From: Cynthia McDonald
To: PETTIS, JEFF; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; STEPHENS, JOHN; Andrea Marr; GAMEROS, LOREN; BULEY, MIKE Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: New Business Item 1 - Professional Services Agreement for Housing Element Rezoning Program and Environmental Impact Report
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 12:06:11 PM
Attachments: OPR_C3_final.pdf
using_visioning_in_comprehensive_planning_process.pdf
Visioning 100422v2.pdf
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
In the years between 2013 and 2016, the City failed to engage the public in the widespread rezoning that was part of the General Plan Update. That failure spurred considerable public backlash.
Now in 2025, you are faced with either repeating the same mistake made by a prior City Council, or you can truly engage the public. Unfortunately, there are some statements in the consultant’s proposal that tell us that the City is looking at this as an adversarial process. For example, on page 10: “After the finalization of the plan, Kearns & West will host and facilitate a training session with staff and consultant team to review the plan, provide an overview of all public-interfacing activities, and lay out strategies for successful conflict resolution and de-escalation in anticipation of potentially challenging community discussions and dynamics. [Emphasis added]
In order to avoid the same backlash against the City as in 2016, I request that you form an advisory committee with respect to the rezoning required by the Housing Element and as a result of Measure K, so that the public can fully and meaningfully participate in the rezoning process. This will also avoid the adversarial attitude towards the public.
The contract with the consultant, Dudek, is for three years, with two one-year extensions. That is adequate time for the City Council to form an advisory committee. Advisory committees have timely and accurately performed tasks for the City in the past. The Active Transportation Committee, with the help of City staff, but only a little help from a consultant, wrote goals, policies, and procedures for the update of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. That was work was later the basis for the Active Transportation Plan, the backbone for a network of pedestrian and cycling routes.
Santa Ana used an advisory committee for the update and rezoning of its General Plan. Their group consisted of 17 members of the public, planning commissioners, business owners, and residents. There were 14 meetings over 10 months. The committee reviewed the goals and policies and identified areas suitable for future development. It also assisted with four vision statements, five core values and three land use maps.
Changes to General Plans don’t show up on the agenda for public hearings fully formed. In most cities, the process begins with two steps:
The creation of an advisory task force, often known as the “general plan advisory committee,” and
The selection of an outside general plan consultant.
Some cities precede creation of the task force with a visioning process, in which the city and community leaders gather public input and attempt to reach a consensus about what sorts of things they want for the city. Sometimes the advisory task force undertakes the visioning process. See attached “Using Visioning in a Comprehensives Planning Process” by Anna Haines of the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point (https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr- ap/clue/documents/publicprocesses/using_visioning_in_comprehensive_planning_process.pdf).
An advisory committee is usually made up of 15 to 30 citizens who represent various neighborhoods, industries, and other interest groups in the city. It is typical to have advocates from affordable housing, veteran, senior, and youth groups along with representatives from development and building companies be part of the committee. A consultant or lead staff person will work with the committee to put together a draft of the general plan revisions. In most instances, the professional general plan team will provide the committee with technical background and make recommendations, while the committee will make the initial policy choices.
During the process of putting Measure K on the ballot, four of you, along with then City Councilmember Harlan, promised that the ordinance would bring affordable housing. It is critical that an advisory committee include affordable housing advocates to ensure that the zoning includes affordability requirements that will help the City satisfy its RHNA.
In addition, the public was promised there would be a visioning process for the rezoning. In fact, Measure K states “All city-sponsored land use plans adopted or amended for any part of the defined areas eligible for this exemption shall include a public community visioning process (e.g., workshops, design charrettes, community surveys) prior to adoption or amendment by the City Council at any required public hearing.” [Emphasis added] By the way, community visioning is not just workshops, design charrettes and community surveys, which are typically part of public outreach. As you will see from reading Ms. Haine’s article, visioning is so much more.
And I’m not the only one who believes visioning that involves an advisory committee is important. The State of California for one. See https://lci.ca.gov/docs/OPR_C3_final.pdf (and
attached) which is a chapter from the guidelines that the State has written for cities updating their General Plans. Also, William Fulton, who wrote the “Guide to California Planning,” a textbook that is widely used in California college classes in urban planning.
I am also attaching a slide deck from October 2022 which I used during a public comment at a City Council meeting. The information was gathered from the Fulton book and the State guidelines.
Again, I urge you to form an advisory committee before any work with the consultant begins.
Cynthia McDonald
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 26
3 Community Engagement
and Outreach
Designing Healthy, Equitable, Resilient, and Economically Vibrant Places “Cities (and counties) have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” —Jane Jacobs
Introduction
Robust and inclusive community engagement is a vital component of drafting and updating a general plan. State law requires the local planning agency to provide opportunities for the involvement of the community . Such involvement should include public agencies, public utility companies, community groups, and others through hearings or other appropriate methods (Gov. Code § 65351). The law also requires that a jurisdiction make a diligent effort to include all economic groups when drafting, adopting and implementing its housing element (Gov. Code § 65583(c)(8)) . For the purposes of this chapter , the term “update” will refer to adoption of new general plans as well as amendments to existing plans.
By law, cities and counties must hold at least two public hearings before adopting a general plan: one by the planning commission and another by the legislative body (either the city council or the board of supervisors) (Gov. Code §65353(a), §65355) . Government Code section 65351 requires that during the preparation or amendment of a general plan, the planning agency must provide opportunities for community input through public hearings and any other means the planning agency deems appropriate. Specifically , Government Code section 65351 requires that the planning agency shall “provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American tribes, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups. ” Government Code section 65357 requires that copies of the documents adopting or amending a general plan, including the diagrams and text, shall be made available to the public. The courts have found a general plan amendment invalid when it was not made available to the public (City of Poway v. City of San Diego (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 847 , 861) . Most planning departments, however , conduct more than the minimal number of hearings. Many jurisdictions undertake extensive outreach that exceeds the minimum statutory requirements. The spectrum of community engagement ranges from informing and consulting the public to involving, collaborating, and ultimately empowering local communities.
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 27
3 A general plan update affects every aspect and member of the community . Broad participation – particularly direct or representative participation of local residents – will help achieve desired outcomes.
Many entities have recognized the ability of strong community engagement to improve local conditions, inform policy , enhance equity , and create better program outcomes. Community engagement as a process can also help strengthen community bonds.
Creating the opportunity for community dialogue throughout the general plan update – while sometimes challenging – can result in a more informed plan with more public support.
As stated in Chapter 2, a general plan should start with a community’s vision, but community engagement should continue throughout the process, from visioning to adoption and implementation, depending on the scope and extent of the project. A thorough update for an average–sized city typically requires at least one full year or more. The nature of the outreach process and its intended outcomes will differ in each stage of the update:
Web–based engagement
Propel Vallejo developed a concise electronically available web document to highlight various planning options based on community input. By synthesizing all of the available information, the city created scenarios to elicit more input and inform the decision–making stage.
