advance of the more comprehensive Lan d
Use and Circulation Element update process .
In response to CAO Hampian,Ms .Florence confirmed that she is not representing th e
property owned by Clint and Connie Pierce or Phyllis Madonna .
Public Comments
1 0
•Staff will be sensitive to the cost concer n
alternative funding methods . However,G
expensive and Council will need to weig h
within context of all other possible prioriti e
2009-11 Financial Plan .
1
1
~~miim~~~~IINh p°"Nnlldl council mEmouanOu m
DATE :December 9, 201 1
TO :City Council
VIA :Katie Lichtig, City Manage r
FROM :Derek Johnson, Community Development Department Directo r
Prepared by : Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Departmen t
SUBJECT :Item BI : Major City Goal—Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Updat e
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Council with an update on the LUCE Request fo r
Proposal process and describe the proposed structure and process for forming a Communit y
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 a n
advisory body member . All of the submitted proposals were within the approved budget an d
consistent with the advertised scope of work . Staff is now completing reference checks for th e
top consultant team . As a consent item for January 3, staff will prepare an agenda repor t
providing Council and the public with an overview of the selection process.
On January 17 th , staff will bring forward a recommendation for how to structure the Communit y
General Plan Task Force (GPTF). The following is a description of the proposed structure an d
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 Lan d
Use and Circulation Elements, it is typical to have a General Plan Task Force (GPTF) comprise d
of residents and stakeholder group representatives . The
function of the GPTF is to inform the process at key points ,
provide feedback and recommendations, and disseminat e
information to respective stakeholders and related interes t
groups . Staff is recommending the use of the "tripl e
bottom line" concept — People, Prosperity, and Planet — to
identify organizations within constituencies that coul d
represent the community on the GPTF . While participant s
may have a primary focus that represents one component ,
the expectation is that members will have overlappin g
interests that intersect and create a balanced an d
representative community vision for the future of San Lui s
Obispo . The goal of a GPTF is to bring the varied vision s
of community members to bear on the discussions centra l
RED FIL E
MEETING AGEND A
DAT7'aHi /ITEM #I3)_
Land Use and Circulation Elements Update 2
to the LUCE update and to identify where intersections of thought and points of agreement ar e
found .
Previous direction from Council and good planning principles confirm that City residents ar e
critically important to the General Plan update process . In addition to resident participation o n
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 t o
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 th e
completion of the General Plan update process .
GPTF Compositio n
The composition of the GPTF should be representative of broad community interests . To tha t
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 othe r
groups that will be engaged in the update process, and this list serves as a starting point fo r
discussion and focused public outreach .
People Prosperity Planet
Residents Save Our Downtown Sierra Clu b
Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods
Downtown Association SLO GreenBuild
Students Chamber of Commerce ECOSL O
Cal Poly Administration Home Builders Association Bicycle Coalitio n
San Luis Coastal School District Financial community CCCMB
CAPSLO Hospitals RideShare
Housing Authority Arts Community
Transitions-Mental Health Caltran s
Community Foundation SLO Property Owners '
Associatio n
Parent-Teacher Association TBID
Youth Sports Association EVC
Non-profit group s
SLOCO G
Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commissio n
County – Health and Planning
_
Area Agency on Aging
The General Plan update will include robust public involvement and interaction, and staff an d
the consultant team will fully engage all representative groups . The consultant team the City i s
currently negotiating with has a dynamic and very engaging public outreach component that wil l
provide multiple opportunities and methods for public input . The GPTF should be comprised o f
community volunteers who can represent the perspectives and interests of their constituencies .
Land Use and Circulation Elements Update 3
The participants should also view potential conflicts as problems to be solved on behalf of th e
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 Counci l
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 updat e
within the grant timeframe of 2 1/2 years .
Once Council identifies the stakeholder groups to be included in the GPTF, those groups will b e
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 grou p
nominations and Council selection sub-committee nominations would be subject to Counci l
confirmation . More details of the process along with associated GPTF ground rules an d
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 th e
Council before staff began any stakeholder outreach . Based on preliminary internal discussions ,
best practices and past participation, the GPTF could be comprised of the followin g
organizations and residents :
Number Group (in alphabetical order)Categor y
1 Cal Poly Peopl e
1 Chamber of Commerce Prosperit y
1 Downtown Association Prosperity
1 Home Builders Association Prosperity
1 Planning Commission All
2 Residents at large People
1 RQN Peopl e
1 Save Our Downtown Peopl e
1 Sierra Club Plane t
1 SLO GreenBuild Planet
1 SLO Property Owners' Association Prosperit y
1 Student Peopl e
13 TOTAL .
The preceding list is preliminary, and the Council will have an opportunity to formally determin e
the make-up of the GPTF on January 17 .
In addition to the GPTF, the LUCE update effort will include a robust public engagemen t
process with many opportunities for residents and other community members to participate an d
help shape the vision . Workshops, newsletters, public service announcements, social media, an d
other tools will be used to help inform and engage the community . Advisory Body input will b e
garnered for each body's particular area of expertise . In addition, stakeholder interviews ar e
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 captur e
community input as part of the process .
Alternative s
The approach described above has been used successfully in many other jurisdictions . There are
other models for garnering this type of input and two are listed below :
1.The previous General Plan Update process took over seven years to complete and ha d
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 b e
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 fro m
dialogue between interest groups . The community vision will be stronger if divergen t
ideas can be explored and common ground found by members expressing points-of-vie w
and discussing them with each other .
2.The Council could hold open nominations and select participants . This option is no t
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 thei r
voices were not heard leading to difficulty in agreeing to a shared vision, which is th e
goal of the process .
Next Step s
Staff will return on January 3 `d with more details on the consultant team selection process . O n
January 17`h , the Council will be asked to adopt a resolution establishing the General Plan Tas k
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 an d
role of the General Plan Task Force .
A rrAakk M 5. 1J 'r
SGC Sustainable Communities Plante Grants
Approved December 3, 201 0
City of Calimesa – City of Calimesa Sustainability Planning Targeted General Plan Updat e
$325,360Request to fund a targeted sustainability update to existing Land-use, Circulation, and Safet y
General Plan Elements and to create a Sustainabiiity Element for the City's General Plan.
Contact: Gus Rome,Community Development Director (909) 795-980 1
gromo(citvofcalimesane t
City of San Diego – Southeastern San Diego Plan Update $1,000,00 0
Conduct a community plan update and a comprehensive planning and zoning update to suppor t
compact transit oriented development around existing transit corridors .
Contact:.Brian Schoenflsch, Senior Planner (619) 533-6457 bschoenflsch®sankoo.aov
City of Caiipatria – City of Caiipatria Zoning Ordinance & General Plan Update $175,00 0
A comprehensive Element Update and Zoning Ordinance will enable the City of Calipatria to
capitalize on these external developments opportunities (emerging solar and geotherma l
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 Genera l
Plan with special emphasis on revised Circulation, Land Use, and Conservation and Ope n
Space Elements, and implementation through an updates Zoning Ordinance .
Contact Justin G . Arne, Contracted City Planner (760) 337-3883 Iar+ce(theholtgrouD .net
City of Capitola – Targeted General Plan Update $100,00 0
This grant will fund the process of targeting the General Plan Update to integrate and focus th e
update on sustainability, support of the AB 32 GHG emission reduction targets an d
implementation of SB 375 and SB 97 .
