planning commission study session presentation
Post on 09-Mar-2016
221 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
San Joaquin CountySan Joaquin CountySan Joaquin CountySan Joaquin CountyGeneral Plan UpdateGeneral Plan Update
Pl i C i iPl i C i iPlanning CommissionPlanning CommissionStudy SessionStudy Session
Alternatives Report OverviewAlternatives Report Overview
March 3, 2011
Agenda
1. Where we are in the Update2. Alternatives Purpose3. Introduction to the Alternatives Report4. Alternatives Review Process5. Selecting a Preferred Alternative6 Discussion6. Discussion
2Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Process & Schedule
General Plan Update Schedule
Project Initiation
June 2008 – November 2008
Goals and Policies Report
January 2011 – June 2011
Background Report
July 2008 – July 2009
y
Environmental Impact Report
May 2011 – August 2011
Housing Element
July 2008 – November 2009
Public Review
August 2011 – October 2011
Issues & Opportunities
May 2009 – October 2009
Final Documents and Adoption
October 2011– December 2011
Alternatives Report
Sept 2009 – May 2011
Development Title Update
July 2008 – June 2012
4Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Where we are in the process…
Project Initiation
June 2008 – November 2008
Goals and Policies Report
January 2011 – June 2011Ju e 008 o e be 008
Background Report
July 2008 – July 2009
y
Environmental Impact Report
May 2011 – August 2011
Housing Element
July 2008 – November 2009
Public Review
August 2011 – October 2011
Issues & Opportunities
May 2009 – October 2009
Final Documents and Adoption
October 2011– December 2011
Alternatives Report
Sept 2009 – May 2011
Development Title Update
July 2008 – June 2012
5Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Where we are going…
Project Initiation
June 2008 – November 2008
Goals and Policies Report
January 2011 – June 2011Ju e 008 o e be 008
Background Report
July 2008 – July 2009
y
Environmental Impact Report
May 2011 – August 2011
Housing Element
July 2008 – November 2009
Public Review
August 2011 – October 2011
Issues & Opportunities
May 2009 – October 2009
Final Documents and Adoption
October 2011– December 2011
Alternatives Report
Sept 2009 – May 2011
Development Title Update
July 2008 – June 2012
6Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Purpose and Development of the Alternatives
7Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Alternatives
Purpose of the Alternatives Report and Analysis
• Develop options for future growth, development, redevelopment, and preservationpreservation
• Evaluate impacts of different options • Discuss benefits and drawbacks of Discuss benefits and drawbacks of
alternative development patterns• Select a preferred course of action to
id f k f th d ft provide a framework for the draft General Plan
• Inform the EIR alternatives analysisInform the EIR alternatives analysis
8Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Steps in the Alternatives Process
1. Develop and map the alternatives2. Model the alternatives3. Evaluate and compare the alternatives4. Review the alternatives5 Select a preferred direction5. Select a preferred direction
9Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Introduction to the Alternatives Report
Alternatives Report Contents
• Section 1: Introduction• Section 2: Constraints Analysis• Section 3: Growth Alternatives
S ti 4 E l ti T i• Section 4: Evaluation Topics• Section 5: Major Issue Scenarios
11Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 1: Introduction
• Report Overview• Alternatives Review Process• Relationship to Regional Blueprint• Selecting a Preferred Alternative• Reviewing Policy Options• Reviewing Policy Options• Growth Projections• Remaining CapacityRemaining Capacity
12Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 2: Constraints Analysis
• Identifies and maps 3 types of constraints and considerationsR t th d f h t i t• Rates the degree of each constraint
Physical Constraint
Mor
eve
lopm
ent
Regulatory Constraint
ly to
Lim
it D
evRegulatory Constraint
SevereModerate
Like
lPolicy Consideration
13Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
SevereModerateRelative Degree of
Constraint
Section 2: Constraints Analysis
Composite Constraints Composite Constraints and Considerationsand Considerations
Flooding and Waterways
Water, Habitat, Biology
Agriculture and Mineral
Other Concerns
Water, Habitat, Biology
14Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• Four Alternatives– Base Case: existing plan
Alternative A: distributed community growth– Alternative A: distributed community growth– Alternative B: compact, city-centered growth– Alternative C: employment growth
Base
BBase
Case B
A C
15Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• Population and employment growth held constant
16Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• There is a significant amount of remaining development capacity
City Limits
Urban Communities
17Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Rural Communities
