REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
December 18, 2014
FROM: JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Development and Resource Management Department
SUBJECT
Title
CONTINUED HEARING to consider approvals related to the Proposed General Plan Update (Citywide) (Continued from December 11, 2014 and public comment closed)
1. Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application
a. ***Consider Council motions to amend General Plan Update
b. RESOLUTION - Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. SCH 2012111015 prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public Resources Code, Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093
c. ***RESOLUTION - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the 2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014
d. ***RESOLUTION - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as "City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use and Circulation Map," and denying the remaining plan modifications
e. ***RESOLUTION - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director or her designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such updates are necessary to maintain consistency
Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
Consideration of General Plan Update and certification of the related EIR SCH No. 2012111015 filed by Jennifer K. Clark, Development and Resource Management Director, on behalf of the City of Fresno, citywide application:
a. Approve Resolution - Certifying Final EIR No. SCH 2012111015 prepared for the General Plan Update and the Development Code Update; and,
i. Adopting Findings of Fact as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; and
ii. Approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, section 15097; and
iii. Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Public Resources Code, section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines, section 15093
b. Approve Resolution - Adopting the proposed Fresno General Plan as an update to the 2025 General Plan, including all text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits and contained in the Fresno General Plan document dated December, 2014;
c. Approve Resolution - Adopting plan modifications recommended by staff and identified as "City of Fresno Staff Preferred Land Use" in the "Land Use Change Requests" and "Land Use and Circulation Map," and denying the remaining plan modifications; and
d. Approve Resolution - Authorizing the Development and Resource Management Director or her designee to update the text, policies, maps, tables, and exhibits contained in the Fresno General Plan document to reflect the final action taken by Council, to the extent that such updates are necessary to maintain consistency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By design, the General Plan (Plan) is a visionary document. It envisions a future in which the best traits of today's Fresno are preserved, and opportunities for improvement are seized. The theme of resilience runs throughout the Plan and its strategies to address the city's challenges and capitalize on its assets. The Plan describes a balanced city with an appropriate proportion of its growth and reinvestment focused in Downtown, established neighborhoods, and along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors. This will result in a city with a revitalized core and with livable new suburban neighborhoods supporting one another.
The Plan is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists. While it is general and long-range in scope, the Plan is also comprehensive with many near-term actions. It lays out policies and implementation strategies from the date of adoption to 2035 and beyond. The defined policies, figures, standards, guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the City focus on what is concrete and achievable in order to accommodate the future population. At its heart, the Plan gives the City the opportunity to effectively and efficiently plan for long-term land uses in a comprehensive way so that future development is implemented in a cohesive and sustainable manner.
The three guiding principles of the new Fresno General Plan, which are woven throughout the document, are as follows:
· Protect. The new General Plan protects existing and future investments in homes, property, and businesses.
· Preserve. The new General Plan preserves the character and values that make Fresno a unique and desirable place.
· Promote. The new General Plan promotes and incentivizes new investments by existing businesses and by new businesses seeking to relocate or expand.
The Plan is the result of input from hundreds of interviews, workshops, over 40 public meetings and hearings, and other outreach to thousands of residents, business owners and community stakeholders. In addition, the City conducted a survey of 400 area residents on their vision for the future of Fresno and incorporated the findings in the Plan. In total, the Administration, General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council have led an extensive four-year outreach process, setting a new standard for public engagement in the City of Fresno.
On April 19, 2012, the City Council voted (5-2) to adopt the Alternative "A-Modified" as the preferred General Plan Alternative. On August 23, 2012, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2012-150 (Exhibit C) which initiated the General Plan update based upon the preferred alternative and further initiated the amendment and/or repeal of several Specific and Community Plans. These actions were a culmination of a plan development process that included 12 public workshops, 22 General Plan Citizens Committee (GPCC) meetings, six Planning Commission meetings and three City Council hearings.