Contact David Foster, Housing and Redevelopment Manager (831)475-730 0
afaston d.caDitolaca.us
City of San Luis Obispo – Land Use and Circulation Elements Update $880,00 0
The targeted update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan is intende d
topromote infill development to use existing infrastructure to maximize efficiency. ---
Contact: Kim Muny, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning (805) 781-727 4
kmuny(a slocity ora
,.
ArrA M Qr- 5 a
1 . Planning Grant Application For m
Applicant :
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
Proposed Completion Date : 10-31-201 3
Amount Requested :
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
$ 880,000
Lead Applicant's Name : City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, Lon g
Range Planning Division .
Title of Proposal : General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
Applicant/Representative Contact authorize d
by Resolution
Katie Lichti g
City Manager
Person with Day to Day Responsibility fo r
Plan
Kim Murry
Deputy Director,Long Range Plannin g
(805) 781-7114 (805) 781-727 4
klichtig@slocity .org kmurryAslocity .orq
Check all of the following that are applicable to the proposal :
Focus Area Program Objective s
X Focus Area #1
Focus Area #2
Focus Area # 3
f Applying for 20%EDC set asid e
X Improve air and water quality
X Promote Public Health
Eligibility Requirements X ! Promote Equity
X
X
Consistent with State Planning Prioritie s
Reduces GHG emissions on a permanen t
basis
X
X
Increase affordable housin g
Increase infill and compact development
X
Priority
Collaboration Requiremen t
Considerations
X
X
Revitalize urban and community center s
Protect natural resources and ag land s
X
X
X
Demonstrates collaboration and communit y
involvemen t
Addresses Climate Change impacts
Serves as best practices
X Reduce auto usage and fuel consumptio n
X [Improve infrastructure system s
X Promote Water Conservatio n
X
X
Leverages additional resource s
Serves as an economically disadvantage d
community
X ! Promote energy efficiency an d
} conservatio n
X I Strengthen the economy
__
Serves as a severely economicall y
disadvantaged community
I certify that the information contained in this application, including required attachments, i s
complete and accurate .
Signature Date :
Printed Name and Title :Katie Lichtiq, City Manager, City of San Luis Obispo
2 . Proposal Summary Statemen t
Project Need :Comprehensive updates to the San Luis Obispo City Land Use (LUE) an dCirculation Elements were last completed in 1994 . More recent updates to the Conservation an d
Open Space Element and Housing Element have introduced a series of concepts that need t obe reflected in Land Use and Circulation policies . The City has been participating with the Sa n
Luis Obispo Council of Governments to help develop a "pre" Sustainable Communities Strateg yand is in the process of developing a Climate Action Plan, both of which will likely call fo rchanges in the way land use and circulation infrastructure decisions are made .
Two significant components of climate change legislation, AB 32 and SB 375, combined wit hnew studies linking land use and health, further the need to update City LUE and Circulatio npolicies. Key health indicators have been found to have links to land use and the physical for mof a community . The City's planning and land use decisions affect access to walking and bikin g
trails, open space for recreation, healthy food choices, employment, affordable housing, transi tand services . The land use and circulation elements need to be updated to incorporate thes enewer 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 th eupdate process is to respond explicitly to these goals, by finding ways to increase infill and byevaluating land use needs on a neighborhood basis . A greater focus on greenhouse ga semissions reductions, sustainability and community wellness will become the foundation for th eupdate process .
As the basis for this process, the City intends to develop a comprehensive outreach effort with acommunity task force as a key component . Part of the outreach will include a web-interactiv eneighborhood mapping program . On a neighborhood level, the City can identify physical desig nissues to resolve constraints and reveal opportunities . The final product will develop polic yrecommendations that are based on improving neighborhood quality, safety, access to service sand pedestrian/bicycle linkages as well as identifying appropriate areas for infill an ddensification. The preliminary program will include the following :
•Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmenta lcharacter 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 natura l
beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibran teconomy and addressing disadvantaged communities .
•Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of aSustainable 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 .
3 . PROPOSAL DESCRIPTIO N
a . Threshold Re q uirements
1 . Describe how the Proposal is consistent with the State's Planning Priorities, Sectio n65041.1 of the Government Code .
a.Promote infill development and invest in existing communitie s~---The tar .eted u .date to the Land Use and Circulation Elements is intended to promote infil l•ev-a u-.imize efficienpy.v'en the Land Use and
Circulation Elements were adopted in 1994, the City identified major expansion areas an drequired specific plans to be adopted for those areas . These elements identified an objective o f
placing more emphasis on alternative travel modes other than single occupant vehicle trips andcreating 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 developmen t
areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line . Many of these areas are sensitive for a variet y
of reasons including steeper topography, agricultural uses and visual aesthetics . Infil l
development appears to be a more appropriate approach given the sphere areas' respectiv esensitivities and more recent legislation and planning practice .
b.Protect, preserve and enhance environmental and agricultural lands, and natura land recreational resource s
In 2006, the City adopted a Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) that consolidate sand emphasizes key policies supporting smart growth principles of compact urban form ;
securing a greenbelt around the City; promoting energy conservation ; supporting agricultura l
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 connec t
various points of the community through trails, bikeways and bicycle boulevards in addition toincluding bike lanes on existing and proposed roads . The City's' Short Range Transit Pla n
integrates the local City-run fixed route transit system with objectives of providing transit withi ntheY4mile point of all residents . The existing policies in the COSE are still valid and reflect thecommunity's values .The update process will build on these values by focusing the update oninfill.
r'c . Encourage location and resource- efficient developmen t
The General Plan policies and programs are implemented through development (setbacks fro m
sensitive resources, avoidance of hillside development, affordable housing requirements, parksdedication requirements, etc .) and as part of the two-year budgeting process which allocate sfunds to open space acquisition, infrastructure improvements and other community needs . Th e
General Plan implementation has resulted in planning and financing to support a vibran tcommunity. The existing General Plan laid the framework that will now be used for a targete d
update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in order to take the next step toward s
sustainability and fully incorporating recent legislation requirements and objectives to respond t oregionalissues.
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 200 6
The City has taken a leadership role in greenhouse gas emission reductions . In 2009, the Cit yconducted a baseline emissions inventory (using 2005 as a base year) in anticipation o f
developing a Climate Action Plan . In 2010, the City collaborated with California Polytechni c
State University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), to develop a draft Climate Action plan to develo p
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 tha t
key land use and circulation strategies will be incorporated into the targeted General Plan
update . The Draft Climate Action Plan (DCAP) contains many strategies, however severa l
approaches relate directly to an update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements . Thes e
strategies will result in permanent reductions in regional greenhouse emissions by implementin g
more efficient land use patterns (i .e . mixed-use development); by maintaining a mix of transit ,
bike and pedestrian access choices ; b increa in •_
the City ;and by looking at ways to achieve key services within 1/2 mile of neighborhoods . Th e
City of San Luis Obispo has developed as a regional employment center for San Luis Obisp o
County .Providing more housing opportunities in the City, particularly through infill, can reduc e
emissions associated with commuter traffic .