1. E xploration : The initial stages of outreach allow stakeholders to identify community strengths, assets, priorities for future development, and areas for improvement and, thus, to start the process of formulating a vision for the future. In addition, the exploration phase presents an opportunity to educate residents about land use planning principles prior to more extensive outreach.
2. Collaborative Action : After establishing a general baseline for community goals, planners should engage collaboratively with partners, considering different options for reaching the set goals and aligning policy priorities to attain the vision.
3. Decision Making : Exploration and collaboration should identify various policy priorities necessary for achieving the general plan vision. These priorities should then inform a framework to help identify policy options, choose among them, and assemble a draft plan.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation : Community engagement should continue after the plan is drafted. Updates on successful policy implementation and implementation challenges can be an opportunity to elicit feedback and help evaluate progress toward community goals.
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 28
3 This chapter discusses various issues planning departments may consider when designing a public engagement process. It also provides tools and lists resources to inform the outreach process and ensure community involvement, input, and support for the general plan. As illustrated by Figure 7 below, statutory requirements only require limited meetings and fall into the “inform” area on the engagement spectrum. However , many jurisdictions recognize the benefits of a more involved process, and offer more extensive engagement and collaborative opportunities. Some communities have even conducted such an extensive engagement process that it moves towards “empower” in the engagement spectrum. The scenario land use planning and data informed process in the Fresno and the Vallejo plans are examples.
Process Design
Designing the outreach process before starting a general plan update helps ensure adequate input from various stakeholders.
Unexpected events can occur during an update, including changes in elected leadership, funding, and staff. Having an outreach plan in place will help keep the process on track. In addition to any organized participation activities, the Brown Act requires that meetings of appointed advisory committees, planning commissions, and local legislative bodies be public. This section provides guidance for developing an outreach plan.
Establish an Outreach Strategy
Establishing a road map to plan public engagement efforts may help guide outreach throughout the process. Local jurisdictions vary tremendously throughout California, and engagement strategies will also vary based on local circumstances. Local communities should help define the outreach strategy most relevant to their needs. There are some issues to consider across planning for all areas, however . These include:
• Funding available for engagement activities, including translation services as needed • Timeline for activities
• Expectation setting for stakeholders
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf Figure 7: Public Engagement Spectrum
IAP2’s PublIc PArtIcIPAtIon sPectrum
Inform consult Involve collAborAte emPower
PublIc PArtIcIPAtIon GoAl
To provide the public
with balanced and
objective information
to assist them in
understanding the
problem, alternatives,
opportunities and/or
solutions.
To obtain public
feedback on analysis,
alternatives and/or
decisions.
To work directly with
the public throughout
the process to ensure
that public concerns
and aspirations
are consistently
understood and
considered.
To partner with
the public in each
aspect of the
decision including
the development of
alternatives and the
identification of the
preferred solution.
To place final decision
making in the hands of
the public.
PromIse to the PublIc
We will keep you
informed.
We will keep you
informed, listen to
and acknowledge
concerns and
aspirations, and
provide feedback
on how public
input influenced the
decision.
We will work with
you to ensure that
your concerns and
aspirations are directly
reflected in the
alternatives developed
and provide feedback
on how public
input influenced the
decision.
We will look to you
for advice and
innovation
in
formulating solutions
and incorporate your
advice and
recommendations
into the decisions to
the maximum extent
possible.
We will implement
what you decide.
© IAP2 International Federation 2014. All rights reserved.
The IAP2 Federation has developed the Spectrum to help groups define the public’s role in any public participation process.
The IAP2 Spectrum is quickly becoming an international standard.
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 29
3 • Staff time, knowledge, and other expertise necessary to conduct outreach and education • Communication tools available
• Process to ensure efforts are transparent, accessible, and fun • Methods available to capture and record dialogue at outreach events • Variety of meeting spaces
• Methods to continue engagement after the initial process has been completed Some helpful tools in outreach include:
Oversight Responsibility
Assigning a staff member to oversee and be responsible for the engagement and outreach process will ensure dedicated attention to this important procedural step.
Advisory Committee or Board
Establishing a diverse advisory board or committee comprised of experts and community members can be helpful throughout the general plan update process. An advisory body can provide insight as to how to reach multiple populations, address potentially controversial issues, understand sensitive community needs, and represent a greater portion of the community . Establishment of the advisory body early in the process allows the board to inform the general outreach strategy from the beginning. An advisory board can also establish what community engagement will include for its own jurisdiction, and how community and stakeholder input is handled and communicated back to the public. Additionally , an advisory body can help build community capacity on issues such as data use and evaluation, as well as the historical context of land use planning. A manageably sized advisory body – around 10 people with an effective facilitator – should include multiple voices from the community and represent its diversity . General plan advisory board members should be drawn from the broad range of communities that exist within a jurisdiction to represent the varied interests that the public engagement process hopes to capture and to inclusively inform and enhance the general outreach strategy .
The following categories of advisory body members should be considered:
• Business leaders and/or representatives from chambers of commerce • Representatives from the technology sector
• Local agency leaders, including water agencies, fire departments, law enforcement, parks and recreation, health officers, public works leads, and others
• Community development leaders
• Health leaders
• Representatives and advocates from various income groups, special needs populations, and neighborhoods in the jurisdiction CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 30
3 • Multi–lingual representatives
• State and/or federal agency leaders, if the jurisdiction has a high proportion of public lands • School representatives
• Faith–based community representatives
• Agriculture and food system representatives
• Environmental justice representatives
• Academics
• Local philanthropic organizations
• Individual community leaders
Survey of Overlapping Efforts
Multiple public engagement processes may be in progress simultaneously . For instance, outreach to solicit input on an application for grant funding may occur at the same time as outreach for an update of the general plan. Concurrent outreach processes can confuse participants; and this confusion poses a potential challenge for recruitment and involvement. Additionally , other public or private agencies – for example, departments of parks and recreation, hospitals, departments of public health, or non–governmental organizations – may be conducting outreach simultaneously . Increased awareness of ongoing efforts to gain input can help avoid overlapping or conflicting outreach efforts and might even allow outreach sessions to be combined.
Scale
Outreach for a county’s general plan is a much larger undertaking than for a city’s due to the broader catchment area. Stakeholders may also have less of a perceived stake in the process because county general planning is further removed from their local jurisdiction. Sharing how information will be incorporated into the planning process can relate the importance of participation and increase community input.