Following the direction contained in the Council's action, the staff, together with the consulting firms of Dyett & Bhatia and MW Steele Group, has prepared the proposed Fresno General Plan. The Public Review Draft of the Plan was available from July 2 through October 9, 2014 and the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR), conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) was available for public review and comment from July 31 through October 9, 2014. During this public review period, public presentations were made to numerous groups; including but not limited to all seven Council Districts, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the community's most important planning tool. A General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range planning document that every city and county in California is required to have under state law (California Government Code Section 65300). The California Supreme Court has described a general plan as "the constitution for future development." A general plan expresses the community's vision, values and priorities and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future public and private land uses. What this means is that the policies of the general plan are intended to serve as the framework for future land use decisions and is intended to provide the following:
1. Reflect the community's vision, values and priorities related to land use, as well as the community's goals for circulation, environmental, economic, social issues and policies which are affected by future land use and development.
2. Provide the framework for the City's decision-making associated with future development approvals.
3. Provide residents with an opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making processes of their communities.
4. Inform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other public agencies of the principles that guide development in the City.
As a charter city, Fresno is required to adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements set out in Government Code Section 65302. These required elements are: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. Under Government Code Section 65303, the City can adopt optional elements beyond the mandatory list to address additional specific needs that relate to the physical development of the City. Optional elements were created for the new General Plan to address specific needs for the City such as economic development and historic preservation, as well as the ability to provide and maintain essential services. The Plan also includes an implementation chapter to assist the policy makers in carrying out the visions, goals, policies, and objectives of the Plan. These additional elements evolved out of feedback received during the initial public outreach for the Plan. Upon adoption, they carry the same weight as the state-mandated elements.
As initiated by the Council, the Plan establishes 17 goals for the City which are as follows:
Initiated Plan Goal |
Commentary |
Goal 1. Increase opportunity, economic development, business and job creation. |
Use urban form, land use, and Development Code policies to streamline permit approval, promote local educational excellence and workforce relevance, significantly increase business development and expansion, retain and attract talented people, create jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over-saturation of a single type of housing, retail or employment. |
Goal 2. Support a successful and competitive Downtown. |
Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central core area as the primary activity center for Fresno and the region by locating substantial growth in the Downtown, and along the corridors leading to the Downtown. Use vision-based policies in a development code specific to the Downtown, when adopted, to ensure the creation of a unique sense of place in the central core. |
Goal 3. Emphasize conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability of Fresno. |
Acknowledges both the environmental and fiscal impacts of future growth and the limitations related to water, energy, natural resources as well as provide and maintain essential services, amenities, and supporting infrastructure. |
Goal 4. Emphasize achieving healthy air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. |
Prioritizes and incentivizes infill development as well as investing in alternative modes of transportation, including Bus Rapid Transit, which are needed to reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled and associated emissions. |
Goal 5. Support agriculture and food production as an integral industry. |
Emphasize the economic and cultural role of Fresno as a center of agriculture and food production systems by conserving farmland through a focus on developing vacant and underutilized land within the established Sphere of Influence of the City, limiting any further urban boundary expansion, and developing urban agriculture within the city and designated growth areas. |
Goal 6. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural, historic, and cultural resources. |
Emphasize the continued protection of important natural, historic and cultural resources in the future development of Fresno. This includes both designated historic structures and neighborhoods, but also "urban artifacts" and neighborhoods that create the character of Fresno. |
Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city. |
Recognizes the need to provide other forms of housing opportunities that are conveniently located close to employment, educational, and other activity centers that can be easily accessed without having to incur the cost of owning an automobile. |
Goal 8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance. |
Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an outcome and not a collection of subdivisions which do not result in Complete Neighborhoods. |
Goal 9. Promote a city of healthy communities and improve quality of life in established neighborhoods. |
Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets, public utilities, education and job training, proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for home grown businesses. |
Goal 10. Emphasize increased land use intensity and mixed-use development at densities supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno. |
Greater densities can be achieved through encouragement, infrastructure and incentives for infill and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity Centers. |
