HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/31/1989, A-1 - REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS / CETING AaENDA
/ SUBMITTED BY COUINCILWOKM RAPPA FOR FOUR INFORMATION /
ELATE ���'8 9 iTEJI
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: JULY 5, 1989
SUBJECT: RDGICtQL PLANNING PROGRAM SU= RES=
SUMMARY
The Regional Planning Program Survey has been completed and the results
have been reviewed by your ad hoc policy committee. of the 22 prospective
programs, a high interest was shown by over 50% of the respondents in the
following ten programs:
* Regional Transportation Planning
* overall Regional Planning :
* Regional Data Center
* Development of Countywide Planning Goals
* Regional Open Space Planning
* Regional Water Resources Planning
* Air Quality Planning
* Regional Census Center
* Solid & Hazardous Waste Management
* Regional Recycling Program
C" Most of thendents
respo Preferred that the Area Council, Cities and the
County . should individually and/or collectively be responsible for the
various programs. Generally, the respondents felt that the existing
government agencies should be made to work better and more cooperatively
to solve regional problems. While creation of a new regional planning
organization was remanded by some respondents, it was not generally
seen as necessary or desirable since the powers and responsibilities of
the Area Council and the Cities and County can be modifies to fulfill the I
need for more effective cooperation on regional issues.
RDC0nM NIIATI0NS
1) Forward survey results to the County Grcy th r.anagement Committee for
review and written response.
2) Request Area Council delegates distribute results to their governing
boards for formal action by Septmnber 1st, to:
a) Identify and prioritize programs for further consideration;
b) Identify preferred implementing organization
c) Determine willingness to participate in establishing an
implementation/financing plan for program development.
D-1-1
X-i-/
DISCUSSION
During May we mailed out a total of 102 surveys to all City and County \
elected officials, p1.3.nni.ng ooamissioners, city administrators, public J
works directors and planning directors. A total of 39 responses, or 38%
of the total, were returned. A summary chart is attached eonparing the
program interest level for all responses, elected officials, planning
commissioners and executive staff in the top ten programs. Statistically,
the rnmber of. responses should be considered a good representation of
countywide opinions. Written comments were also submitted and have been
compiled in the attachment.
Major Finditws:
Our analysis of survey answers showed that ten programs received a very
high interest rating (5 & 4)1, by 50% or more of the total respondents.
These programs are listed below in priority order based on interest,
together with the agency that was preferred by the highest percentage of
the respondents.
1. Regional Traffic Circulation & Infrastructure Planning (No.22) was
rated high by 79% with SIDACC the preferred agency by 51%
2. Overall Regional Planning (No.21) was rated high by 74% with the
County the preferred agency by 29% and a new regional agency preferred
by 24%
3, Regional Data Center (No.1) was rated high by 74% with SIDACC the
preferred agency by 40%
'i
4. Development of Countvwide Planning Goals (No.3) was rated high by 74%
With SIAACC the preferred agency by 37% and a new regional agency
preferred by 24%
5. Regional Open Space Planning (No.6) was rated high by 69% with the
County the preferred agency by 57%
6. Regional Water Resources Planning (No.7) was rated high by 64% with
the County the preferred agency by 52%
7. Air Quality Planning (No.13) was rated high by 62% with the County the
Preferred agency by 44%.
8. Regional Census Center (No.2) was rated high by 59% with the County
the preferred agency by 37% and SLOACC preferred by 319.
9. Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Planning (No.12) was rated high by
59% with the County the preferred agency by 53%
10. Regional Recycling Program (No.14) was rated high by 56% with the
County the preferred agency by 43%
D-1-2
The data reveals that there is a high interest in about half of the
possible regional programs and that a new regional agency is not generally
supported. Most respondents preferred that the Area Council, Cities and
the Ctounty should individually and/or collectively be responsible for the
various programs.
written Comments
The written comments from the respoadenits are very revealing of strong
attituteds in favor of and in'cpposition to regional plain irg. Generally,
it is felt that the existing government agencies should be made to work
better and more cooperatively to solve regional problems. The creaticn of
a new regional plarrLuq organization is not seen as necessary or desirable
since the powers and responsibilities of the Area CoL=11, Cities and
county can be expanded and modified to fulfill the need for more
cooperation. There are many thoughtful recommendations in the cents.
The comments express a wi11ingness to work together to develop acceptable
solutions that will preserve local control as much as possible while
effectively responding to important regional concerns.
In conclusion, the range of responses and comments can be viewed from many
different perspectives. We have simplified cur analysis as mxh as
possible for the sake of clarity and have provided as much detail on the
responses as seemed appropriate.
A dopy of the full report detailing our analysis of the survey results is
available upon request.
