San Joaquin County General Plan Update Pl Planning i Commission C i i Study Session Alternatives Report Overview
March 3, 2011
Agenda
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 6.
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Where we are in the Update Alternatives Purpose Introduction to the Alternatives Report Alternatives Review Process Selecting a Preferred Alternative Discussion
2
Process & Schedule
General Plan Update Schedule Project Initiation
Goals and Policies Report
June 2008 – November 2008
y 2011 – June 2011 January
Background Report
Environmental Impact Report
July 2008 – July 2009
May 2011 – August 2011
Housing Element
Public Review
July 2008 – November 2009
August 2011 – October 2011
Issues & Opportunities
Final Documents and Adoption
May 2009 – October 2009
October 2011– December 2011
Alternatives Report
Development Title Update
Sept 2009 – May 2011
July 2008 – June 2012
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
4
Where we are in the process… Project Initiation
Goals and Policies Report
June Ju e 2008 008 – November o e be 2008 008
y 2011 – June 2011 January
Background Report
Environmental Impact Report
July 2008 – July 2009
May 2011 – August 2011
Housing Element
Public Review
July 2008 – November 2009
August 2011 – October 2011
Issues & Opportunities
Final Documents and Adoption
May 2009 – October 2009
October 2011– December 2011
Alternatives Report
Development Title Update
Sept 2009 – May 2011
July 2008 – June 2012
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
5
Where we are going… Project Initiation
Goals and Policies Report
June Ju e 2008 008 – November o e be 2008 008
y 2011 – June 2011 January
Background Report
Environmental Impact Report
July 2008 – July 2009
May 2011 – August 2011
Housing Element
Public Review
July 2008 – November 2009
August 2011 – October 2011
Issues & Opportunities
Final Documents and Adoption
May 2009 – October 2009
October 2011– December 2011
Alternatives Report
Development Title Update
Sept 2009 – May 2011
July 2008 – June 2012
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
6
Purpose and Development of the Alternatives Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
7
Purpose of the Alternatives Report and Analysis • Develop options for future growth, development, redevelopment, and preservation • Evaluate impacts of different options • Discuss benefits and drawbacks of alternative development patterns • Select a preferred course of action to provide id a framework f k for f the th draft d ft General Plan • Inform the EIR alternatives analysis
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
8
Steps in the Alternatives Process 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 5.
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Develop and map the alternatives Model the alternatives Evaluate and compare the alternatives Review the alternatives Select a preferred direction
9
Introduction to the Alternatives Report
Alternatives Report Contents • • • • •
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Constraints Analysis Section 3: Growth Alternatives S ti Section 4 4: E Evaluation l ti TTopics i Section 5: Major Issue Scenarios
11
Section 1: Introduction • • • • • • •
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Report Overview Alternatives Review Process Relationship to Regional Blueprint Selecting a Preferred Alternative Reviewing Policy Options Growth Projections Remaining Capacity
12
Section 2: Constraints Analysis
Regulatory Constraint
Policy Consideration
Likelly to Limit Dev velopment
Physical Constraint
More
• Identifies and maps 3 types of constraints and considerations • Rates R t th the degree d off each h constraint t i t
Moderate
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Relative Degree of Constraint
Severe
13
Section 2: Constraints Analysis Flooding and Waterways
Composite Constraints and Considerations
Agriculture and Mineral
Water, Habitat, Biology
Other Concerns
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
14
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • Four Alternatives – – – –
Base Case: existing plan Alternative A: distributed community growth Alternative B: compact, city-centered growth Alternative C: employment growth
Base Case
B A
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
C 15
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • Population and employment growth held constant
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
16
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • There is a significant amount of remaining development capacity
