Loading...
01-17-2006 - Status of General Plan Update• • City of West Covina Memorandum TO: City Manager and City Council FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac Planning Director SUBJECT: STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA ITEM NO. J-3 DATE: January 17, 2006 Staff recommends that the City Council provide appropriate direction to staff regarding further proceeding with the update of the General Plan. DISCUSSION: On March 29, 2005, the City Council considered a report regarding updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (see Attachment 2). The report stated that the cost to update the Land Use and Circulation Elements (with a moderate scope of work and level of detail) was estimated at $450,000 to $550,000. At that time, a total of $65,000 was available in a special General Plan update revenue account (funded from a small percentage of planning fees). The report also presented a conceptual budget scenario utilizing General Plan update funds, Prop. A & C funds, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. With all of these, it was still estimated that an additional $230,000 would be needed from other sources. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council gave direction to staff to pursue the update of the General Plan with the provision that no General Fund monies be used for this purpose. On August 25, 2005, staff provided a memo to Council repo I ing on the status of this issue. The memo stated that another potential source of non -General Fund money that could possible be used for the General Plan update is redevelopment funds. The Community Development Director and City Attorney have stated that they believe that these funds could be used if desired; however, there may be a cap on the amount that be used based on the proportionate amount of City territory that is located within redevelopment project areas. The memo also stated that staff would proceed with assimilating copies of requests for proposals (RFP's) from other cities that have recently undertaken General Plan updates in order to draft an RFP for the City's General Plan update. Staff's cost estimate of $450,000 to $550,000 was based on very general criteria, and there is no way of more definitively establishing the actual cost in today's market and for the specific scope of work requested without soliciting bids from qualified consultants. This would then provide more precise information as to how much of a funding gap would actually have to be bridged. At this time, staff has collected a total of six General Plan update RFP's from other cities. In addition, staff has secured a commitment from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to use a total of $200,000 in Prop. C funds to pay for the Circulation Element component of the update. Also since March 2005, the balance of the City's General Plan update fund has increased from $65,000 to $78,000. As stated, the General Plan update is not in a position to prc identified and secured. In addition, staffing circumstances last year would have made proceeding with this endeavor ve 05 budget, one full-time planner was eliminated. Since Jul been short one other full-time planning position with the mate a Planning Associate (a replacement has now been hired). operating with only three full-time planners where there five I Geed until adequate funding has been ,ithin the Planning Department in the y difficult to undertake. In the 2004- 1 2005, the Planning Department has mity leave and ultimate resignation of n that time, the department has been lanners a few years earlier. Also in the last year, the Planning Department has processed numerous high -profile development projects, while also working on other special projects like the Downtown Conceptual Plan and the Historic Resources Survey. With the replacement of the vacant staff position and the soon expected completion of the Downtown Conceptual Plan, this should' allow more opportunity to focus on securing funding and circulating an RFP for the General Plan�update. ZAGeneral Plan Update\CC.Staff. Rpt.1.17.06.doc Status of General plan Update January 17, 2006 - Page_2 Staff can proceed with drafting and circulating an RFP for the General Plan update within the next 60 days of completion of the Downtown Conceptual Plan. Upon completing this and receiving bid proposals from consultants, staff can advise the Council as to what the actual cost of the General Plan update would be, and what it would require in order to fund the project. Prepared Douglas N. McIsaac Planning Director Attachment 1: Excerpt from 3/29/05 Council Minutes Attachment 2: Staff Report dated March 29, 2005 Attachment 3: Memo dated August 25, 2005 ZAGeneral Plan Update\CC.Staff. Rpt.1.17.06.doc Council Minutes of 03/29/05 ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATE OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS Planning Director McIsaac presented the staff report providing an overview of the City's general Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. Councilmember Herfert good plan and sees no n Councilmember Miller sta use in the downtown area. Royall Brown, West Co, only the land use of the should consider what is before Congress before fund. Recess Mayor Sanderson called the videotape. Meetii Councilmembers and Co: City Council motion Planning Commission action City Council action Recess ROLL CALL Councilmember Hernanc General Plan and Circula Motion by Hernandez General Plan with a fo element and areas aloe family home areas. that the current General Plan is a for change. his concern with how to plan for land na resident, suggests a specific plan if lowntown area considered and Council going to be funded through two bills onsidering any changes to the general recess at 7:40 p.m. in order to change reconvened at 7:52 p.m. with all stoners present. voiced his support in updating the Element seconded by Miller to redevelop the on commercial, retail, the circulation le the freeway, excluding the single Commissioner Warshaw requested that industrial areas also be added. Councilmember, Wong suggested that all areas with the exception of single-family home areas be considered for the General Plan Update. Motion by Roe and seconded by Warshaw to proceed with an update of the General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. Councilmember Hernandez called for the question and clarified his motion to update the General Plan with the exclusion of single family residential areas and for funding not to be out of the general fund but with use of I funds for the purpose of general plan development. Miller affirms his second. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Sanderson cal to call to order the Cc Chairman Sanderson, Miller UPDATE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY Administrative Analys and aired a PowerPoii of the study. Freeland reviewed by staff in p City Council meeting. a recess of the City Council at 8:10 p.m. .unity Development Commission. Wong, Herfert, Hernandez, Chris Freeland presented the staff report presentation that highlighted components sated a draft of the study is currently bein paration for presentation at the April 19` taff answered questions from Council. Royall Brown, West Covina resident, inquired as to how much money RDA has set aside for affordable housing and commented on a recent Supreme Court decision. 3 ATTACHMENT 2 City of West Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager AGENDA and City Council ITEM NO. III Planning Commission DATE March 29, 2005 FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac, Planning Director SUBJECT: UPDATE OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive and file this report and provide direction as appropriate. DISCUSSION: An item was requested to be agendized to discuss updating the land use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan. The General Plan is often referred to as the "blueprint" or "Constitution" for guiding the future growth and development of the City. California State law requires all cities to have an adopted General Plan consisting of at least seven mandatory elements: (1) Land Use, (2) Circulation, (3) Housing, (4) Conservation, (5) Open Space, (6) Noise, and (7) Safety. Of these seven elements, though, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are by far the most important and strategic with respect to growth and development. The State General Plan Guidelines describe the Land Use and Circulation Elements as follows: "The Land Use Element functions as a guide to planners, the general public, and decision - makers as to the ultimate pattern of development for the city or county at build -out. The Land Use Element has perhaps the broadest scope of the seven mandatory elements. In theory, it plays a central role in correlating all land use issues into a set coherent development policies. Its objectives, policies, and programs relate directly to the other elements. In practice, it is the most visible and often -used element in the local General Plan. Although all General Plan elements carry equal weight, the Land Use Element is often perceived as being representative of the "the General Plan." "The Circulation Element is not simply a transportation plan. It is an infrastructure plan addressing the circulation of people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. By statute, the Circulation Element must correlate directly with the Land Use Element." As these references indicate, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are intrinsically tied together. Projected land use patterns and intensities determine the need for transportation capacity and improvements. Likewise, the ability (or inability) to provide circulation capacity may dictate how much future development can be allowed under the Land Use Element. Given this, it is absolutely essential that any comprehensive update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements be done in conjunction with each other. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan have not underdone an update and revision since 1985, or 29 years ago. With the exception of the Housing Element, there are no specifically required time frames for updating the General Plan. State law, however, does require that the General Plan take a long-term perspective (Government Code Sec. 65300). As stated in the State General Plan Guidelines (excerpt attached), "a general plan based on outdated information and projections is not a sound basis for day-to-day decision -making and may be legally inadequate. As such, it will be susceptible to successful legal challenge." As stated, the last update to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan was in 1985. In reviewing information compiled for the status of General Plans for 477 cities in California, only 39 of those cities (including West Covina) had Land Use Elements that ZACity Council\SFRPTSDM\GP.Update.3.29.05.doc General Plan Update March 29, 2005 — Page 2 have not been updated since 1985 or prior. Stated differently, 92 percent of the cities in California have Land Use Elements that are more current and up-to-date than West Covina's. From this, it is readily evident that from the standpoint of time alone, the City's General Plan is in need of undergoing a comprehensive update. In the past, however, the need to update the General Plan has been tempered against (1) the somewhat high cost of such an undertaking, and (2) questions as to the relative value and benefit of updating the General Plan. Benefits As mentioned, failure to keep the General Plan current and reflective of current conditions can pose a risk of the General Plan being found to be legally inadequate. But beyond this, there are numerous benefits of updating the General Plan, both economic and otherwise. While it is difficult to quantify the economic benefits, following below is a brief discussion of some of the benefits. Guide for Development. In the past, many General Plan documents were often little more than a land use diagram along with a set of broad goals and policies. Contemporary General Plan documents, however, have evolved in their extent and detail so that today they are much more of a precise tool for guiding and planning development. In difference to the past, most contemporary General Plans also now include implementation plans designed to establish a means and a timetable for implementing goals and policies. Reflective of and Responsive to. Trends. Trends - in all areas of planning: land use, housing, retailing, business, commuting habits, ethnic diversity, have all changed and evolved greatly over the last 20 years since the last General Plan update. One specific example of this is the current influx of Asian residents and businesses in West Covina. Land use trends such as mixed use development, transit -oriented development, lifestyle retail centers were all virtually non-existent 20 years ago. Today these concepts are on the cutting edge of planning and economic development.