While indicators may include things such as the number of houses built ; linear feet of bike trail s
created ; and zoning/density increases, an updated emissions inventory in future years wil l
provide the ultimate method of documenting the combined impact of the strategies adopted .
b. Any Applicable Regional Pla n
The City's General Plan is consistent with the smart planning principles embodied in th e
regional blueprint -Community 2050 -adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Government s
(SLOCOG). In advance of adopted State Air Board emissions reductions standards, SLOCO G
has been collaborating with the incorporated cities and the County to develop a precursor to th e
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) required by SB 375 . The targeted update of the Lan d
Use and Circulation Elements proposes to incorporate strategies listed in both the blueprint an d
the pre-SCS to address the connection between land use and transportation in compliance wit h
SB 375 . This effort will be a principle example of local planning incorporating State, regiona l
and local objectives into documents that can be used as examples for other communities .
Some of these strategies may include establishing minimum residential densities ; encouragin g
TODs; working with employers to provide TDM programs ; reducing the reliance on parkin g
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 Proposa l
SLOCOG has provided a letter indicating that the proposed project (targeted update of the Lan d
Use and Circulation Elements)is consistent with the region's plans (see page 33).
Step 3b : Program Objective s
Improve Air and Water Qualit y
The City's Conservation and Open Space Element has strong policies to support healthy air an d
water quality . Program 2 .3 .3 indicates that the City should implement public transit and bicycl e
and pedestrian oriented land use and design strategies in n development as well as strivin g
to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips in fossil-fueled vehicles . A targete d
update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements will develop projects & programs to furthe r
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 fo r
larger commercial developments . In addition, the recycled water created in excess of th e
demand is discharged back to the creek thereby recreating stream conditions that hav e
supported a resurgence of the native steelhead trout population . The City co-sponsors a yearly
creek clean-up day where hundreds of volunteers remove debris and trash from creeks in th earea prior to the rainy season . While overall water quality in native streams is relatively hig hthere are discrete areas where pigeon droppings and homeless encampments have degrade dquality. The City is working with state and local agencies to address both issues . An indicato rof 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 pla napproved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board . The plan implements a wide variety o fwater quality strategies (i .e . pre- and post-construction activities, homeowner activities ,restaurant and business operations, etc .) as well as provides an extensive outreach componen t
to educate City residents and developers understand how even small actions impact wate rquality.
While the targeted general plan update will include and support improved air and water qualit yefforts, this grant application is not targeting these strategies as focused indicators of success .
Promote Public Healt h
Recent information is increasingly linking key health indicators such as obesity to land use an dthe physical form of a community . The City's planning and land use decisions can affect acces s
to everyday physical activities such as walking and biking, availability of open space fo rrecreation 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 als osupport successful aging in place. The General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo contain spolicies and programs throughout that support strategies to meet the basic needs of al lresidents; to maintain the City's unique sense of place ; to foster sustainable development ; torespect 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 wil lbuild 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, a n
especially important indicator for public health is early childhood obesity since this is a stron gpredictor 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 . Thisnumber increased to just over 37% of children in 2009 . In addition, of the adults with diabetes i nSan Luis Obispo County, nearly half are overweight putting the County 57 th out of 59 countiesfor the percent of overweight diabetic adults .
While the policies and programs in the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements may not be th e
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 neighborhood scan influence travel mode choice . If walking or biking is chosen over a car trip, health benefitswill result . Access to bus service also can have a beneficial effect because riders will walk t otheir bus stop and resulting destination . The goal of the targeted general plan update is to fin dways 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 a nannual traffic safety program which identifies and prioritizes high collision locations for safet ymeasures. In 2009 the City was honored with the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Publi c
7
Agency Achievement Award for this program, one of the highest international awards an agenc y
can receive for its Transportation practices . One of the goals of the targeted general pla n
update is to expand upon and integrate these practices into land use and circulation policie s
and programs .
Promote Equit y
Land Use and Circulation Element policies that accommodate all sectors of the community ar e
likely to promote equity . The Land Use Element update will strive to promote equity throug h
citizen collaboration in the formation of policies that provide access to housing, transit and
services for all sectors of the community . As already addressed in the City's Housing Elemen t
update, LUE policies will need to support affordable, high quality, socially integrated an d
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, coff e
talks, flyers, social media and surveys), meetings and hearings will be conducted to ensur e
community input is reflected in the Proposal . The process will take advantage of innovativ e
technologies to the greatest extent financially feasible . The wide variety of options fo r
participation will be designed to include the disadvantaged . A public participation plan will b e
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 t o
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 an d
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 develo p
contact and conduit for information exchange . Contact radio stations and prepare new s
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/educat e
and solicit feedback . Use breakout sessions, graphics, interactive sessions to get input .
•Presentations to Community interest groups : Schedule speaking engagements befor e
community groups — Kiwanis, Rotary, Board of Realtors, Home Builders Assoc ., AIA ,
schools, etc .
•Farmers' Market : Set up an information booth at Farmers' Markets and distribut e
newsletters, answer questions, get people involved .
•Bi-lingual outreach — Community Action Partnership, Housing Authority, schools an d
other sources for distribution .
Increase Housing Affordability
The City recently received certification from the Department of Housing and Communit y
Development for its updated Housing Element (HE) in June 2010 . As part of the HE update, th e
City demonstrated its ability to accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) o f
1,589 dwellings by December 2014 ; developed programs to facilitate provision and financing of
affordable housing ; and adopted policies and programs consistent with State housing objective s
and legislation .
The HE update includes numerous programs and tools for implementation . While the current site s
capacity evaluation proves the City can meet its RHNA over the next five years, the City is lookin g
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 capacit y
evaluation . The Proposal involves a pro-active approach in this effort to evaluate where areas o f
higher density, infill or mixed use housing may be appropriate . Consequently, updates to the LU E
will not only implement the current adopted policies but will go beyond to anticipate where futur e
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 plannin g
process . Specific affordable housing strategies of the Pre-SCS that would be implemented wit h
the LUE update include : 1) Promote the rezonin of existing urban areas where resources an d
services are available to accommodate residential densities at least 15 units per acre or more t o
provide for low- and very-low income housing ; and 2) Promote the development of new multi-famil y
projects that include Transportation Demand Management measures, such as reduced parking fo r
affordable, workforce, or senior housing projects .
The LUE update will also assist with implementation of AB 32 and the City's Draft Climate Action
Plan (DCAP). Specific strategies of the DCAP that promote affordable housing include : 1) Reduc e
impact fees for secondary dwelling units and 2) Require projects that receive affordable housin g
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 housin g
opportunities, implementing housing element policies and programs, and reporting to Council an d
the State on progress of achieving objectives . The Housing Programs Manager will be activel y
involved in the update process to ensure affordable housing goals are being addressed .
Revitalize Urban and Community Center s
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 LU E
"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 commercia l
core to continue to be healthy, the LUE and Circulation Element updates will build on thi s
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 pedestria n
linkages will be a key component of new policies that will be designed to guide the future of th e
downtown . The framework for these policies will focus on the following :
•Incentives that will continue to facilitate downtown housin g
•Policies that incentivize adaptive re-use of historic building s
•Flexible parking standard s
y • Options for providing higher residential densitie s
•Sustainable, accessible and affordable transportation option s
•Circulation improvements that cater to pedestrian and bicycle access
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 ar e
already under way and new LUE and Circulation Element policies will be designed to respec t
the need for public improvements, land use strategies and a contemporary balance of housin g
and commercial uses that reduce vehicle miles traveled while attracting viable commercial lan d
uses .