City Limits Urban Communities Rural Communities City Fringe Areas
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
17
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • Base Case – –
Continues existing development trends Based on the existing 2010 General Plan and adopted city general plans
BASE CASE Net New Growth 2010-2030 Population Location
Number
Employees
Percent
Number
Percent
Unincorporated County Urban Communities
40,770
12%
8,680
11%
Rural Communities
320
0%
340
0%
Balance of Unincorporated County Subtotal Cities and City Spheres of Influence City Limits City Spheres of Influence Subtotal Total County
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
8,250
2%
3,710
5%
51,010
15%
12,700
16%
232, 650 54,260
69% 16%
55,110 13,020
68% 16%
286,910 337,920
85% 100%
68,130 80,840
84% 100%
18
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • Alternative A – –
Encourages new development in existing unincorporated urban communities Farmington transforms into an urban community ALTERNATIVE A Net New Growth 2010-2030 Population Location
Number
Employees
Percent
Number
Percent
Unincorporated County Urban Communities
46,100
14%
8,660
11%
Rural Communities*
5,440
2%
550
1%
Balance of Unincorporated County Subtotal Cities and City Spheres of Influence City Limits City Spheres of Influence Subtotal Total County
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
2,740
1%
2,650
3%
54,280
16%
11,860
15%
232,090 51,560
69% 15%
52,960 16,020
66% 20%
283,650 337,920
84% 100%
68,980 80,840
85% 100%
19
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • Alternative B – –
Increases densities and focuses development in cities Based on the Regional Blueprint
ALTERNATIVE B Net New Growth 2010-2030 Population Location Unincorporated County Urban Communities Rural Communities Balance of Unincorporated County Subtotal
Number
Employees
Percent
Number
Percent
40,520
12%
8,730
11%
320
0%
340
0%
2,150 42,980
1% 13%
1,480 10,550
2% 13%
279,590 15,540
83% 5%
56,890 13,640
70% 17%
Cities and City Spheres of Influence City Limits City Spheres of Influence Subtotal
295,130
87%
70,530
87%
Total County
338,110
100%
81,080
100%
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
20
Section 3: Growth Alternatives • Alternative C – –
Focuses new development along I-5 and State Route 99 Increases employment uses in unincorporated areas ALTERNATIVE C Net New Growth 2010-2030 Population Location
Number
Employees
Percent
Number
Percent
Unincorporated County Urban Communities
40,770
12%
8,880
11%
Rural Communities
2,950
1%
610
1%
Balance of Unincorporated County Subtotal Cities and City Spheres of Influence City Limits City Spheres of Influence Subtotal Total County
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
2,750
1%
4,080
5%
46,470
14%
13,570
17%
238,770 52,680
71% 16%
51,490 15,650
64% 19%
291,450 337 920 337,920
86% 100%
67,140 80 710 80,710
83% 100%
21
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
Base Case
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
22
Section 3: Growth Alternatives Urban Communities
Rural Communities Rural Communities Net New Population 2010-2030
Urban Communities Net New Population 2010-2030
50,000
Other Unincorporated
6,000
Balance of Unincorporated County Net New Population 2010-2030 9,000
5,440
46,100
40 770 40,770
40 520 40,520
40 770 40,770
40,000
4,000
2,950
3,000
1,000
320
320
A
B
5,000
200,000
A
B
2,750 2,150
1,000
0
Base Case
A
B
5,000
550
4,080 4,000
3,710
8,880 8,660
8,660
8,730
400
340
300
2,650 1,480
B
C
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
City Limits
C
13,020
16,020
55,110
52,960
Base Case
A
15,650
City SOIs
56,890
51,490
City Limits
B
C
13,640
10,000 0
0
0
A
B
70,000
20,000
1,000
Base Case
238,770
40,000
100 8,000
A
30,000
2,000
200
8,500
Base Case
279,590
50,000
3,000
340
232,090
City SOIs
Cities and City Spheres of Influence Net New Employment 2010-2030 60,000
500
9,000
232,650
52,680
80,000
610 600
51,560
C
Balance of Unincorporated County Net New Employment 2010-2030
700
9,500
100,000 50,000
C
15,540
54,260
150,000
2,740
2,000
Rural Communities Net New Employment 2010-2030
Urban Communities Net New Employment 2010-2030
10,000
Base Case
C
6,000
250,000
0
0
Base Case
300,000
3,000
35,000
30,000
350,000
7,000
4,000
2,000
Cities and City Spheres of Influence Net New Population 2010-2030
8,250
8,000
5,000
45,000
Cities and SOIs
Base Case
A
B
C
Base Case
A
B
C
23
Section 3: Growth Alternatives
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Less
Farmland