Partnership
All affected stakeholders should be represented in any public participation process. In a general plan process, this is the entire community . Partnership with various stakeholders also provides the opportunity to establish paid or unpaid volunteers to work within the community during the outreach process. Stakeholder groups in the general plan process may include:
• Community and neighborhood groups
• School districts, charter schools, and county offices of education • County transportation commissions
• Utilities and public service providers of:
» Energy
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 31
3 » Water , including water supply and wastewater . These entities involve flood/stormwater districts, regional water management groups, (groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), reclamation districts, etc. » Telecommunications
» Waste
• Regional groups that can identify synergies with other regional efforts
• Affordable housing and special needs population
representatives and advocates
• Non–profit and for–profit builders
• State and federal partners, as appropriate
• Educational institutions
• Industry and business
• Civic and community service organizations
• Non–governmental organizations
• Religious communities
• Existing boards and commissions, such as planning boards, departments of parks and recreation, etc. • Other public agencies
• Topical experts:
» Groups working on climate change
» County health departments
» Environmental justice groups
Tribal leaders
Innovation or technology officers
Local food groups
Agricultural community members
Engaging more members of the community helps ensure a general plan that serves the needs of all residents
Source: http://www.futour.it/english/?p=48
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 32
3 Tribal Consultation
When adopting or amending a General Plan, or designating open space, local governments must consult with California Native American tribes traditionally affiliated with the general plan area for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097 .9 and 5 0 97.9 93 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction ( Gov. Code § 65352.3 , 65562.5 ). For more information about this consultation requirement, see the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Supplement to the General Plan Guidelines, the Tribal Consultation Guidelines .
Cultural Considerations
Cultural differences may be present between and among professional groups as well as between and among community members.
Reaching out to different professional groups and organizations not traditionally involved in planning may present additional challenges and opportunities. Understanding different interaction norms, priorities, levels of comfort with professional terminology , and expectations for project completion is essential to a productive process.
It is important to consider cultural diversity throughout the design of the community engagement process, including both overt differences, such as literacy level, socioeconomic status, and language, and more nuanced differences such as local history and cultural norms. Designing a process that is sensitive to all these considerations may help encourage broader , more equitable, and more informed participation.
To ensure equitable outreach, the following factors should be considered:
Literacy Level : It may be more difficult to reach out to Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals, immigrant communities, or people with lower educational attainment. Planning agencies should design outreach materials and events to accommodate different literacy levels and provide background information when referring to complex concepts. A void the use of acronyms where possible.
Socioeconomic Status : Groups with lower socioeconomic status are often disproportionately affected by environmental hazards while facing greater barriers to participation in efforts to remediate them. These barriers may be addressed by considering factors such as location and timing of outreach, accessibility by public transportation, availability of childcare, and availability of food. Reviewing demographic information, such as the data available in the American Community Survey (ACS) , can help identify the potential needs of each community .
Language : All communication should be done in the major languages spoken in the community . This includes any advertising and written background materials as well as live interpretation at key public events. Some documents, such as the draft general plan or the draft environmental impact report, may be infeasible to translate in their entirety . In such cases, the planning agency should consider translating an executive summary into the major languages spoken in the community . Interpreters should be available at meetings when it is clear that non–English speaking members of the community will be present. Many local non– profit organizations can provide minimal or low cost services for public benefit.
Age : Aging populations have specific needs that should be addressed to capture their input in the process. Considering time of day and location of events, as well as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to events and services available at the locations, will help include more elderly residents. The needs of young residents must also be considered, including outreach CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 33
3 methods that benefit multiple groups such as social media and online platforms, location access and amenities, and innovative tools for discussion at events.
Local History : Certain communities may have participated in previous outreach efforts that did not result in change. Over time, either not being included or participating and/or not feeling utilized may affect future participation. Understanding the local context is helpful prior to beginning outreach. Fostering dialogue around racial inequities that have existed in the land use context can be challenging. Jurisdictions have started to engage with skilled facilitators to have conversations that advance participation and engagement opportunities. In particular , specific outreach to tribal governments should be considered.
Cultural Norms : California is rich in diversity . Each city and county across the state is comprised of different ethnic groups from around the world. From 1980-2010, the percentage of people of color , for example, increased from 33.4 percent to
59.8 percent, and is expected to increase to 73.3 percent by 2040.
Some community members may not be as familiar with the
democratic form of government and the ability to openly share opinions; others may be accustomed to different gender roles, or may be fearful to have conversations and dialogue recorded. It is hard to learn all of the cultural nuances for each group in the community , but working in partnership with local non–profits or other groups skilled at working across cultures can help ensure all groups are able to participate in a meaningful outreach process.
Outreach Structure
Community members and other stakeholders have many competing interests and limited time. Allowing different levels and types of involvement in the process can help foster participation. For example, going to places where people already gather—a community health center , a street fair , a cultural event, a public event at a local religious or community center , or a community event at a local school—may allow attendees to give input without a large time commitment. This is an especially helpful mode of outreach when looking for feedback on specific topics, such as health, equity, and environmental justice. Meeting stakeholders in locations they are familiar and comfortable with can also help to bridge cultural and trust gaps. Other more time–intensive activities, such as focus groups, charrettes, and workshops, can be made available for stakeholders who are interested in providing more in–depth input. The structure of outreach is also important for transparency and continuing communication throughout the process of a plan update. Ongoing information sharing can help maintain community relationships and build trust in the process, especially if culturally appropriate communication methods are used. Web–based communications, for example, may exclude stakeholder groups without regular access to the Internet, and should be supplemented by other methods for greater reach across groups.
Data
Data and data visualizations can be powerful tools to catalyze community engagement. Some local jurisdictions have used maps with geospatial data and charts to examine transit routes, map community assets and risks, or share health outcome information to allow community members to understand planning in a tangible way . Data presentations should be tailored to their specific audience. For instance, some members might want specific details, including how the data are generated and collected. Other stakeholder groups may only be interested in general associations and how the data fit into the process. Missing data should be considered alongside existing data. Including funds in the budget to collect data as the general plan process proceeds will help address identified gaps in data availability .
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 34
3 There are also methods to allow community members to collect local data themselves. Tools such as walk audits , surveys of building types, and community photos help communities envision improvement while increasing potential participation. Considering how these data are valued – versus other data sets and sources such as traditional data, including how much weight they will carry in the process and how public contributors will be incorporated – is important to help ensure improved community data and input.
On the Horizon
As technology has advanced in the private sector , people have become accustomed to using the Internet and their personal cell phones to locate services, buy products, fund projects through crowdsourcing, and share their lives on social media. This constant and immediate interaction is changing the cultural norms for level of involvement with business, other community members, and, ultimately , with government agencies . Groups such as Code for America build open source technology to improve access to government services. Some places are starting to allow citizens to use personal cell phones to do surveys of local conditions , tweet responses to proposed policy options , or even provide their commentary online for local city council meetings rather than participate in person. As more local jurisdictions create positions for innovation officers and facilitate new ways of interacting with local government, planning departments will likely have new opportunities for engagement. However , jurisdictions should not ignore age and cultural differences in the rate of adoption of new technology as potential methods of engagement increase. As with any strategy , balancing alternative methods and using various tools to engage diverse perspectives will help increase input and prevent unintentional exclusion of community members.