Promote Infill and Compact Developmen t
A primary focus of the targeted General Plan update will be to develop strategies to promote
infill and compact development.This effort will identify areas where there is a potential fo r
increased development as well as address the walkability of neighborhoods and access t o
healthy foods, recreation, employment, services and transportation .The targeted update wil l
develop a land use scenario that is consistent with the regional blueprint and Pre SCS,as wel l
as eve op a circulation infrastructure plan to support it .
or whether there appears to be a lac of specific services Marva:
The update will build on this information by reviewing the housing sites inventory from th e
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 t obe 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 Cit y
funds to better perform multi-modal modeling as well as provide more accurate modelin g
capabilities . The traffic model will be used to evaluate land use scenarios and alternatives a s
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 t o
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 th e
already developed model and to reduce project costs .
A key piece of the targeted update process will be the involvement of a community task forc e
team that will provide input . Task force team members will include stakeholders such a s
representatives from SLOCOG, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Cal Poly, Housin g
providers, Sierra Club, Air Pollution Control District, Land Conservancy, Rideshare
organizations, Native Americans, County Planning, Chamber of Commerce, Caltrans, San Lui s
Coastal Unified Schools, County Health, appropriate City staff (i .e . the Natural Resource s
Manager, Housing Programs Manager, Fire Marshall, Utilities Managers, etc .), City Advisory
Bodies and the San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition .
The City is preparing for the targeted update by developing an interactive neighborhoo d
mapping proiect to identify neighborhood boundaries and proximity to usm a serv e
residents' daily needs . The City's GIS staff will create a base map with physical features an d
barriers (natural and man-made). The staff will then create a web application to captur e
residents' input regarding the boundaries of their respective neighborhoods and perceive d
needs . Staff will then overlay these neighborhood boundaries with information regardin g
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 ' an d'/2 mile buffers will be delineated . This effort will identify whether neighborhoods are well-served
r
Protect Natural Resources and Agricultural Land s
San Luis Obispo's desirability as a place to live, visit and do business is closely tied to its sceni c
character, environmental quality and surrounding open space and agricultural lands . It is traverse d
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 an d
water quality, protecting view sheds and defining its urbanized boundaries .
The targeted update will directly assist natural resources and agricultural land protection goal s
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 concentrat e
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 transportatio n
corridors ; 3) Encourage new office development and concentration of residential uses near majo r
transportation facilities and corridors ; and 4) Support new development in the mixed-use an d
medium- and high-density land use categories located within 'A-mile of a transit node, existing bu s
route, or park and ride facility with regularly scheduled, daily service at a minimum density of 2 0
dwelling units per acre .
The LUE update will also address these goals through implementation of strategies included in th e
City's Draft Climate Action Plan (DCAP). The LUE update will be consistent with the Californi a
Wildlife Action Plan because existing policies in the LUE and COSE protect natural communitie s
and biological resources consistent with the requirements for listed species by the U .S . Fish an d
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Native Plan Society an d
species of local concern .The City does not have an established Natural Community Conservatio n
Plan for its area,however`existing general plan policies and programs identify habitats of concer n
*and-enforce avoidance of these habitats through development conditions of approval (i .e . throug h
creek setbacks or preservation of other habitats). Mineral extraction within City limits is strictl y
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 throug h
dedication, easement or gift approximately 5,500 acres of land in the City's greenbelt since the las t
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 taske d
with implementing Conservation and Open Space policies and programs that encourage natura l
resource and agricultural land protection . The Natural Resources Manager will be actively involve d
in the targeted General Plan update process to ensure conservation and open space policies an d
programs are effectively implemented to achieve desired results .
Reduce Automobile Usage and Fuel Consumptio n
Inherent in the targeted update of the General Plan focus on infill and densification is th e
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 greate r
focus on travel modes other than single occupant vehicles, the focus of this targeted update wil l
be on the type of development patterns that result in those outcomes .The goal is to identify
as appropriate for • reater housin densi in closer roximi to em I to ment and services a s
well as eva uate connectivi ~. -• -.ces and em lo ment . Included i n
the update will be programs for complete streets, separate bike and pedestrian
linkages,complete neighborhoods,user-friendly transit, and a focus on health-related benefits .
This effort will be consistent with existing local, regional and statewide policies . The idea o f
completeneighborhoods also strives to address the California Transportation Plan observatio n
that the number of non-work trips now exceeds the number of home-to-work trips . Much of thi s
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 effort s
to integrate regional blueprint planning with Caltrans goals for a multi-modal transportatio n
system that is efficient and effective . The City too wants to address the community's futur e
mobility needs in a fully integrated, balanced system that is safe and sustainable for all trave l
modes . Developing a land use scenario that promotes infill and the circulation system t o
support it will be the key to a successful targeted update .
Improve Infrastructure System s
The proposed update will evaluate the status of local infrastructure systems needed to suppor t
the City's future circulation needs as well as implementation of the Climate Action Plan, and a n
updated Land Use Element . Any improvements identified will be intended to improve access ,
connectivity, and services with an emphasis on reducin vehicle miles traveled and l i
people to services .Implementation of a complete transit, pedestrian an bike system that i s
essential to neighborhood connectivity and to the reduction of GHG emissions is a componen t
of the proposed update and will further the efforts already underway as a component of th e
City's Bicycle Transportation Plan .The City is working with the County and regional agencies i n
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 wil l
become essential to incorporate into the General Plan update in order to continue implementin g
this important community goal .
Promote Water Conservatio n
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 implementin g
water policy . The City recently completed a comprehensive update to its Water and Wastewate r
Element (WWE) in July of 2010 . The updated WWE addresses the provision of water an d
wastewater services to support the LUE's development ca pacity,The purpose for the WWE
update was to reflect current water supply conditions, i , reflect th e
community's reduced per-capita usage (a reflection of on-going conservation programs), an d
revise policies to strengthen reliable water service to the community .
The targeted General Plan update will build on existing programs to assist water conservatio n
goals and to include appropriate strategies identified in the draft CAP . Strategies unde r
consideration include expanding the recycled water program ; creating incentives to replace lawn s
with water efficient landscaping ; encouraging development of graywater systems for houses a s
well as promoting rainwater harvesting and other water-saving strategies .
The targeted General Plan update will be consistent with the San Luis Region Integrated Regiona l
Water Management Plan (IRWMP) because General Plan goals and policies promote IRWM P
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
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 WW E
requires implementation of water-efficient programs that comply with State-mandated water us e
reductions and the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements will be consistent with thes e
programs .
Promote Energy Efficiency and Conservatio n
The Conservation and Open Space Element was adopted in April of 2006 . This updat e
significantly expanded energy efficiency and conservation efforts by adding new programs t o
enhance conservation of energy and materials as well as promote green/sustainable buildin g
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 th e
SLOCOG PSCS by advancing the following energy efficiency and conservation strategies : 1 )
Reduce travel times and trips by encouraging local jurisdictions to provide a wide .1 0-•fhousin g
es an sizes ;2) Suppo e incorpora ion of design ea ures .. • rastructure in new project s
that enable access by transit, bicycling, and walking ; and 3) Support the implementation of
programs and projects that enhance multimodal transportation choices, limit automobile-oriente d
development and promote pedestrian scale communities .