CAttad'ments: Summary of Survey Programs, Written Comments from Respondents
C�arison of Survey Responses
Summary Table of Interest in Tbp Ten Programs
D-1-3
031PARLSW OF SURVEY RESPONSES
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: INTEREST LEVEL All RESPONSES
INTEREST 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 2,.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INT=S(1) 541 311 411 10% 151 411 491 Z61 101 21% 181 361 441 331 151 181 261 151 231 21% 441 461
INT=4(S) 211 281 33% 131 18% 28% 151 131 231 Iii 151 231 181 231 5% 211 10% 15% 261 181 311 331
INT=3(1) 101 51 51 281 281 101 81 131 181 151 131 211 101 101 281 181 38% 231 151 151 101 31
INT=2(1) 51 101 31 101 31 51 81 131. 101 101 101 31 51 131 01 131 31 131 51 211 31 81
INT=1(1) 51 131 31 81 151 31 101 131 51 101 181 51 51 01 131 51 31 51 OS 51 31 31
INT=O(1) 51 131 151 311 211 131 101 231 331 311 Z61 131 181 211 381 161 211 281 311 211 101 81
INT=594(1) 741 591 741 231 331 691 -641 381 331 331 331 591 611 561 21% 381 361 311 491 381 741 791
INT=391(1) 151 151 81 381 311 151 151 261 281 261 131 231 15I 231 281 311 411 361 211 361 131 101
INT=190(1) 101 261 181 381 361 15L 211 361 381 411 441 181 231 211 511 311 231 331 311 261 131 101
h
INT=59493(1) 851 641 79% 511 621 791 721 51% 511 491 461 791 721 671 491 561 741 541 641 541 851 821
INT=29190(1) 151 36% 211 491 381 211 281 491 491 511 541 111 281 331 SIS 441 261 461 361 461 15i 18%
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: PREFERRED AGENCY ALL RESPONSES
AGENCY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
AGENCY:A(%) 401 311 37% 01 361 181 281 161 231 IZS 13% 191 191 171 30% 481 111 521 30% 211 181 511
AGENCY=B(1) 51 111 171 361 211 251 211 381 131 151 131 .91 9% 301 221 141 151 161 171 261 161 17%
AGENCY=C(1) 24% 371 221 411 181 571 521 341 371 611 671 53% 441 431 .331 241 52% 261 371 421 291 Ili
AGENCY=O(1) 241 20% 241 231 241 01 OS 131 211 121 71 91 18% 10% 151 141 121 61 171 IIS 241 151.-
AGENCY=NA(%) 71 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OS O% 01 OS OS 01 OS 01 OS OS 0% 01 121 01
REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM SURVEY INTEREST IN TOP TEN PROGRAMS
INTEREST (i)
ALL ELECTED : PLANNING :EXECUTIVE
:NO- PROGRAM :RESPONSES :OFFICIALS : COMM- STAFF
1 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 79% 67 84% BB-/-
2 OVERALL REGIONAL PLANNING 747 75 79% 63%
3 REGIONRL OATA CENTER 74% 92Z 68% 63%
4 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING GOALS 74% 672* 84-/_ 63%
5 OPEN SPACE PLANNING 69% 58% 79-1 63%
6 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING 64"/_ 75% 68% 38-/
7 RIR QUALITY PLANNING 62% 58 74% 38%
8 REGIONRL CENSUS CENTER 59% 6?i 537 637
9 SOLID/HAZRROOUS WASTE MGMT 64% 587_ 68:! 38-L �
10 REGIONAL RECYCLING PROGRAM 56% 75z 53% 38%
:------------------------------.----------:,----------'
o-1-4
-/r
REC;IONAL PIANNDC PFDGRAM SURVEY
SUMMARY OF PDMS
1. Regional Data Center - Establ-ish a clearinghouse for: consolidating
and sharing information on development activity, vacant lam supply,
and resource. conmgmtion throughout the county; monitoring and
projecting the local and regional cumulative effects on Grater supply,
road capacity, air quality; school capacity, other and
government services; providing on-line access to such information by
each eoanmmity.
2. Regional Census Center - Preparation for 1990 census and maintenanoe,
analysis and distribution of countywide census information.
3. DevelcM ent of Cou ntvwide Planning Goals - work together to formulate
broad land use planning policy goals for the county as a whole, to
express a vision for the future of the county shared by the cities and
the county, which would then be implemented by each local gcverrmmPnt
in their individual planning policy decisions. Couplianoe would be
the sole responsibility of the cities and the county, with each making
findings as to how their plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
4. Regional . Housing Allocation Plarmnirmg - Preparation and annual update
of the plan, including fair share allocations, in coordination with
local jurisdictions.
5. Regional Economic Develo=ent Planning - Development and monitoring of
coordinated actions which local jurisdictions could take to improve
the ability of residents to live and work in the same community and to
develop a methodology to better balance economic development with
housing growth at the regional level.