Technology continues to create new methods of engaging the community in analysis and decision making
Source: https://www.pexels.com/search/analytics/
Partnering for increased engagement in Salinas
In fall 2013, the City of Salinas initiated an Economic Development Element (EDE) planning process. The City’s initial goal was to position Salinas for outside investment to become the agricultural technology capital. However , when the City asked local community based organizations (CBOs) about their economic development priorities, multiple new topics emerged including training for transitioning agricultural workers; reducing poverty; support for local entrepreneurs and small businesses; more childcare facilities; education and youth development; and tracking the city’s economic indicators by neighborhood, race/ethnicity , and income group.
The CBOs also wanted improved community engagement for the EDE process. Early activities required a technical understanding which intimidated numerous residents (and CBOs) into not participating. While 75% of Salinas residents identify as Latino and 66% of residents speak Spanish at home, the workshop presentations and materials were all in English with limited Spanish interpretation assistance. The collaborative Building Healthy Communities CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 35
3 – East Salinas (BHC), identified this need and entered an MOU with the City to provide additional engagement opportunities tailored to the Latino residents in East Salinas (93% Latino).
This supplemental effort consisted of a pop–up workshop, a community workshop, and house meetings to learn about East Salinas residents’ challenges with employment, education, shopping, and businesses. Additionally , BHC convened bi–weekly meetings with coalition members so they could collaboratively provide support and feedback to the City on engagement and policy proposals.
The BHC–led pop–up workshop’s materials and hosts were bilingual and activities included a vision photo booth, goal prioritization dot exercise, and posters that asked people for ideas about “Small Businesses, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” and “Y outh Development. ” The activities did not require any prior knowledge of the planning process or of economic development policy . A few months later , BHC and the Monterey County Health Department co–hosted a community workshop in East Salinas, held in Spanish with English translation. Activities framed EDE topics at an individual or household level making the discussion accessible to all attendees. Community leaders also organized, facilitated, and summarized small house meetings in Spanish to hear from many undocumented and mono–lingual Spanish–speaking families. From these activities, the resident’s and business owners and workers articulated their dreams for their families and Salinas youth.
BHC’s involvement in the process shifted the EDE’s framework, promoted inclusion of policies with a health and equity framework, and created an entire quality of life section in the element. Evaluation metrics were modified to show breakdowns by race and ethnicity and include health and quality of life indicators. This process demonstrated that East Salinas residents have valuable contributions when culturally–appropriate community engagement opportunities are available. The City now sees BHC and other local CBOs as partners and allies. City of Salinas Planning RFPs now include requirements for processes to include fully bi–lingual and collaborative planning processes.
Source: Beth Altshuler, Raimi + Associates; Building Healthy Communities — East Salinas; and City of Salinas Engagement Tools
There are a wide variety of engagement tools that can be used to inform and engage the community in a public participation process.
Tools should be chosen based on the needs, strengths, and resources of the community . Using multiple techniques can help to reach a wider range of community residents. Community members who help develop the general plan may become champions throughout the process, helping carry the plan through adoption and implementation. Below are examples of different tools that may be employed.
Meetings, Workshops, and Events
Well–timed meetings help solicit input and keep participants informed. Ensuring that meetings and outreach activities are held at a variety of times and locations—after work hours, on weekends, or at facilities that are easily accessible via public transit—helps increase potential participation. Meeting types can vary depending on a variety of factors, including the meeting’s purpose or its participants. In addition to regular meeting structures, project leads can use innovative methods such as story telling, games, or CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 36
3 white board activities to capture input. Meeting types include, but are not limited to:
• Public hearings
• Town hall meetings
• Open houses
• Events in non–traditional places, such as farmers’ markets, churches, health fairs, school events, and community fairs • Panel discussions
• Neighborhood meetings
• Meetings of civic organizations, such as chambers of commerce • Focus groups
• Small in–home meetings
Activities
Activities are a helpful tool to expand thinking and demonstrate new opportunities and possibilities. For example, conducting a “walk audit, ” where local residents physically walk around as a group and collect standardized information about the condition of the built environment, could highlight infrastructure and safety needs. Activities can also provide group–learning opportunities and build relationships between community members and planning and consulting staff.
Tours
Tours to other cities and counties can show decision–makers and participants examples from other communities and help them visualize ideas for their own community . Tours within an agency’s own jurisdiction are also a good way to experience parts of the city or district with which participants may be less familiar . Organized tours of recent or proposed projects within the community may also provide a good basis of discussion for decision makers and participants.
Open Houses
Open houses can allow community members to view plan proposals, data, and maps in a casual environment that allows people to come and go as their schedules allow. Open houses can be held at a church, school, community center , local business, or other location easily accessible to the public. Planners and visitors should be able to talk informally about the planning process, with translators present as necessary . Open houses can be combined with other tools, such as written or visual surveys.
Community Image Surveys and Photo Voice
Photos can be a powerful engagement tool to change the built environment. Various methods have been used with photos.
Community Image Surveys are a visual preference method that are scored and used to assess preferences. Photovoice is a participatory method where users can capture elements about the environment and use them as a starting point for a discussion about their community .
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 37
3 Design Charrettes
Design charrettes are interactive, visual, and time–intensive events where the public can participate with interdisciplinary teams of planners, architects, engineers, and artists, as well as each other . While charrettes are often used for specific plans and individual projects, they can also help community members visualize what they want their community to look like. These preferences can then be translated into general plan goals and specifications.
Web Based Meeting and Engagement Tools
Webinars, online conferences, and Internet collaboration tools allow for easy , convenient engagement with the public. People with busy schedules, families, or limited mobility may find participation simpler via web–based tools where they can enter questions or comments based on their own availability . Web–based tools range from simple online webinars or meetings to open forums, documents with commenting capability , and collaborative images for visioning. While some community members may not have access or interest in using online tools, including them in an engagement strategy may increase participation.
Mailings – email and regular mail
Mailings can be used to advertise process, request input, or share information. Per Government Code sections 65091 and 65092 , some notices must be mailed in prescribed ways, but in all other situations the types of mailing used should be based on the desired input goals. Mass surveys or opinion mailings work well to broaden the range of participants in the process and can also share information about process scope, timelines, website links, data availability and other issues. Newsletters work to keep the public updated on the process as well. Some communities utilize existing mailing services, such as utility bills, to reduce costs.
Surveys
Surveys are most often used in the beginning of a general plan process to help identify community issues and concerns and to identify residents’ opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of their community . A survey can help identify issues to be addressed by the general plan and areas where residents would like more information. A good survey includes the public early in the process, broadens the range of participants by including residents who do not come to meetings, and publicizes the general plan process. A statistically valid survey of local opinion, while more difficult to conduct, can be persuasive to decision makers and the public. Including demographic questions in a survey will help identify any inequities in response rates and detect important differences in opinions among groups.