City Fringe Areas
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• Base Case– Continues existing development trends
Based on the existing 2010 General Plan and – Based on the existing 2010 General Plan and adopted city general plans
BASE CASENet New Growth
2010-2030
Location
Population Employees
Number Percent Number PercentLocation Number Percent Number Percent
Unincorporated County
Urban Communities 40,770 12% 8,680 11%
Rural Communities 320 0% 340 0%
Balance of Unincorporated County 8,250 2% 3,710 5%
Subtotal 51,010 15% 12,700 16%
Cities and City Spheres of Influence
City Limits 232, 650 69% 55,110 68%
City Spheres of Influence 54,260 16% 13,020 16%
Subtotal 286,910 85% 68,130 84%
Total County 337,920 100% 80,840 100%
18Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• Alternative A– Encourages new development in existing
unincorporated urban communitiesunincorporated urban communities– Farmington transforms into an
urban community
ALTERNATIVE ANet New Growth
2010-2030
Location
Population Employees
Number Percent Number PercentLocation Number Percent Number Percent
Unincorporated County
Urban Communities 46,100 14% 8,660 11%
Rural Communities* 5,440 2% 550 1%
Balance of Unincorporated County 2,740 1% 2,650 3%
Subtotal 54,280 16% 11,860 15%
Cities and City Spheres of Influence
City Limits 232,090 69% 52,960 66%
City Spheres of Influence 51,560 15% 16,020 20%
Subtotal 283,650 84% 68,980 85%
Total County 337,920 100% 80,840 100%
19Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• Alternative B– Increases densities and focuses development
in citiesin cities– Based on the Regional Blueprint
ALTERNATIVE BNet New Growth
2010-2030
Population Employees
Location Number Percent Number Percent
Unincorporated County
Urban Communities 40,520 12% 8,730 11%
Rural Communities 320 0% 340 0%
Balance of Unincorporated County 2,150 1% 1,480 2%
Subtotal 42,980 13% 10,550 13%Subtotal 42,980 13% 10,550 13%
Cities and City Spheres of Influence
City Limits 279,590 83% 56,890 70%
City Spheres of Influence 15,540 5% 13,640 17%
Subtotal 295,130 87% 70,530 87%
Total County 338,110 100% 81,080 100%
20Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
• Alternative C– Focuses new development along I-5 and State
Route 99Route 99– Increases employment uses in
unincorporated areas
ALTERNATIVE CNet New Growth
2010-2030
Population Employees
Location
Population Employees
Number Percent Number Percent
Unincorporated County
Urban Communities 40,770 12% 8,880 11%
Rural Communities 2,950 1% 610 1%
Balance of Unincorporated County 2,750 1% 4,080 5%
Subtotal 46,470 14% 13,570 17%
Cities and City Spheres of Influence
City Limits 238,770 71% 51,490 64%
City Spheres of Influence 52,680 16% 15,650 19%
Subtotal 291,450 86% 67,140 83%
Total County 337 920 100% 80 710 100%
21Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Total County 337,920 100% 80,710 100%
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
Base CaseBase Case Alternative AAlternative A Alternative BAlternative B Alternative CAlternative C
22Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
Urban Urban CommunitiesCommunities
Rural Rural CommunitiesCommunities
Other Other UnincorporatedUnincorporated
Cities and Cities and SOIsSOIs
40 770
46,100
40 520 40 770
45,000
50,000
Urban Communities
Net New Population
2010-2030
5,440
4,000
5,000
6,000
Rural Communities
Net New Population
2010-20308,250
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Balance of Unincorporated County
Net New Population
2010-2030
54,260 51,56015,540
52,680250,000
300,000
350,000
Cities and City Spheres of Influence
Net New Population
2010-2030
City
SOIs
40,770 40,520 40,770
30,000
35,000
40,000
Base Case A B C
320 320
2,950
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
Base Case A B C
2,7402,150
2,750
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Base Case A B C
232,650 232,090
279,590
238,770
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Base Case A B C
City
Limits
9,500
10,000
Urban Communities
Net New Employment
2010-2030
550
610
500
600
700
Rural Communities
Net New Employment
2010-2030
3,710
4,080
4,000
5,000
Balance of Unincorporated County
Net New Employment
2010-2030
13,020 16,020 13,64015,65060,000
70,000
80,000
Cities and City Spheres of Influence
Net New Employment
2010-2030
City
SOIs
8,660 8,6608,730
8,880
8,000
8,500
9,000
Base Case A B C
340 340
0
100
200
300
400
500
Base Case A B C
2,650
1,480
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
Base Case A B C
55,110 52,96056,890 51,490
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Base Case A B C
City
Limits
23Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
Base CaseBase Case Alternative AAlternative A Alternative BAlternative B Alternative CAlternative C
More More More More
nd
Pre
serv
ati
on
nd
Pre
serv
ati
on
nd
Pre
serv
ati
on
nd
Pre
serv
ati
on
Less
Fa
rmla
n
Farmland Less
Fa
rmla
n
Farmland Less
Fa
rmla
n
Farmland Farmland Less
Fa
rmla
n
24Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 4: Evaluation Topics