6. Regional Open S ece Planning - Develop and maintain a regional plan
that coordinates local open space and sensitive land policies with
regional needs including acquisition and protection of identified
sensitive habitat, critical open space and major heritage areas.
Possibilities include: the Morro Bay Estuary, the Morros, dune areas
and riparian habitat.
7. Regional water Resources Planning - Coordinate development of major
local and regional water supply and distribution facilities.
8. Regional Sewerage Planning - Coordinate development of major local and
regional sewage collection and disposal facilities.
9. Regional Energy Plan Development - Development of a countywide energy
master plan including onshore ene W development, energy conservation,
and contingency planning.
10. Regional Offshore Energy Planning & Project Review - Monitor and
respond to offshore energy leasing proposals and related activities.
11. Criminal Justice Clearinghouse - Conpilation and distribution of
G timely information relative to crime and justice statistics, trends
and issues.
D-1-5
12. Solid & Hazardous Waste Manaaement Planning - Coordinate and review
development of regional planning to assure environmentally sound
disposal of wastes consistent with air and water quality plans;
Prepare, update and monitor the plan and provide technical assistance
to all local jurisdictions in dealing with land use and transportation
issues related to waste-management.
13. Air Quality Planning - In cooperation with the Air Pollution Control
District, develop a regional implementation strategy and monitor the
effectiveness of the air-quality tactics adapted as part of the update
of the air quality plan.
14. Reclianal Recvclina Program - Coordinate efforts by the public and
private sector in the collection and processing of recyclable
materials.
15. Regional Legislative Develop, implement and monitor an
annual legislative program; review and respond to pertinent
legislative bills.
vi.
16. Regional Grants Management Program - Develop a regional assistance
program to enable local governments to more effectively ecupete for
available grant funds by disseminating information on finding
opportunities and asci st ig in the completion of cxuprehensive and
timely applications.
17. Emeruencv/Disaster Response Management - prepare and implement
regional program of local, regional and state coordination for all
natural and technological emergencies or disasters.
i
18. Areawide Clearinghouse Identify measures
-, notify local officials of federal documernt vauabidii significance;
regularly transmit, comnelts itions on applications
review and
/pos grant applications arra
environmental documents; and coordinate areawide reviews on proposed
federal actions.
19. Local option Sales Tax Program Development and Administration - Assist
ut Pian Passage; Pyre and maintain project schedule for the
expenditure plan approved by the electorate, including compliance
guidelines, Project scheduling and priority setting, programming,
monitoring and public information; and administer the funds.
20. Regional Human. Service Needs - Coordinate and .monitor actions by
public and private agencies related to the homeless, health care,
child care are related services.
21. Overall Regional Planning - Generally, do you believe there should be
an increasing emphasis on regional planning efforts?
22. Regional Traffic Circulation & Infrastructure Program - Take actions
to develop and monitor regional circulation plans, traffic improvement
studies, transportation systems management programs, traffic modeling
and jobs/housing balance programs.
J
D-1-6 ll
1'
REGIONAL PPIAA10U +I/G�pP�R/OOGRRA.M SURVEY
WRrrrEN
1. Elected Official - In general, my response (to the planning needs
survey) would be "high interest" in all topics, and would be entirely
operridrded as to the "preferred agency." I would be incapable at
this point of even prioritizing the topics. I would like to see some
free wheeling preliminary discussions take place to get a feel for the
magnitude of each topic and the appropriate options as to agency.
"Regional planning" is -high on my list, and I'm willing to get
inwlved to make it happen. I have no inherent objection to
establishing a board of directors of a regional agency made up of
elected or appointed officials from each jurisdiction. The
appropriateness of that, however, would depend on what is ultimately
decided for that board to handle.
2. Elected Official - At this point in time, I am in opposition to the
formation of a new regional organization. I believe the Area Council,
County and cities are .qualified to address the areas of concern this
question?re addresses. El'bcted officials are prone to view the
majority of issue you raise at the local level and its local effect,
in my opinion. I concur that we should now be taking the perspective
of interrelated cause and effect on the entire county, however,
arriving at a conoensus on the majority of issues is a long and
difficult road to traverse. Also, some of the issues (ie. 15-19)
could betied into programs in place with the League of California
Cities or perhaps CSAC.
3. Elected Official - The idea of a regional planning agency is a novel
idea, however, the opportunity for a regional clearinghouse for
planning can easily became a mega organization. The concept of
regional planning between cities and the comfy is important but the
creation and implementation can take an enormous amount of money. The
Cities in SID county are unique, some agricultural, scene heavily into
tour-ism, while others promote retail commercial. Lets not create a
monster.