Goal 11. Emphasize and plan for all modes of travel on local and Major Streets in Fresno. |
Facilitate travel by walking, biking, transit, and motor vehicle with interconnected and linked neighborhoods, districts, major campuses and public facilities, shopping centers and other service centers, and regional transportation such as air, rail, bus and highways. |
Goal 12. Resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies. Make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth. |
Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees, financing and public investments to implement the General Plan. Adequately address accumulated deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to service continuity, desired standards of service to meet quality-of-life goals, and required infrastructure to support growth, economic competitiveness and business development. |
Goal 13. Emphasize the City as a role model for good growth management planning, efficient processing and permit streamlining, effective urban development policies, environmental quality, and a strong economy. |
Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and institutions to further these values throughout the region. Positively influence the same attributes in other jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley-and thus the potential for regional sustainability-and improve the standing and credibility of the City to pursue appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated community development which compete with and threaten the success of sustainable policies and development practices in Fresno. |
Goal 14. Provide a network of well-maintained parks, open spaces, athletic facilities, and walking and biking trails connecting the city's districts and neighborhoods to attract and retain a broad range of individuals, benefit the health of residents, and provide the level of public amenities required to encourage and support development of higher density urban living and transit use. |
Emphasizes the importance of providing these kind of amenities in order to improve the quality of life for our residents, and how these kind of investments help to maintain and enhance the value of the properties in which these types of amenities are located. |
Goal 15. Improve Fresno's visual image and enhance its form and function through urban design strategies and effective maintenance. |
|
Goal 16. Protect and improve public health and safety. |
|
Goal 17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an informed and engaged citizenry. |
Emphasize shared community values and genuine engagement with and across different neighborhoods, communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for the success of Fresno and all its residents. |
Timeline
As noted in previous reports to the Council, the effort to update the City's General Plan and Development Code has been funded by federal grants from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative, and a state grant from the California Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities program. The DOE grant was provided to the City of Fresno for the Energy Efficiency Survey program and to encourage comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency in Fresno's land use planning and property development standards. The other grants were provided to integrate long term community sustainability principles and practices into the City's comprehensive General Plan addressing land use, transportation, public utilities and services, and resource management goals and the implementing property development regulations.
A complete description of the Fresno General Plan update planning process and alternative growth concepts was presented to the City Council on April 5, 2012, with additional requested information presented at a follow-up meeting occurring on April 19, 2012. Both meetings included thorough discussion. At the conclusion of this review, the Council selected a preferred alternative and four months later on August 23, 2012, initiated the completion of the Plan.
The Public Review Draft of the Plan and the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR) with technical studies, conducted by FCS were released for public review and comment on July 31st. On July 29th, a community information meeting about the public review draft was held at Fresno City College which was attended by more than 200 people. During the public comment period, public workshops were held in each Council District. Presentations were also made to numerous community groups, and a Planning Commission workshop was held.
Summary of Public Comments
The public comment period ended on October 9, 2014. Numerous comments were received during the public review period including letters on both the General Plan and the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR). Comments on the Plan itself were carefully considered and thoroughly analyzed by staff. As part of the longstanding commitment to community involvement in the Plan, requested changes that could feasibly be accommodated without creating internal contradictions, or conflicts with the goals of the Plan or MEIR, were accommodated. A summary of the comments and how these were incorporated into the General Plan are listed in Exhibit K.
Comments on the DMEIR were forwarded to FCS. FCS then wrote, in coordination with City staff, formal responses to each DMEIR comment. These responses are incorporated into the Final MEIR.
Comments on the General Plan were diverse and in some cases contradictory in nature. The main categories of comments were as follows:
Land Use Diagram. Many of the comment letters requested very specific changes to the land use diagram. In particular, it was often requested that certain parcels of land be changed from one land use designation to another. For example, the draft Plan may have shown a parcel as Medium High Density Residential, but the commenter requested that it be changed to Medium Density Residential. Such comments were received from property owners regarding their own land, as we as from people who did not own the sites in question.
The" Roughly Half" Ratio of Infill Development. Some commenters felt that this policy was too biased in favor of new growth areas, while others felt that it was too biased in favor of infill. Many felt that it wasn't strong enough and that there ought to be strict control mechanisms to ensure that half of the City's growth was in the form of infill, but some letters expressed concern that the language in the draft Plan was already too strict and could result in a development moratorium in new growth areas.