There are a number of methods available to improve access and equity in surveys. Pilot testing the survey instrument with an advisory group or with a diverse group of pilot subjects may improve the form. The survey should be piloted in every language in which it will be offered to ensure that translations are conveying the intended information. While this will add time to the process, it may ultimately yield more accurate results and improve public perception of the data. Door–to–door surveys may also be an effective outreach method and can yield a higher response rate than traditional mail surveys.
Additionally , soliciting feedback on data interpretation may be useful before finalizing analyses. Because different interests may interpret the same data in multiple ways, providing an opportunity for discussion, feedback, and suggestions on how to analyze results may provide a stronger sense of transparency and trust in the process. 3 CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH | 38
Beyond outreach
Conducting outreach with communities before and during the general plan update is key to having a more informed plan. Capturing input along the way is important for presentations back to city councils and county boards of supervisors to show how the plan is informed by community input. Beyond initial outreach, it is also important to have a mechanism in place to communicate with stakeholders who were involved during the update process, so they are aware of how their input was incorporated into the plan. Mechanisms to keep track of progress after the plan has been adopted have been well received in communities.
Jurisdictions have used different mechanisms to do this work. Some jurisdictions have assigned the various components of the general plan to different departments, allowing stakeholders to follow progress based on goals that align with the adpoted goals of existing agencies.
G3752
(ommunities are increasingly
using visioning as a public partici-
pation technique.lts purpose is to
build consensus regarding a commu-
nity's common future.Visioning is a
useful and accepted part of the com-
prehensive planning process.
Using Visioning in a
Comprehensive Planning Process
Anna Haines
What is visioning?
Visioning is a process by which a com-
munity defines the future it wants.
Through public involvement, commu-
nities identify their purpose, core
values and vision of the future.
Visioning:
s Emphasizes community assets
rather than needs.'A vision is like a light-
h@u5@, whi(h illuminates ffl Assesses community options and opportunities on the basis of
y3i§(q" j§,Hl liBii5, giyiBHg shared purposes and values. s Stresses early and continuous
direci'bon rattler Ttlan public involvement in the process. destination."
-James J. Mapes, Foresight First
s Acts as a stand-alone process or
part of a comprehensive planning
process.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
s Economic sectors: agriculture,
manufacturing, services, tourism,
others.
s Organizations: art and culture,
unions, churches, environmental,
youth, others.
s Local government:elected offl-
cials, police, transportation,
housing, others.
s Personal characteristics: age, eth-
nicity/race, sex,income level,
homeowners/renters, others.
s Political views:
conservative/liberal/moderate
and pro- and anti-growth
Figure 1. Steps in a visioning process
Step 1 % Step 2 %
Get started Community
visioning
workshop
Step 3 % Step 4 %
Establish task Thematic
forces visioning
workshops
Step 5
Community
feedback
workshop
A visioning exercise can bring a com-
munity together as people recognize
their shared values and purposes, and
articulate a shared vision of their com-
munity.The vision serves to lay out
what the community should look like
physically, socially and environmentally
in 5, 10 or 20 years. A visioning exercise
creates a sense of ownership in com-
munity residents to the extent that
they want to see their vision come to
fruition over a period of years.
A consensus-building
technique
Within a comprehensive planning
process, visioning can be used as a
consensus-building technique.
Visioning facilitates the development
of an effective comprehensive plan by
focusing attention,"on how to
organize collective thought and
action within an inter-organizational
network in which no one person,
group, organization Or institution iS
fully in charge'.'
Multi-jurisdictional initiatives,for
example, may benefit by using vision-
ing to build consensus on core values
and to help people realize that despite
differences they share many of the
same long-term goals.
INGREDIENTS OF A
VISION STATEMENT
s Positive, present-tense language
s Qualities that provide the reader
with a feeling for the region's
uniqueness
s Inclusiveness ofthe region's
diverse population
n A depiction of the highest
standards of excellence and
achievement
s A focus on people and quality
of life
a A stated a time period
Source:The National Civic League Press
Many communities suffer from
divisive perspectives involving past
issues and policies. It is difficult for a
local government to spearhead a
comprehensive planning process
when a community is divided into
factions.Visioning can be a way to
establish consensus on general beliefs
and values. However,if there is too
much distrust (for example, to the
point where community leaders and
others avoid talking to each other), a
different technique, such as commu-
nity mediation, will be needed to
bring people together.
What are the results of
visioning?
The results of visioning can include:
s An overall community vision state-
ment
ffi Thematic vision statements that
can address all the elements of the
comprehensive planning law
("Smart Growth"), such as housing,
transportation and natural
resources. (A visioning process
must remain focused on visioning
and not drift towards too much
detail or specific solutions.)
s Better communication lines devel-
oped within the community.
s Context for consideration and
adoption oflong-range functional
goals and related policies.
s A"sounding board"during inven-
tory and analysis of data. Asking
how trends and other data fit into
your community's vision can spur a
more useful discussion about it.
n Grounded discussions and deci-
sions when devising land use
criteria and resulting policies.
s "Human glue"when naysayers
challenge the adoption of your
community's comprehensive plan.
Figure 2.Visioning parallels comprehensive planning process How can visioning be
incorporated into a
comprehensive
planning process?
There are at least two approaches that
can be used to bring visioning into the
planning process. Many communities
develop a vision at the beginning of
the planning process that acts as a
guide for the rest. Conducting visioning
at the beginning of the process builds
a foundation upon which to build and
evaluate the rest of the process.
Ciitizens feel they are in control and
that theirinput is meaningful when
visioning is conducted early on.This
implies, however, that planners, politi-
cians and others must give up control
of the results and trust that citizens will
develop a vision (and goals and objec-
tives) that are both useful and appro-
priate for that community.
Step 1 +
Plan for
planning
Step 2a' 4
Community
visronlng Step 3 4
workshop Strategy
Step 2b# + formulataion
Data collec-
tion and
analysis
Step 4 %
Select
preferred
alternatives
Step 5 4
Draft plan
Step 6 + Step 7 +
Plan review Plan imple-
and approval mentation
Step 8
Monitor,
reassess &
amendment
'Steps 2a and 2b occursimultaneously. Data is strategically introduced throughout the visionrng exercise.
Adapted from Mark HNliker, Citrzen Participation In-Service, March 2000 In contrast, some places develop a
vision after the issues step in the
planning process.This type of vision
acts more like a mission statement,
but nevertheless can guide the rest of
the process. In this model the planners
and politicians are maintaining some
control over the process.The risk is
that citizens will not trust the results
of the plan and more effort will be
needed by planners to ensure trust
and ownership of the resulting plan.
Visioning efforts try to maximize the
number of people participating in
them by establishing effective partici-
pation strategies such as press
releases, advertisements and invita-
tions to a broad set of community
stakeholders. No one is excluded from
visioning sessions and everyone has
an equal voice. Representation from
all parts of a community is necessary.