The LUE update will also assist with implementation of AB 32 through the City's Draft CAP whic h
contains specific strategies to address energy efficiency and conservation .
Strengthen the Econom y
The City's 2009-2011 Financial Plan identifies economic development as a major City goal . Th e
objective of this goal is to develop strategies to increase economic development includin g
emphasis on head-of-household jobs and environmentally sustainable businesses . The targete d
General Plan update will further this major City goal by addressing components of the actio n
plan, such as : 1) Business retention and expansion, including workforce availability and quality ,
regulatory constraints, access to capital, and environmental sustainability ; and 2) Collaborativ e
economic development efforts on environmental issues, including promoting environmentall y
sustainable jobs and identifying ways to make it easier for residents and businesses to adop t
sustainable practices .
The targeted update will directly assist economic development goals implemented through SB 37 5
and the SLOCOG PSCS by advancing the following strategies : 1)Support the establishment of
minimum residential densities on opnrooriate sites in urban areas where resources are availably;
2) Seek change in the fiscal relationship and tax distribution mechanisms between the State an d
local agencies to provide adequate funding that will support good land use and developmen t
practices ; and 3) Work with local jurisdictions and Caltrans to implement a Scenic Byway an d
Scenic Highway designation for state routes where applicable .
The City has an Economic Development Manager tasked with implementing economi c
development policies and programs that improve the economic strength of the City throug h
business development, retention and expansion, job creation and the promotion of tourism . Th e
Economic Development Manager will be actively involved in the targeted General Plan updat e
process to ensure economic development policies and programs are effectively implemented .
3c. Priority Consideration s
1 .Proposal demonstrates ongoing collaboration with state, regional and local stakeholders an d
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 group s
(ECOSLO and Sierra Club), health agencies (County Public Health Department, Schoo l
District), and low income households (i .e . Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, Communit y
Action Partnership) an extensive public outreach plan will be part of the update process . Th e
grant funding of the update process will allow the City to engage a consultant team with specia l
expertise in public involvement and outreach .
c.In addition to the task force input, surveys, workshops, on-line resources, and possibl y
charrettes or visual preference surveys will be used to help the community and the stakeholde r
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 fo r
communities across the state .
a.The targeted update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will include tools an d
processes that will be available on a special site on the City's web that will b e
created for this project . The neighborhood mapping project will be available an d
detailed on the site as well as the draft Climate Action Plan and links to othe r
resources such as the draft Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy, th e
real blueprint and other regional and state resources .
b.Regular upcfafes will be posted and emailed to interested parties. Social media ma y
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 wit h
the local newspaper to do a topical series on progress of the update process at ke y
points . The City will collaborate with SLOCOG to allow use of the City's traffic mode l
where needed . Any other tools that may be available and described by th e
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 hav e
already begun and various steps completed . Earlier in 2010 the City completed a n
update to its travel demand model which now includes multimodal forecastin g
capabilities such as the ability to model the City's transit system . In addition, the Cit y
completed a Major Investment Study for the Highway 1 Corridor which includes Cit y
wide forecasts for .varinus regionalyLh scenarios identified by the Councilof
Governments,The cost for both these projects totaled $570,000, $250,000 of whic h
was funded from City General Funds and $320,000 of which was funded Stat e
Highway Account (SHA) funds .A draft plan for a key infill area is in process :,The
Broad Street Corridor Plan received $110,000 in slate Community-base d
Transportation Grant funds as well as $42,000 in City General funds for traffi c
analysis and staff in-kind services .
b.The City GIS staff has also begun work on the interactive neighborhood identification ..project .Comm ni Development and GIS staff will com • lete the bulk of that ro'ein advance of the• r-.s an • i wl serve as part of the background data t oinform the process . In addition, $30,000 in ARRA Stimulus grant funds an d
approximately 8 months of staff time have been devoted to development of a draf tClimate Action Plan . The DCAP has developed strategies that will inform the Lan dUse and Circulation Elements update process .c.Future contributions by the City will involve staff time to provide the environmenta lreview and guide the update process ; volunteer and paid intern hours to verify lan duse data where required ; in-house assistance for travel demand modeling of variou sland use assumptions, and some City funding for legal notices and filing fees . Th esourceofCity-funded activities will be from the General Fund .
4 .Proposal Addresses Climate Change Impact s
a.The City's draft Climate Action Plan identifies ways to reduce greenhouse ga semissions in compliance with AB 32 . The City was also fortunate to participate in aLocal Government Commission effort (funded through the Kresge Foundation) t odevelop climate adaptation information and strategies specific to San Luis Obisp oCounty. The LGC is in the process of finalizing their report, and strategies that wer edeveloped through stakeholder and topic expert input and the public process will b eavailable for inclusion as part of the targeted update . Examples of county-specifi cinformation include details of sea level rise ; vegetation changes that may occur give n
1 climate change ; identifying populations sensitive to extreme weather conditions o rI populations with limited ability to respond to climate-related emergencies (i .e . floods o r1wildfires); 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 density .The evaluation of those areas will address their constraints to develop ment inch iriing
the potential for exposure to wildland fire or f cods (if proximate to a creek) in the event.
climate changes result in more extreme weather-related events . Circulation elemen tpolicies and programs will have to include strategies for mobility in the event of extrem eevents for existing and proposed modalities .
5 .Economically disadvantaged community
Information from the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) indicates the median househol dincome for the City of San Luis Obispo is $40,579 . The median household income for the stat eof California is listed at $61,154 . Therefore at 66% of the state's median household income, th eCity of San Luis Obispo qualifies as a disadvantaged community . The ACS does not evaluat eincome levels at the block level, however information in the 2000 Census show areas of the Cit ywhere households with less than 80% and 60% of the median household income are locate d(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 opportunitie sfor the community to envision the future of the City's form and function . With th eexpressed goal to increase affordable housing opportunities in close proximity t oservices and regional employment, the targeted update to the General Plan will provid ehousing for local workers which will benefit the community.b.The City will request that the public outreach component of the process includ etechniques to reach the more economically disadvantaged members of the community .This may include targeted outreach in Spanish . Outreach will include efforts to get input
Ar AC E--%M i
7 counci laq en 6a aepout
Medingy.2c,///
ham N
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :Kim Murry, Community Development Deputy Directo r
SUBJECT :REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE FOR THE
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE PROCES S
INCLUDING FISCAL ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T
REPORT (EIR) – SPECIFICATION 91138 .
RECOMMENDATION :
A.Approve the work scope for the General Plan update process including the fiscal analysi s
and EIR consultant services in connection with the Land Use and Circulation Element s
update project and authorize staff to proceed with sending out Request for Proposa l
(RFP) documents to qualified consulting firms .
B.Authorize the City Manager to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm fo r
consultant services provided proposal is within budgeted amount .
DISCUSSION :
Backgroun d
In August 2008, Council received a presentation of a proposed work plan for a comprehensiv e
update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements in preparation for the 2009-2011 Financia l
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 ne w
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 Counci l
(SGC) to fund the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements . The SGC notified the Cit y
of the grant award in December of 2010 and the Council identified update of the General Plan a s
an "Other Important Objective" as part of the 2011-2013 Financial Plan . General funds in th e
amount of $367,500 for 2011-2012 and $67,500 for 2012-2013 were identified to leverage th e
$880,000 in grant monies .