Underserved Neighborhoods. There were several comments urging that the Plan do more to address needs in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. Some comments focused on the need for infrastructure in certain areas, while others commented on a disproportionate concentration of industrial uses in certain neighborhoods.
Non-Automobile Transportation. Several commenters requested that a stronger emphasis be placed on infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation. Bicycle facilities were commonly requested, and walkability was also discussed. Multiple letters requested better public transit, some of which focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) specifically, and others which discussed the bus system more generally.
Non-Suburban Development and Transportation Concepts. Some letters expressed discomfort with the Plan's intentions to create a more compact urban environment in Downtown and along the BRT corridors. Reasons included concerns over traffic, potential BRT costs, and fears that conventional suburban lifestyle options would be eliminated.
Outward Growth. The consequences of outward growth were the focus of some of the comment letters received by staff. Some commenters stated that there was a need for stronger farmland preservation strategies, and others felt that new growth at the edge of the City ought to pay the full costs of its required infrastructure.
The Development Code. Some commenters felt that the new Development Code should be adopted at the same time as the General Plan.
In addition to the broader issues addressed above, there are several erroneous statements that have been made recently about the Plan. It is important to address such statements in order to clear up misunderstandings and provide accurate information for the City Council and the public.
· Statement: The General Plan intends for Fresno to be more dense that San Francisco.
This statement is false. At 4,545 people per square mile, Fresno's density is significantly lower than San Francisco's 17,867 people per square mile. While the General Plan does call for targeted increases in density in order to revitalize Downtown and to maximize the benefit of infrastructure investments, the overall density of the community will only rise to 5,732 people per square mile under the Plan, and most existing neighborhoods won't experience any increases in density.
· Statement: The General Plan will repeal the Community and Specific Plans, leaving neighborhoods with no protections.
This statement is false. The community and specific plans will not automatically be repealed. They will remain in place until the protections that they afford are carried forward in the new Development Code and/or new community and specific plans.
· Statement: The General Plan will constrain greenfield developers or result in a moratorium on greenfield development.
This statement is false. Roughly half of future growth will be greenfield development. Over 10,000 greenfield lots in the incorporated areas, which represent nearly 10 years of inventory. While certain thresholds must be met before development can occur in some growth areas, other growth areas will be available immediately for development.
· Statement: The General Plan is far too weak to promote infill.
This statement is false. Roughly half of future growth will be infill development, and the Plan provides for the strongest set of infill incentives in the region in order to help that goal become a reality.
· Statement: The General Plan doesn't address the needs of underserved neighborhoods, especially in south Fresno.
This statement is false. Most new development will occur south of Shaw Avenue. The City will make capital improvements based on the age and condition of infrastructure, and based on these criteria the greatest needs are south of Shaw. Additionally, given substantial greenfield development opportunities in Southwest and Southeast Fresno, the City will create specific plans to further define investment opportunities in these areas. Further community input and resident involvement will be sought through this process.
· Statement: The General Plan plans Industrial uses only for low income neighborhoods.
This statement is false. Concerns about industrial uses were taken very seriously and every effort was made to accommodate such concerns when it was feasible. The General Plan update does not expand industrial uses. In fact, some industrial land uses have been moved from Southwest to Northwest Fresno. Furthermore, the Plan's implementing Development Code will require that new industrial uses provide buffers adjacent to neighborhoods, and where it was possible to do so, the Plan designates Heavy Industrial uses away from neighborhoods. Some commenters expressed interest in removing all industrial from south Fresno, but given the location of rail and highway infrastructure this is not feasible.
· Statement: The General Plan doesn't address Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs).
This statement is misinformed. DUCs, such as Calwa, remain in Fresno County where the City of Fresno has no jurisdiction to provide services. However, the City of Fresno is willing to work with these communities to find a path forward to annexation if that is their desire.
· Statement: The General Plan doesn't promote parks in underserved/underrepresented neighborhoods.
This statement is false. The Plan calls for the park supply to grow to 3 acres of pocket, neighborhood, and community parks per 1,000 residents, and calls for an additional 2 acres of regional parks per 1,000 residents. In addition to the creation of new City parks, the City of Fresno will identify joint use opportunities in locating parks with other public facilities such as schools.