In essence, visioning acts as the
"human glue"to the planning process
by getting a broad spectrum of
people from a community involved
and excited about their community's
future.
Preparing for the visioning
process
Before adopting visioning, your com-
munity should ask a few questions:
s Why should our community use
visioning? If your community
already has a good sense of where
it is going, you don't need to go
through a visioning process.
However,if you hear lots of grum-
bling and disagreements about
growth and change, perhaps a
vision can help look at these issues
carefully.
Figure 3.Visioning as a step with comprehensive planning process Step 14
Plan for
planning
Step 2 4
Data collec-
tion and
analysis
Step 3 %
Issue
identification
Step 4 +
Visioning
Step s +
Strategy
formulation
s Do we need visioning for all
aspects of our community? If
your community feels it has a
good sense of where it is headed
except for one area, a visioning
exercise is possible for only that
one area. For example, many com-
munities continue tO experience
problems with declining down-
towns. After trying different
methods for revitalization, people
aren't satisfied with the results.
Visioning can be used to define a
focused plan for downtown.
s Should we always use visioning
in a comprehensive planning
process? There are situations
when visioning is not a useful tool.
Visioning does not make sense if a
community is absorbed in a
narrowly defined crisis, or if stake-
holders have no faith in the value
of public dialogue.ln addition,if
your community has a well-devel-
oped sense of itself, and land use
issues are not overly contentious, a
visioning process may not be
useful.
Step 6 %
Select
preferred
alternatives
Step 7 +
Draft plan
Step 8 +
Plan review
and approval
Step 9 +
Plan imple-
mentation
Step 10
Monitor,
reassess and
amendment
procedure
Adapted from Mark Hilliker, Citizen Partrcipation In-Service, March 2000 Advantages
and disadvantages
of visioning
There are several advantages to using
visioning in your comprehensive
planning process.
Visioning:
s Serves as a catalyst.lt can bring
community residents together to
talk about their community in new
ways. After visioning, community
residents often are motivated to get
more involved in their community.
s Creates excitement in community
residents about the planning
process. People like to know that
they can be a part of their commu-
nity in meaningful ways.
s Keeps the process on track.
Because a vision statement(s) have
been created, community residents
can make sure that the rest of the
planning process addresses the
issues raised from the visioning
exercise and addresses how to
achieve the vision.
s Keeps implementation moving
forward. Again, because of the
excitement created around the
visioning process and the
outcomes of visioning, community
residents are motivated to keep
track of the actions proposed to
achieve the vision they helped to
create.
There are also a few disadvantages to
visioning.
Visioning can:
s Add to the cost of the planning
process. Because visioning is an
intensive public participation
process,it can involve much organ-
ization. However, many planning or
land use committees are willing to
work on organizing visioning
workshops because they recognize
their importance in the overall
planning process.
s Create expectations.While the
advantage of visioning is that it
generates excitement and serves
as a catalyst for the rest of the
process,it can also create expecta-
tions that the local government
cannot fulfill.lt is important to
create short-term goals and objec-
tives so that people can begin to
see results fairly quickly.
s Depend on a facilitator.lt is difficult
to conduct visioning without a
group of facilitators to make the
process a successful one. However,
many communities have trained a
local planning or land use commit-
tee to facilitate visioning workshops.
This has proved not only to be suc-
cessful, but the committee walks
away feeling its members have
learned a new skill and have accom-
plished something meaningful.
Summary
Visioning is a useful tool in compre-
hensive planning.lt can easily be
included in the comprehensive
planning process and can occur
parallel to data collection and analysis.
Vision statements provide a frame-
work or hook upon which to hang
ideas and information.Without an
overall vision, gathering data and
creating goals and objectives are
often unconnected to anything mean-
ingful.Thus,visioning provides a
rationale and the framework for more
meaningful questions. Finally, vision-
ing can assist a community in identify-
ing important and current issues,
whether the debate centers on cell
towers, gravel pits, or urban sprawl
and farmland preservation.
References
For more detailed information on
visioning, you can get copies of
Building Our Future: A Guide to
CommunityVisioning (G3708) by
Gary Green, Anna Haines and Stephen
Halebsky from Cooperative Extension
Publications at the address on the
back page. If you would like assistance
on community visioning, please
contact either Gary Green at 608-262-
9532 or Anna Haines at 715-346-2386.
Green, Gary Paul,Timothy O. Borich,
Robert D. Cole, David L. Darling,
Connie Hancock, Stuart H.
Huntington, Mary Simon Leuci, Bill
McMaster, David B. Patton,
Frederick Schmidt, Anne Heinz
Silvis, Roger Steinberg, Dewey Teel,
Jerry Wade, Norman Walzer, and
Julie Stewart. 2001. Vision to Action:
Take Charge Two. Ames, 14: North
Central Regional Center for Rural
Development (Report No. RRD
182).This manual provides materi-
als for conducting a community
visioning project and developing
action plans.The project synthe-
sized the"best practices"from
several Midwestern states.The
manual is available from the North
Central Regional Center for Rural
Development.
Moore, Carl M., Gianni Longo and
Patsy Palmer.l999.Visioning.
pp. 557-589 in The Consensus
Building Handbook, edited by
Lawrence Susskind.
Oregon Visions Project. 1 998.A Guide
to Community Visioning: Hands-On
Information for Local Communities.
This guide provides a comprehen-
sive approach to visioning; sugges-
tions for designing and imple-
menting an effective visioning
process; ideas and examples for
using graphics in visioning; and
contacts and resources for finding
additional information.lnformation
on the manual can be obtained
from Steven Ames, Chair APA
Oregon Visions Project, 325 SE
14th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
97214 (503-235-3000)
([email protected]).
Okubo, Derek. National Civic League.
1997. The Community Visioning and
Strategic Planning Handbook.
Denver Colorado.This publication
is used widely in helping commu-
nities design, develop and facilitate
community-wide planning
projects.lt is especially useful on
drawing a broad group of partici-
pants into the process.The publi-
cation is available from the
National Civic League, 1445 Market
Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado.
(303-571-4343)
www.ncl.org/ncl
[email protected].
Peterson, Mark. Harnessing the Power
of Vision: Ten Steps to Creating a
Strategic Vision andAction Plan for
Your Community. Little Rock,
Arkansas: University of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension Service.This
widely used manual outlines a ten-
step process to developing a
strategic vision and action plan in
a community.lt also provides won-
derful overheads and references.lt
is available form the Economic and
Community Development Section,
University of Arkansas Cooperative
Extension Service, Pa Box 391,
Little Rock, AR 72203
(501-671-2072).
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
Planning for the Future:A Handbook
on Community Visioning.
Harrisburg, PA.This manual
provides a process for community
visioning, detailed instructions for
each session, workshop agenda,
resources, references and other
information that communities can
use to design a visioning process.