• Evaluates 22 key topics affected by implementing each alternativeO tli k ti t id h • Outlines key questions to consider when reviewing the alternatives
• Includes policy options to address Includes policy options to address impacts resulting from the alternatives
25Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Section 4: Evaluation TopicsCriteria
Base
Case A B C
Land Use
Land Use Efficiency Range of Housing Types C it Id tit
Legend
Community Identity Climate Change Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agriculture Agricultural Land Conversion
Transportation/
Ci l i
Future Airport Growth Vehicle Miles Traveled g
Least Favorable
Circulation Vehicle Miles Traveled Roadway Impacts
Public Facilities
and Services
Capacity/Demand for
Infrastructure Demand for Emergency Services Water Supply/ Demand
Most Favorable Natural
Resources
Water Supply/ Demand Aquifer Recharge Energy Consumption Biological Resources
The Delta Urban Development in the Deltap Recreation Demand for Parkland
Safety Flood Risk Wildland Fire Hazard Risk
E i dJobs/Housing Balance
26Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Economic and
Fiscal Health Fiscal Health Property Tax Sharing
Section 5: Major Issue Scenarios
• Extrapolates on 6 key situations the County may need to be prepared to address:address:– High Speed Rail Development– Major Drought– Major Flooding– Energy Cost Increase– Peripheral Canal Constructionp– Fiscal Scenario
• Uses hypothetical stories set at some point in th f t it fi tithe future…its fiction
• Evaluates how the alternatives would cope with or address each scenario
27Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Alternatives Review Process
Alternatives Evaluation Process
Alternatives Evaluation
Community Preferences
Preferred Alternative
Develop/Refine Alternatives
Alternatives Review
Preferred Alternative
Evaluation Preferences Alternative
Planning Commission Planning Commission PresentationPresentation
TAC Review and Input
Planning Commission Recommendation
Focus Groups Review and Input
Board of Supervisors Presentation
Board of Supervisors Direction
Review and Input
14 Community Workshops
29Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Selecting a Preferred Alternative
Selecting the Preferred Alternative
• Not necessarily one of the alternatives• Likely made up of parts of each alternative
31Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Planning Commission Recommendation
• What will you be asked to provide a recommendation on?
The part or parts of the alternatives would you – The part or parts of the alternatives would you like to see used as the basis for developing the Preferred Land Use Diagram
32Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative
• How do you think the County should grow and develop in the future?Wh t it b • What are community members preferences for future growth and development?
• Which part or parts of the alternatives:– Meet your long-term objectives for the County?
Address the iss es o think are most pressing?– Address the issues you think are most pressing?– Position the County to take advantage of
opportunities?– Achieve the draft Vision and Guiding Principles?
• Is there a growth or development option not identified in the Alternatives Report that
33Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
not identified in the Alternatives Report that should be considered?
Resources to Inform/Support Your Selection
• What resources can you use to base your recommendation on?Alt ti i t i l /i t• Alternatives review process materials/input– Alternatives Report Evaluation Topics– Alternatives Report Major Issues Scenarios– Focus Group member input – Community member preferences
• Other General Plan Update materials• Other General Plan Update materials– Background Report Findings– Issues and Opportunities Report– Draft Vision and Guiding Principles– Community Workshop Summaries
34Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Future Planning Commission Action
““RecommendRecommend the following ___________ as the following ___________ as the basis for developing the Preferred Land the basis for developing the Preferred Land Use Diagram to guide the development of Use Diagram to guide the development of Use Diagram to guide the development of Use Diagram to guide the development of the Draft General Plan.”the Draft General Plan.”
The Preferred Land Use Diagram will remain The Preferred Land Use Diagram will remain a draft until General Plan adoption.a draft until General Plan adoption.
35Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
N t StNext Steps
Resources to Inform/Support Your Selection
• Alternatives Report Published– March 7, 2011B d f S i P t ti • Board of Supervisors Presentation – March 15, 2011
• Focus Group Meetings Focus Group Meetings – March 22 and 23, 2011
• Community Workshops March – April 2011
• Planning Commission Recommendation– TBDTBD
• Board of Supervisors Direction – TBD
37Planning Commission Study SessionMarch 3, 2011
Q ti /Di iQuestions/Discussion
top related