Situation
The RFP attached to the staff report reflects the grant-required work program . The preliminar y
program will include the following :
• Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmenta l
character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo through 2030 .
132-1
Council Agenda Report — Land Use and Circulation Element update RF P
Page 2
•A comprehensive guide for decision-making based on land use, design, circulation an d
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 econom y
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 achiev e
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 growt h
• Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing .
•Promote energy efficiency & conservation and incorporate Climate Action Pla n
strategies .
•Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate Transit Oriente d
Developments (TOD).
•Identify programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the single occupan t
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 goa l
•Neighborhood mapping effor t
•South Broad Street Corridor Plan
•Healthy Cities initiatives
•Pedestrian circulation plan
•Consistency with SLOCOG's Regional Blueprint Community 2050 Comprehensiv e
Planning Effor t
•Nightlife Public Safety Assessmen t
•Airport compatibility issue s
•Congestion relie f
•Multi-modal service standard s
•Evaluation of Sphere of Influence area s
•Avila Ranch development concep t
Staff developed a work scope for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update effort, which i s
part of the RFP attached to this report (Attachment 1). The work scope was developed from th e
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 th e
environmental and fiscal evaluation associated with that alternative, and to bring the updat e
through the process . Staff anticipates that no one consulting firm will have all of the expertis e
required to accomplish these tasks and that a consultant team will need to be assembled . The
Council Agenda Report — Land Use and Circulation Element update RF P
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 updat e
process such as environmental review and fiscal analysis .
Previous Council direction regarding the importance of engaging residents and neighborhoo d
representatives in the update process and of the 1988 survey "starting point" has been included i n
the RFP . One issue that may be new to Council is the Avila Ranch development concept . Thi s
140-acre site currently designated Business Park is located on Buckley Road and is one of th e
areas designated in the Housing Element as a property to explore for residential or mixed us e
development potential . An applicant has expressed interest in pursuing a General Pla n
Amendment and Zone Change to accommodate a mix of dwellings, business park ,
neighborhood-servicing commercial space and parks, open space and community gardens . Du e
to timing of the update process, evaluation of this development concept should occur as part o f
the Land Use and Circulation Elements update so that overall development capacity and deman d
can be assessed .
Consultant Selection Timelin e
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
1 .Issue RFP 9/21/1 1
2 .Conduct pre-proposal conference 10/5/1 1
3 .Receive proposals 10/28/1 1
4 .Complete proposal evaluation 11/10/1 1
5 .Conduct finalist interviews 11/17/1 1
6 .Finalize staff recommendation 11/22/1 1
7.Award contract 12/5/1 1
8 .Execute contract 12/12/1 1
9 .Start work 12/16/11
While the work will begin before the end of the year, the community engagement process and th e
important work program elements will be undertaken after the first of the year .
CONCURRENCE S
Other City Departments ; including Finance & I .T., City Attorney's Office, Public Works an d
Administration were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's wor k
program and RFP . Staff provided a presentation of the grant objectives to the Plannin g
Commission in January 2011 . Though no actions were taken at that time, the Plannin g
Commission voiced strong support for the grant and work scope .
FISCAL IMPAC T
General funds in the amount of $367,500 for 2011-2012 were identified to leverage the $880,00 0
in grant monies . An additional $67,500 was appointed for FY 2012-2013 for costs associate d
with the traffic analysis . The contract for the grant performance requires that 15% of th e
payment be withheld until the grant is closed out . This provision has been included in the RF P
contract information .
Council Agenda Report — Land Use and Circulation Element update RF P
Page 4
ALTERNATIVE S
Provide specific direction to staff to eliminate elements of the work scope that are not required a s
part of the grant in order to minimize cost . This alternative is not recommended because eac h
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 Effor t
ATTACHMENT S
1.Draft RFP including the Scope of Wor k
2.Proposers List
3.Letter regarding Avila Ranch proposa l
T:\Grant Management\SGC Grant\RFP\RFP-CC Report .docx
ent 1Specification No . 91138
city o f
san luis oB1 sp o
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Notice Requesting Proposals fo r
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDAT E
FISCAL ANALYSIS AND EI R
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for consultant assistance to conduct a Genera l
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 Counci l
Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
Proposals received after said time will not be considered . To guard against premature opening, eac h
proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Division in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposa l
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 Cente r
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 fo r
proposals .
Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Kim Murry at (805 )
781-7274 or via email at kmurry@slocity .org.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities .
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410 .
B2-5
1 ,,
peci cation o.
11 ,
S u ecification No .91138
TABLE OF CONTENT S
General Plan Backgroun d
Strategic Growth Council Grant
Scope of Work
Community Participatio n
B.General Terms and Condition s
Proposal Requirement s
Contract Award and Executio n
Contract Performance
C .Special Terms and Condition s
Contract Term
Estimated Quantitie s
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedul e
Unrestrictive Brand Name s
Start and Completion of Wor k
Accuracy of Specification s
D.Agreement
E.Insurance Requirement s
F.Proposal Submittal Forms
Proposal Submittal Summary
Description of Grant-Approved Work Progra m
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualificatio n
A.Introduction 1
.1
2
4
7
1 2
1 2
1 3
1 3
1 7
2 1
23
25
25
26
3 5
36
ent 1
Section A
INTRODUCTIO N
The City of San Luis Obispo is seeking proposals from qualified consulting firms to prepare an update t o
the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan and prepare the associate d
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City is seeking a multi-disciplinary project team of qualified
firms and individuals (Consultant Team). Because numerous disciplines are required to undertake thi s
project, the City anticipates that the Consultant Team will be composed of a Prime Consultant and one o r
more sub-consultants .
The City will not accept a proposal as responsive if it covers only a portion of the Scope of Wor k
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 EI R
certification
•Infrastructure Feasibility and Finance Plan and Nexus Stud y
GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUN D
San Luis Obispo is situated in the Central Coast Region of California, midway between San Francisc o
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 Obisp o
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 recognitio n
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 Bicyclist s
The City traces its roots back to the Native American cultures and subsequent colonization perio d
associated with establishment of the Mission by Fr . Serra in 1772 . It has grown into a 12 .8 square mil e
charter city of approximately 44,948 people . San Luis Obispo has a special feeling due to its histori c
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 ope n
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 an d
outside the city.The City is fortunate to have several historic neighborhoods, walkable streets, and a n
engaged community .
The City's first General Plan was adopted in 1961 . The Land Use and Circulation Elements saw majo r
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 communit y
values. It is used consistently by the City's staff, advisory bodies and Council to guide decision s
regarding development and capital expenditures .
The 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements are structured with a discussion of values and goal s
followed by principles and implementation programs . A program-level EIR was prepared and certifie d
for the two elements. The General Plan also contains elements addressing Housing (certified in July
Attachment 1
Specification 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.slocity .org .
Development Patter n
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 orde r
to provide for the gradual assimilation of new residents and the City's ability to provide resources an d
services . Over the last ten years, the number of housing units (both affordable and unrestricted) in th e
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 annial 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 ((ASP): Both plan areas contai n
significant open space and park features . The MASP accommodates up to 868 residential units in additio n
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
OASP is planned for up to 979 residential units and 15,000 sq . ft . of neighborhood commercial use . The
City-sponsored annexation of the GASP was approved by LAFCO but is in the process of an electio n
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 ISSUE S
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 sustainabl e
communities grant through the Strategic Growth Council (SGC). Several objectives were identified b y
the grant and the final product is anticipated to contain policy recommendations that are based o n
improving neighborhood quality,safety, traffic congestion relief, access to services and pedestrian/bicycl e
linkages as well as identifying appropriate areas for infill and densification and ways to address th e
Sphere of Influence areas . The preliminary program will include the following :
•Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmenta l
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 an d
addressing disadvantaged commumities .
•Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainabl e
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
A
•Identify the circulation system that is needed to appropriately balance the community's
values and the need for growt h
•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 Financia l
Plan to address neighborhood concerns related to property maintenance, parking, neighborhood traffi c
management, noise, and other nuisances . Additional staffing was authorized to provide increase d
monitoring and enforcement as well as more public outreach and participation.
Neighborhood Mapping .City staff is currently designing a community engagement tool that will enabl e
community members to identify their neighborhood boundaries, assets, and needs. This interactive too l
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 i s
definitions of neighborhood boundaries .
South Broad Street Corridor Plan .The City has been developing a plan to accommodate residential infil l
and enhancement of a 132 acre area of the City currently zoned for commercial service uses . The plan i s
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 th e
adoption of the South Broad Street Corridor Plan .
Healthy Cities Initiatives .The Council has expressed interest in healthy cities . initiatives and the lin k
between health and land use planning .
Pedestrian Circulation Plan .The Council has identified the goal of developing a Pedestrian Circulatio n
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 SLOCO G
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 concept s
will need to be reviewed with the County Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Airpor t
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 traffi c
congestion (like street modifications, intersection improvements, pedestrian improvements, bicycl e
facilities, sidewalks, trip reduction programs, traffic signal operations, Los Osos Valley Road interchange ,
Prado Road construction, and public transit).
-3-
B2-9
ent 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 incorporatin g
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 communit y
goals for both land use and circulation and evaluate viable options for their implementation . As an
example, the South Broad Street Corridor PIan envisions an intensification of land uses . An analysis o f
the projected traffic forecasts unacceptable levels of service on Broad Street . The update process shal l
seek solutions to these issues .
Avila Ranch .An area identified in the Housing Element as having potential for residential developmen t
has an applicant interested in developing a Specific Plan for the area that would accommodat e
approximately 600 homes, 15 acres of business park and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood-commercia l
space, and 30 acres of parks and open space . There is an opportunity to coordinate as part of the updat e
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 Sa n
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 product s
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 i s
expected to be user-friendly, concise and written in a manner easily understood by the public . There shal l
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 geographi c
area of the City in addition to the Sphere of Influence areas . Changes to other elements as needed fo r
consistency shall be included .
Scope of the Environmental Impact Report (FIR )
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 Pla n
Update process . Timing for the preparation of the General Plan and EIR must be overlapping so that th e
preparation of both documents will be parallel and iterative and the information collection and analysi s
can be used for both documents. A preliminary constraints analysis for both land use and circulation wil l
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 mitigatio n
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 b e
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 .
-4-B2-10
The consultant shall demonstrate to the City that they possess expertise in CEQA and also that they hav e
a working knowledge of planning and transportation regulations and the application of the plannin g
process at the local level .
The EIR shall also include a thorough analysis of the regulatory environment, including identification o f
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 identifie d
issues . The EIR shall be written to allow the City to easily implement the General Plan and streamlin e
project-level CEQA reviews that are consistent with the General Plan .
Prior to commencement of the preparation of the EIR, the consultant shall prepare land use an d
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 wit h
the City, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Department of Finance (DOF), an d
California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo .
The work of the consultant shall include, but not be limited to, conducting the necessary research fro m
other related projects, preparation of any required technical reports/studies, required public notification ,
consultation, review and hearings ; and analysis and preparation of the NOP – Initial Study, ADEIR (3
reviews), DE1R, 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 te n
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, a s
well as those developed through scoping 'sessions and the public notification process resulting fro m
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 th e
document. Based on Section 15126(e)(1) et seq., an appropriate number of project alternatives, in additio n
to the no-project alternative, must be discussed. The alternatives shall be focused on reduction o f
identified significant impacts while still meeting the identified goals of the General Plan . It is anticipate d
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 i n
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 o f
implementation.
Scope of the Infrastructure/Finance Plan
-5-B2-11
Capital improvements and public investment needed to carry out the General Plan, and alternatives mus t
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 o f
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 advers e
impacts must be analyzed . A revised development impact fee schedule (including traffic impact fees) wil l
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 an d
ability to accommodate the growth envisioned in all segments of land uses for the anticipate d
life of the plan
•An enumeration and description of the public infrastructure, facilities and public service s
needed for Plan implementation, including the need for any improvements o r
upgrading/widening to increase capacit y
•The level, range, and cost of the infrastructure, facilities and service s
•An indication of when the infrastructure,facilities and services can feasibly be extended t o
new growth areas, including phasing where appropriat e
•A plan for financing the infrastructure, public facilities and services, including maintenanc e
costs
•Whether there would be an adverse financial impact on the provision of infrastructure, publi c
facilities or public services or whether a relatively low revenue base in relationship to the cos t
of affected infrastructure, public facilities and public services would be created (cost/revenu e
analysis). Constant dollar valuations should be use d
• An analysis of other Citywide and regional economic issues related to implementation of th e
plan
•How existing legislation related to tax increases may hamper funding of required ne w
facilities
The Fiscal Analysis/Financing Plan shall include an analysis of alternatives in terms of a description o f
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 project s
necessary to serve each alternative, existing and surplus capacity, necessary improvements and the cost o f
such improvements .
Infrastructure costs for expanded growth areas versus infill development must be analyzed .
Optional Task : Update the Nexus Study/Development Impact Fee Repor t
The City is also seeking a scope of work to update impact fees. The Nexus Study should be coordinate d
and consistent with the Infrastructure Finance Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Element s
assumptions and conclusions for the General Plan EIR . The desired format would be easily updated i n
the furture 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-B2-12
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATIO N
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 innovativ e
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 Steerin g
Committee, public outreach workshops/meetings, visioning exercises and collaboration with a variety o f
stakeholders . The City encourages the consultant to provide suggestions for additional outreac h
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 followin g
outreach tools should be included :
•Newsletters - The consultant should provide a proposal for the preparation of communit y
outreach newsletters, assuming eight mailings, timed to coincide with milestone events .
•PowerPoint Presentation - The consultant should also provide a proposal for the preparatio n
of a dynamic PowerPoint presentation available to both the consultants and City staf f
throughout the General Plan Update process . Narrated versions shall be prepared to enabl e
posting on the public channel .
•Website - The consultant shall develop and maintain an interactive website containing curren t
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 moderate d
blog and options for an on-line survey .
•E-updates – The consultant shall develop and maintain an email list to send regular update s
and links to maintain interest and generate participation .
•Media Outreach – Meet with media staff at beginning of process to develop contact an d
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 othe r
sources for distribution .
•Farmers' Markets – set up an information booth at Farmers' Markets and distribut e
newsletters, answer questions, etc.
•Stakeholder interview s
•Survey – Prepare a survey instrument and distribute to the community . Previous surve y
conducted in 1988 should be used as a point of departure but new and more relevan t
questions and methodologies for assuring a representative scientific sampling of communit y
sentiment and vision should be included .