Available from The Center for Rural
Pennsylvania, 212 Locust Street,
Suite 604, Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717-787-9555)
www.ruralpa.org
[email protected].
Example vision statement
from City of Lodi
Vision for Our Community:
Lodi 2025
In 2025, Lodi is a community that links
the future with the past by recogniz-
ing the importance of history in
growth and development.The center
of our small town is a pedestrian-
friendly main street that celebrates
historical architecture, while our
waterways and surrounding vistas
nourish the health and beauty of the
valley.
Land Use and Growth
Management
Our community is committed to
planning and community involvement
in directing its future growth to meet
the needs of our residents. Our com-
munity encompasses a mix of distinct
neighborhoods and districts, and by
encouraging compatible land uses
within those districts, we are maintain-
ing our unique small-town character,
protecting natural resources, and pro-
moting sustainable development and
growth.
Downtown Revitalization
Our revitalized downtown promotes a
pedestrian-friendly retail and govern-
ment center that maintains and
enhances our city's historic and archi-
tectural integrity.
Business Retention and
Expansion
Our community fosters business
development and recognizes the
importance of a balanced business
district with retail shops, services, facil-
ities, and light industries.
Housing and Historic
Preservation
Our exemplary community is commit-
ted to historic preservation, conserva-
tion of neighborhood character, beau-
tification of residential settings, and
provision of housing that meets the
needs of diversified social and
economic groups. Our historic homes
provide a bridge from the past to the
future and enhance the beauty and
warmth of the community.There is
widespread public awareness of
historic preservation programs and
ongoing restoration of Lodi's historic
homes, businesses, parks and trans-
portation systems. Every home in the
historic districts has been restored to
its original condition.
New residential development is care-
fully designed with the preservation
of natural settings andresources -
woods, creeks and wetlands.
Neighborhoods are picturesque with
period lighting,fencing and walkways.
Our long-range planning has
thwarted sprawl by providing devel-
opment that is sympathetic to, and
respectful of, the topography, the envi-
ronment and changing societal demo-
graphics. Ample housing is available
to meet the needs of different
economic groups and the desires and
requirements of residents across the
life span.
Community Services
and Public Works
Our community services and facilities
maintain their functionality, address
the needs of our diverse population,
and adapt and change as the commu-
nity grows. Services include programs
that promote a neighborly atmosphere
that reflects the concerns of individuals
and families in our community.
Natural Resources
Our community is situated in scenic Lodi
valleysurrounded bytree-covered bluffs
and bisected bythe pristine,trout-filled
Spring Creek,which travels through Lodi
Marsh, known across the state as home
to abundant wildlife. An enlightened
community advocates for watershed
and shoreline preservation, maintenance
and improvement of its existing vistas,
parks,trees and green spaces,and
managed growth in areas suitable for
development. Much of the above can be
attributed to fact that the Lodi school
system is a national model for environ-
mental education in the tradition of Aldo
Leopold's concept of community and
John Muir's principles ofliving in
harmony with the environment.
Parks and Recreation
Our citizens and government are com-
mitted to Lodi's natural heritage.We
cooperate to enhance and maintain
our beautiful parks and other natural
green spaces while providing quality
recreational activities and equipment
for the benefit of the entire commu-
nity. A green corridor connects Lodi,
both bonding the community
together and linking it with the sur-
rounding natural environment.
6xiension
Author: Anna Haines is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and a land use specialist with the University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the u.s. Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension. University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportuni- ties in employment and programming, including Title IX and ADA requirements.lf you need this information in an alternative format, contact the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs or call Extension Publishing at (608) 262-2655. (c 2001 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Send inquiries about copyright permission to: Director, Cooperative Extension Publishing, 201 Hiram Smith Hall, 1545 0bservatory Dr., Madison, Wl 53706.
You can obtain copies of this publication from your Wisconsin county Extension office or from Cooperative Extension Publications, 45N.CharterStreet,Madison,Wl 53715,608-262-3346.OutsideMadison,calltollfree:1-877-WIS-PUBS(947-7827).Beforepublicizing, please check on this publication's availability.
To see more Cooperative Extension publications, visit our web site: www.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/ Incorporating Visioning into Comprehensive Planning (G3752) I-10-01 -2M-300
FIRST VISIONING,
THEN PLANNING
Cynthia McDonald
EXCERPTS FROM GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA PLANNING
10/4/2022
1 GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA PLANNING
The Process: Participation and Politics
A proposed general plan (or general plan revision)
usually doesn’t leap forward into public hearings
fully formed. In most cities, the process begins with
two steps: the creation of an advisory task force,
often known as the “general plan advisory
committee,” and the selection of an outside general
plan consultant. . . .
Some cities precede creation of the task force with a
“visioning” process, in which the city and community
leaders gather public input and attempt to reach a consensus about what sorts of things they want for the city . . .
Sometimes the advisory task force undertakes the visioning process.
FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 10/4/2022 2
GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA PLANNING
The Process: Participation and Politics (continued)
An advisory committee is usually made up of 15 to
30 citizens who represent various neighborhoods,
industries, and other interest groups in the city. . . .
Over a period of months or even a few years, the
consultant or lead staff person will work with the
citizens committee to put together a draft of the
general plan.
In most instances, the professional general plan team will provide the committee with technical background and make recommendations, while the committee will make the initial policy choices. . .
The rise of citizen power has changed the general plan
process considerably, making it longer, more expensive, in some ways more cumbersome, in other ways more
democratic.
FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 10/4/2022 3
GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA PLANNING
The Process: Participation and Politics (continued)
In many cities, city managers and council members
resist broad public participation. They believe that an elite group of decisionmakers will make the most
informed choices and prevent the process from
getting bogged down. These city managers and
council members say visioning and consensus-
building is unrealistic.
Leaders in many other cities recognize that organized citizen groups cannot be ignored and welcome their participation.
The state’s General Plan Guidelines contain a chapter
emphasizing the importance of public participation. To help avoid future conflicts, the guidelines strongly recommend early, frequent and broad public participation . . ..
1 FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 10/5/2022 4
1 Fulton, William; Shigley, Paul. Guide to California Planning, 5th edition (pp. 121-122). Solano Press Books. Kindle Edition.
WHAT ARE THE STATE GUIDELINES?
Exploration: The initial stages of outreach allow stakeholders to identify community strengths, assets, priorities for future development, and areas for improvement and, thus, to start the process of formulating a vision for the future. In addition, the exploration phase presents an opportunity to educate residents about land use planning principles prior to more extensive outreach.
Collaborative Action: After establishing a general baseline for community goals, planners should engage collaboratively with partners, considering different options for reaching the set goals and aligning policy priorities to attain the vision.
FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 10/5/2022 5
[A] general plan should start with a community’s vision, but community engagement should continue throughout the process, from visioning to adoption and implementation, depending on the scope and extent of the project. . . The nature of the outreach process and its intended outcomes will differ in each stage of the update:
WHAT ARE THE STATE GUIDELINES?