4. Elected Official - Because City/County relations are often related to
growth related matters, any new agency may not receive the support it
.needs to make any major difference, especially if political leaders
serve on the council. It is better to see the County, with the use of
the COG (Area Council) , establish a performance standard and clearing
house of information that Can be used by the cities, the County and
the media. Thus: (1) This is not a good time to create any new
councils, (2) Use the existing COG and ask the cities to help the
County arra in turn be helped by the County to serve as a resource
center for information, (3) Staff at the County can coordinate the
information and the COG could serve as•a hearing body, since it has a
representative from all agencies, (4) The interest and participation
by the County will help City/Comty relations in a positive roamer,
rather than a "superior agency" that will meet resistance from Cities
or criticisms generated from the "water ethic" report.
D-1-7
5. Elected Official - I am not in favor of expanding governaient, but at
prevent elected and appointed officials have their hands full. the
aim of this survey relates to growing government and that I don't ;
agree with. If you would concentrate on certain major arras (water, Jf
power, circulation) under one tent and leave the rest to induvidual
Cities, we would be better off.
6. Elected Official - Funding has to play a major role in the decision on
any expanded services.
7. Elected Official - The board of directors for a new regional.
or pnimtion should be composed of people dedicated to solving these
problems first and should be made up of both elected and appointed
officials.
8. Planning Coi missioner - All of the above is of no importance if we do
not control growth in our county. We must act, not react as in the
past. Riy can't we be first. No more smog, traffic and crime ad
infinitum. We live in an, environment we create.
9. Plannira Commissioner - I am basically suspect of regional government.
I do believe in regional cooperation between local governments and in
specific subject areas where goals can best be achieved by a regional
agency. I strongly support local control and grass roots goverrmient.
10. Planning .Ckmmissioner - We need to start planning now for public
transportation needs of the future. Highway 101 gets more congested
every year with commuters. Tie bus service to the south county is a
joke. mere are not enough conveniently located bus stops or l
convenient time service to attract ridership. _.
I-E Planning Commissioner - I have supported the establishment of a new
regional agency, and, because of the existing inertia of the in place
Coordinating Council, it is my opinion we must have a fresh start and
outlook that a new regional organization will provide. Cmposition is
the key element to the success of such a group, however. It is my
opinion, and I strongly suggest, that the new regional organization be
dosed of one elected official (Councilman or Mayor) frau the County
and each City. In addition, based on a population formula, their
should be "at large,, appointments frm the county and each City. Iast
but not least, "one man, one vote" should apply. It is my considered
opinion that regional coordination is the key to a successful SID
County future. I would volunteer my time and services to help plan
such a proposal.
12. Planning Commissioner - I have repeatedly stated publicly that we need
area-wide coordination of housing, economic & industrial development.
Employment and housing must go together. The alternative (arid what is
happening now) will be increasing suburban sprawl, typical of the Los
Angeles basin. we have a chance to avoid that scenario, if the County
and City Officials have vision enough to give up their parochial
viewpoints.
13. Planning Oommissiormer - The establishment of another regional agency \
will create more red tape and bureaucracy. I do not support it.
D-1-8
14. Planning cmwdssianer - It would be nice if the c=uty was more
responsive to local concerns, instead of following its own agenda. For
example, the Ins Osos sewer railroad job, and proliferation of growth
in the SID airport area, both of which conflict with local wishes.
15. Planning Ctmaissioner` - Strengthen representation, staffing and
authority of the Area coordinating Council, similar to ABAG and sca'AG,
rather that creating a new regional organization.
16. Plannirw Co nissioner - Why create a another layer of government?
17. Planning Ommissioner - A new regional agency should be created made
up of elected and appointed officials with a 50/50 split.
18. Planning Commissioner - I agree with you that we need additional
regional planning. Who would disagree?
19. Planning omnissioner - Do not encourage a new regional planning
organization. Use what we have better and more efficiently.
20. Planning Cmnissioner - I support establishment of a new regional
Planning organization eatposed of both appointed and elected
officials, eg. a nine member board, five of which would be elected
officials and fns appointed.
21. Planning ,Cxm nissioner - I support establishment of a new regional
planning organization made up of elec.-ted officials F each
jurisdiction.
22. Plannina commissioner - I would not support establishment of a new
regional planning agency, there are too many already.
23. Public Works Director - FAiile I .support regional planning, I oppose
any new regional layer of government. I oppose any erosion of local
control. I oppose the SIA Area Coordinating council being involved in
any activity other than transportation planning.
24. Planningz Director - Itue Area Council is already in place and reflects
all local units of government; there is no need to create a new
entity.
25. Planning Director - My comment on a "new regional agency" is that it
need not be a new "agency" in the sense of decision making. The
clearinghouse function and information gathering can be done by
contract paid for by the Cities and County under a JPA or some other
means. Regional planning is probably best done by representatives
f, all jurisdictions, coordinated by an outside consultant, rather
than existing staff from any single agency, new or old.
26. Planning Director - A new regional planning body should be established
canposed of appointed officials representing interest groins.
D-1-9