Less
Alternative C More
Farmlannd Preservation
Farmlannd Preservation
Farmlannd Preservation
Farmland
Alternative B More
More
More
Less
Alternative A
Farmlannd Preservation
Base Case
Farmland
Less
Farmland
24
Section 4: Evaluation Topics • Evaluates 22 key topics affected by implementing each alternative • Outlines O tli k key questions ti tto consider id when h reviewing the alternatives • Includes policy options to address impacts resulting from the alternatives
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
25
Section 4: Evaluation Topics Criteria
Base Case
A
B
C
Land Use Efficiency Land Use
Range of Housing Types C Community it Identity Id tit
Climate Change
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Agriculture
Agricultural Land Conversion Future Airport Growth
Transportation/ Ci l i Circulation Public Facilities and Services
Vehicle Miles Traveled Roadway Impacts Capacity/Demand for Infrastructure Demand for Emergency Services
Legend g Least Favorable
Water Supply/ Demand Natural Resources
Aquifer Recharge
Most Favorable
Energy Consumption Biological Resources
The Delta
Urban Development p in the Delta
Recreation
Demand for Parkland
Safety
Flood Risk Wildland Fire Hazard Risk Jobs/Housing Balance
Economic E i and d Fiscal Health
Fiscal Health Property Tax Sharing
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
26
Section 5: Major Issue Scenarios • Extrapolates on 6 key situations the County may need to be prepared to address: – – – – – –
High Speed Rail Development Major Drought Major Flooding Energy Cost Increase Peripheral p Canal Construction Fiscal Scenario
• Uses hypothetical stories set at some point in th future…its the f t it fiction fi ti • Evaluates how the alternatives would cope with or address each scenario Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
27
Alternatives Review Process
Alternatives Evaluation Process
Alternatives Evaluation Develop/Refine Alternatives TAC Review and Input
Community Preferences Alternatives Review
Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative
Planning Commission Presentation
Planning Commission Recommendation
Board of Supervisors Presentation
Board of Supervisors Direction
Focus Groups Review and Input 14 Community Workshops
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
29
Selecting a Preferred Alternative
Selecting the Preferred Alternative • Not necessarily one of the alternatives • Likely made up of parts of each alternative
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
31
Planning Commission Recommendation • What will you be asked to provide a recommendation on? –
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
The part or parts of the alternatives would you like to see used as the basis for developing the Preferred Land Use Diagram
32
Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative • How do you think the County should grow and develop in the future? • What Wh t are community it members b preferences for future growth and development? • Which part or parts of the alternatives: – – – –
Meet your long-term objectives for the County? Address the iss issues es you o 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 should be considered? Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
33
Resources to Inform/Support Your Selection • What resources can you use to base your recommendation on? • Alternatives Alt ti review i process materials/input t i l /i t – – – –
Alternatives Report Evaluation Topics Alternatives Report Major Issues Scenarios Focus Group member input Community member preferences
• Other General Plan Update materials – – – –
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
Background Report Findings Issues and Opportunities Report Draft Vision and Guiding Principles Community Workshop Summaries
34
Future Planning Commission Action
“Recommend the following ___________ as the basis for developing the Preferred Land Use Diagram to guide the development of the Draft General Plan.� The Preferred Land Use Diagram will remain a draft until General Plan adoption.
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
35
N t Steps Next St
Resources to Inform/Support Your Selection • Alternatives Report Published –
March 7, 2011
• Board B d off SSupervisors i P Presentation t ti –
March 15, 2011
• Focus Group Meetings –
March 22 and 23, 2011
• Community Workshops March –
April 2011
• Planning Commission Recommendation –
TBD
• Board of Supervisors Direction –
Planning Commission Study Session March 3, 2011
TBD
37
Q Questions/Discussion ti /Di i