Decision Making: Exploration and collaboration should identify various policy priorities necessary for achieving the general plan vision. These priorities should then inform a framework to help identify policy options, choose among them, and assemble a draft plan.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Community engagement should continue after the plan is drafted. Updates on successful policy implementation and implementation challenges can be an opportunity to elicit feedback and help evaluate progress toward community goals. 1 FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 10/5/2022 6
1 Governors Office of Planning Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017 (p. 27).
STATE GUIDELINE PROCESS
10/5/2022 FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 7
Vision and
Engagement
Visioning, articulate
principles, identify issues
and assumptions
Formulate Goals
Coordination with
legislative and local
groups, scope of work,
schedule and deadlines
Collect and Analyze
Data
Examine current
conditions and emerging
trends
Redefine Goals
Refine goals and
formulate objectives
Alternative Analysis
Develop and evaluate
alternative plans
Plan Adoption
Select and adopt
preferred plan
Implementation
Plan implementation,
monitoring, and
maintenance
THANK YOU
Cynthia McDonald
[email protected]
www.CostaMesa1st.com
FIRST VISIONING, THEN PLANNING 10/4/2022 8
From: Jim Fitzpatrick
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; CONSTITUENT SERVICES
Subject: Public Comments - New Business Item #2 (ACFR)
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 12:34:31 PM
Attachments: FITZ - FiPac Comments - 2.12.2025 Meeting.pdf City Council,
I sent these comments to Staff and requested they be shared with the FiPac Committee last week
Staff did not share these comments with the FiPac Committee, nor respond to my email
We also need to reconstruct the FiPac Committee, with a change of resident participants and provide the forum for meaningful input to City Council
We also need a formal Policy for Staff Customer Service improvements making it no longer optional if Staff responds or does not. 48 Hours to respond seems reasonable
Cheers,
Jim Fitzpatrick
Solutioneer
G.O.A.T.
FiPac – Comments and Questions= February 12, 2025 Meeting
FiPac – Comments and Questions= February 12, 2025 Meeting
FiPac, we have a problem
Below are my comments and observations.
I ask you to seek answers from Staff
Each year, John Moorlach reviews Orange County Cities Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR). The cities are ranked by their unrestricted net position (found in their annual comprehensive financial reports, or ACFRs) divided by the population, providing a useful tool for demonstrating a city’s fiscal health.
Observations:
• Comparing 2024 to 2023:
o The population declined from 111,183 to 109,423
o However, the Unrestricted Net Deficit grew
▪ from ($166,151,695) to ($168,224,238).
• With a reduced population and an increased UND
o the per capita grew from ($1,494) to ($1,537).
• Santa Ana's UND grew to ($1,764)
o so Costa Mesa will not be in last place.
• However, Anaheim's UND reduced to ($1,235)
o so Costa Mesa will not be moving up a position either. • LIABILITY:
o Each Resident has a potential liability of ($1,494)
o Married = ($2,988) / Family of 4? = ($5,976)
FiPac – Comments and Questions= February 12, 2025 Meeting
2024 Research in Process
Table for 2023 vs 2022
It is a Homeowner’s asset when positive
It is a Resident’s liability when negative
SOURCE:
MOORLACH UPDATE — Orange County Cities 2023 Per Capita — July 8, 2024
FiPac – Comments and Questions= February 12, 2025 Meeting
PAGE #19 – Statement of Activities
Questions:
• Why does the June 30, 2024 ACFR show $63,451,624 more in spending than in 2023? We need specifics a. $37m expense increase for Protection of Persons and Property? What specifically drove increase? b. $11.3m expense increase for General Government? What was that spent on? c. Why decrease in Sales and Use taxes? Is forecast continued decline? What strategies and tactics to address? d. Cannabis Tax is $5.8, ½ percent for 1st Time Home Buyers & Arts is over $400k each. How much spent?
FiPac – Comments and Questions= February 12, 2025 Meeting
POLICY NECESSITIES:
• City Council MUST prioritized funding the Defined Benefits Pension Plans a. Cannabis budget was $2.5m vs Actual $4m
b. Allocate the $1.5m surplus to decrease Unfunded Pension Liability • Can model after City Council Actions in Newport Beach • Explain significant Expense Increase of $63 million
• Why hasn’t Staff developed a Cannabis Tax ½ Percent Tax allocation program, as directed by City Council?
a. Both First Time Home Buyers and Arts are over $400,000 • Is the reduction in Sales Tax a one time decline or a trend? • What is being done to mitigate the decline?
• NOTE: City Population decreased YOY
February 18, 2025 Mayor John Stephens
Costa
Mesa
City
Council
77 Fair
Drive
Costa
Mesa,
CA
92626
RE: Item 1 New Business - Ensuring Community Engagement in the Housing Element Rezoning
Process
Honorable Mayor Stephens and Costa Mesa City Council Members, The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations
advocating
for
the
production
of
homes
affordable
for
families
earning
less
than
$30,000
annually
in
Orange
County.
Since
2001,
we
have
successfully
partnered
with
jurisdictions
across
the
county
to
create
housing
and
land-use
policies
that
increase
affordable
housing
opportunities
for
lower-income
working
families.
As the City moves forward with its Rezoning Program and Environmental Impact Report commitments
as
part
of
the
implementation
for
its
2021-29
Housing
Element,
it
is
critical
to
ensure
that
the
community
has
meaningful
opportunities
to
engage
in
this
process.
Given
that
this
rezoning
effort
stems
from
both
the
Housing
Element
update
and
Measure
K
to
address
affordable
housing
needs,
we
urge
the
City
Council
to
establish
an
advisory
committee
for
the
Housing
Element
Rezoning
Project.
Cities
create
such
committees
to
help
create
key
strategies,
project
goals
and
priorities
in
collaboration
with
community
stakeholders.
Such a committee would provide a structured space for affordable housing advocates, residents, and stakeholders
to
contribute
to
the
rezoning
discussions,
ensuring
transparency
and
fostering
a
collaborative
approach
to
meeting
Costa
Mesa’s
housing
goals.
Costa Mesa has an opportunity to lead with an inclusive process that prioritizes affordability and community-driven
planning.
The
formation
of
an
advisory
committee
will
help
ensure
that
the
rezoning
process
results
in
equitable
and
sustainable
housing
solutions
for
all
residents,
particularly
lower-income
families
who
are
most
in
need
of
stable
and
affordable
housing.
We
recommend
that
the
city
include
the
formation
of
an
advisory
committee
as
part
of
the
consultant’s
scope
of
work
in
the
proposed
project
being
considered
for
the
Housing
Element
Rezoning
Program.
We look forward to working with the City of Costa Mesa to promote an inclusive and transparent rezoning
process
that
supports
the
development
of
much-needed
affordable
housing..
If
you
have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].
Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director
1