· Statement: The General Plan does not do enough to limit the overconcentration of liquor stores in low income areas.
This statement is premature. The Community will have an opportunity to address the location, separation and number of package liquor stores as part of the Development Code.
· Statement: The General will eliminate cul-de-sacs.
This statement is false. As long as pedestrian options are available to connect neighborhoods to adjacent services and shopping, some cul-de-sacs can still be built. Specific standards will be addressed in the forthcoming Development Code.
Next Steps
On Monday, December 8 the Planning Commission considered this item. Staff will provide an oral report on those proceedings to the Council at their meeting on December 11.
If the Plan is adopted by the Council, two significant implementation actions will follow:
Citywide Development Code. After the adoption of the General Plan, staff will proceed with the completion of the public review draft of the Citywide Development Code, and will then bring the Code to the City Council for consideration. If adopted, this document will replace the current Zoning Ordinance, which has not been comprehensively updated since 1964. It is anticipated that the Citywide Development Code will be presented to the City Council for consideration by the summer of 2015.
Downtown Plans and Development Code. The Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and the Downtown Development Code-which propose a refined vision, revitalization strategy, and development regulations for the center of the City-were released for public comment in 2011. After the adoption of the General Plan they will be revised and brought to the City Council for consideration by the summer of 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An environmental document for the proposed Fresno General Plan was prepared by the City to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency for the Project under CEQA and a Draft Master Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Fresno General Plan, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15175, et seq. The MEIR was prepared by FCS/Michael Brandman Associates (FCS) under contract with the City.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal Impact of Developing the General Plan - Funds for consultants to assist in completion of the Fresno General Plan and Development Code documents were provided by a grant from the California Strategic Growth Council. All environmental assessment studies and reports were funded by grants from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development.
Fiscal Impact on the City Resulting from Implementation of the General Plan - Analysis was conducted on the financial impact of implementing the goals and policies in the General Plan. Initial fiscal analysis reveals a distinct revenue advantage for development in incorporated areas (i.e. infill areas) primarily as a result of the existing Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County. It also reveals a need for new strategies to fund ongoing maintenance of development in unincorporated areas.
· The City of Fresno receives more tax revenue in the existing neighborhoods and downtown (incorporated/infill) than in the unincorporated areas. The City receives 27-31 percent of tax revenue in the incorporated areas of the City, as compared to 17-22 percent of tax revenues when development occurs in unincorporated areas that are annexed to the City:
o Fiscal advantage of almost 50 percent from incorporated areas - on average, every $1,000 of new assessed value from existing neighborhoods and downtown generates $2.90 compared to unincorporated area where the amount is only $1.95.
o Under the Tax Sharing Agreement with Fresno County, the County retains its share of property tax base plus 62 percent of increment on new development. In other words the General Fund "capture rate" on annexed land is significantly below that within existing City boundaries.
· The City of Fresno falls behind on every annexed property without adding a new funding source for maintenance. Impact fees and Community Facility Districts (CFD) are among the options to pay for construction and maintenance in the new growth areas for public streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks within neighborhoods, median islands, and parks spaces. Public Safety and infrastructure on main thoroughfares will require additional contribution from the General Fund or "other" funding sources. Providing services in unincorporated areas, without additional funding, will further constrain the already stressed service levels is existing neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
· Exhibit A: Land Use Change Requests, Map and Table
· Exhibit B: Staff Recommended Land Use and Circulation Map
· Exhibit C: City Council Resolution 2012-150 Initiation of the General Plan Update
· Exhibit D: Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (DMEIR SCH NO. 2012111015)
· Exhibit E: Final Master Environmental Impact Report (FMEIR)
· Exhibit F: Revised General Plan, December 2014
· Exhibit G: Redline General Plan
· Exhibit H: Errata Sheet for Redline General Plan
· Exhibit I: Table of General Plan Text Revisions
· Exhibit J: General Plan Comment Letters
· Exhibit K: Frequently Asked Questions
· Exhibit L: Planning Commission Staff Report