•Community workshops – hold workshops at key points in the process to inform/educate an d
solicit feedback. Use breakout sessions, graphics, interactive sessions to obtain input .
STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL GRAN T
The City of San Luis Obispo was awarded a Strategic Growth Council (SGC) grant in the amount o f
$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 t o
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 th e
grant provisions .
AVAILABLE RESOURCE S
City documents include :
Document Locatio n
General Plan of Sa n
Luis Obispo Cit y
(Land Use,
Circulation, Noise,
Safety, Water and
Wastewater,
Conservation and
Open Space ,
Housing, and Park s
and Recreation
Elements)
http ://www .slocity .org/communitydevelopment/Long%20Range/general p lan .ast
Margarita Area
Specific Plan
http://www.slocity .org/communitydevelopment/download/masp(print4-06).pdf
Airport Area
Specific Plan
http ://www.slocity.org/communitvdevelopment/download/aasp-web .pd f
Orcutt Area
Specific Plan
http ://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/OASP/Orcutt%20Area%20Specifi
c%20Plan%20(August%202010).pdf
Mid-Higuera
Enhancement Plan
http ://www .slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/Mid-HigueraPlan .pd f
Railroad District
Plan
http ://www .slocity.orglcommunitydevelopment/download/raildistrictplan .pdf
Downtown Concep t
Plan
http ://www .slocity.org/conununitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/JDa v
id/Downtown%20Concept%20Map .pd f
South Broad Street
Corridor DRAF T
Plan
TBD
Climate Actio n
DRAFT plan
TBD
Stormwater
Management Plan
btte://www .slocitv .org/pub~l'cworks/stormwater/l intro .asp#RESOURCE LIBRAR Y
2006 LAFCO
Sphere of Influenc e
Study
http ://www .slocity.org/communitydevelopment/docsandforms/New_Folder/SLO_S
OI MSR .pdf
Bicycl e
Transportation Plan
)tttp ://www .slocity.org/publicworks/documents/bikeplanlplan051507 .pdf
1994 Land Use and
Circulation EIR and
EIR:
http ://www .slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/l5
-8 -B2-1 4
Specification No . 91138
Technical
Appendices
94%20docs 1$.pdf
Supplementa l
Info :http ://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan /
15-94%20supplement%20%29docs .pdf
Appendices :
http://www .slocity .orglcomtnunitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/15 -
94%20vol%202%20apnendices .pdf
Zoning Regulations http://www .slocity .org/communitydevelopment/download/Zoning%20Code%202 0
10-Complete%20Document .pdf
Subdivision
Regulations
http://www .slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/JDa v
id/subdivisionregs-august07 pd f
Community Desig n
Guidelines
http://www,slocity .org/communitydevelopment/download/Community%20Desig n
%20Guidelines/Community%20Design%20Guidelines%20(4-18-11),pd f
City of San Lui s
Obispo Municipa l
code
http://www .codepublishing.com/ca/sanluisobispol
Land Use Element
Map
http :!/www .slocity .org/communitydevelopment/Long%2ORanae/LandUseElemen t
Map20100903 .pdf
Noise Guidebook http://www.slocity .org/communitydevelopment/download/Noise%20Cuidebook .pdf
Other City Resource s
Traffic Mode l
GIS Resources ,
Boundaries
Airport Safety Zone s
Annexations
Block Numbers
City limit
Commercial Fire Zone
Downtown Planning Are a
Fire response
Flood zones
General plan land us e
General Plan Special Design Areas
-9-B2-1 5
Attachment 1
Specification No . 91138
Greenbelt
Historic District s
Historic Resources
Mission Sidewalk Styl e
Open space
Open space easement s
Parking Districts
Parks
Pavement Management
PAZ Zones -Diabli o
Planning Area
Sales tax area s
School Districts
Specific plan area s
Urban reserve line
USGS quad s
Utility fee areas
Waste Collection Day s
Water Pressure Zone s
Watersheds
Zoning
Built Feature s
Address label s
Address points
Airport runways
Block Number Label s
Bridges
Cal Poly bldg . labels
CalTrans Hwy Point s
City Art
Creek Walkway
Electric meter s
Fire Stations
Handicap ramp s
Hwy 101 Center Line s
Hwy 101 Pave Ou t
Indoor Meeting Facilitie s
Laguna Lake Road s
Mine s
Mission Bell s
Powerlines
Public Toilets
Railroad row
Railroad Tracks
Railroad Underpasses
Recreation field s
Sidewalk centerline
Special Setback s
Streets
Traffic signals
-10-
B2-16
Attachment 1Specification No . 91138
Trail points
Trail s
Unreinforced masonary bldg s
Natural Feature s
Contours -2 mete r
Creek Buffers
Creeks
Heritage tree s
Impervious Area s
Laguna Lake
Rare Endangered Specie s
Vegetation
Parcels
City Facilitie s
City owned propertie s
Easements
Government Owned Propertie s
Hospitals
Parcel s
School parcel s
Tracts
Vicinity Parcels Barcla y
Transportatio n
Bicycle Transportation Existing
Bicycle Transportation Propose d
Bike Racks
Bus Route s
Bus Routes Stop s
Sub-areas
Meter Zones
Transport Hubs
Truck Routes
-11-B2-17
A•ff H ME J r 7
A-10 Thursday,August 8, 1992 .
Opinion
EditorialState housing rul e
correctly rejecte d
Sometimes you have to 'stand your ~d when BigBrother starts breathing down yur flea.~~.
That's mac* what the San Lads Obispo Council di dTuesdaywhen it voted to ignore a state =thatthecity must = ,nearly. 1,000 new homes to its real •.
capacity every year through July 199?.Here is state government on the brink of a iYaands t
meltdown, here is San Luis Obispo with a terribl y
real estate market and here is a whole . nation in a
economic decline and we are being told that this city mus t
build hundreds of new homes a year.
Whereto i the new houses, whereto get the water andwhowillbuy? `hat's your problem,"D stateDepartment of ousing and Comm*
, effectively telling$
Development
us..
By law, the state an important role in keeping citiesand counties in line state pvanmmt policies . We agree ,communities cannot be to operate as mavericks . They .
need to be controlled . ''
But sometimes the requirements are so unrealistic, so
out of synch with the times,so illogical and so liable to destroy
a community's character that they must be change d
No doubt, state housing a -.are trying to figure out
how they can bear down on city and make it follow the
policies that they
n
have
hous
etried to
s a year?But 1,000
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 .
Ci • Coundl was on - ' in refusing to
roper coursegrowth rate,—'iequivalent of 184 new ' mesa year .
The Telegram Tribun e
Ie ing the Quot a
10 . Building 1,485 . new 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 Increase In school enrollment.
5 . A 26 percent Increase in the city's current housing stock .
4 . The $13 million expansion of the waste water treatment plant would be
instantly obsolete, it can only accommodate about 1,250 new homes.
3 .Building a desalting plant -probably ata .cost of well over $20-millio n
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. Anne dng .the Margarita, Dalidio,Irish, Hills, Orcutt,.Broad Street,.Edna-lslay
West and Stoneridgee expansion areas - and-then coming up with
annexations to build- another2,000 homes :
And the No.1 thing meeting the state rs housing quotas would mean to the city ,
according to a wildly understated staff repor t1. "A major departure from citizen preferences on community growth ."
-Ken McCall