- Updating the General Plan will allow. such trends to be taken into account and prepare a way to accommodate these trends into the City's current and future planning. Confidence and Certainty in the Business and Financial Community. The development of real estate, and the business of financing and investing in the same, has become a very sophisticated industry in its own. The ease and willingness with which real estate developers and investors can be attracted to the City is significantly affected by the City's commitment to a long-range plan of development. There is not only greater certainty that their project will be met with acceptance and approval by the City, but also that the. surrounding area will be developed in a manner that is important to the success of the project.. A current contemporary General Plan, especially one which does make accommodation for current real estate trends, can make an important difference in attracting real estate developers and financiers, especially companies making major investments in large-scale projects. Transportation and Physical Infrastructure. Another critical ingredient to the economic success of development is the need for proper and adequate transportation improvements and to have the other physical infrastructure available to serve the development. This is where the update of the Circulation Element becomes particularly important. If the Land Use Element is planning for increased use and 'density of a certain area, planning must also occur for providing the necessary transportation improvements. Conversely, it is important to ensure that planning for increased use and density does not exceed the point beyond which providing the necessary transportation improvements is feasible. Economic Planning. In contemporary General Plans, economic development and planning for fiscally sustainable development are both standard considerations. It has been often stated that the City needs to rely more heavily on economic development in order to improve the City's budget and fiscal situation. Economic development is a key component in long-range General Plan land use planning. Furthermore, economic land use models can ZACity Council\SFRPTSDM\GP.Update.3.29.05.doc General Plan Update�;.'a March 29, 2005 — Page 3 be utilized to not only project the direct economic benefits of different land use scenarios, but also to project the overall long-range sustainability of development (i.e. over the long range what impact will certain types and levels of development have on the balance of the City's economy). Implement the City's Vision 2020 Document. In 2002, the City adopted its West Covina Vision 2020 document. Much time and effort was devoted to the project and it was largely applauded as an expression of the community's vision for the future. Since that time, however, only limited actions have been taken toward implementing the plan's goals and statements. Updating the General Plan would provide a strategic opportunity to carry forward many of the Vision 2020's goals and objectives and translate them into action plans.• FISCAL IMPACT: Based on a staff memo prepared in 2001, the estimated cost of undertaking a comprehensive update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (with a moderate scope of work and level of detail) would be in the range of $400,000 to $500,000. When allowing for the fact that these estimates were prepared four years ago, it would be reasonable to assume that today the costs may have increased to around $450,000 to $550,000. The City does have a General Plan fund into which a small percentage of planning fees are deposited for the purpose of updating the General Plan. Approximately $40,000 of these funds were recently spent for the. current update of the Housing Element. The balance in the fund at. this time is approximately $65,000, with an additional $5,000 conservatively projected in the next two years. The portion of the update devoted to the Circulation Element is eligible to be funded through Prop. A and C transportation funds. It is estimated that approximately $200,000 of the total cost could be attributable to updating the Circulation Element and its proportional share of the environmental documentation and public participation costs. At the time this report was written, staff was still attempting to verify with MTA as to whether there were. any other limitations on the use of Prop. A and C funds for this purpose. The Land Use and Circulation Element update would also be an eligible expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; however, it is subject to the limitation on administrative costs. These funds are all generally budgeted, however, it is anticipated that about a $50,000 savings could be generated this next budget year from unfilled positions that could be devoted.to this purpose. As stated previously, any update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements must be done simultaneously. It may be possible, however, for the budgeting for both elements to be phased over the course of two years as it's quite possible that the time frame to complete such an update could span over two budget years when taking into consideration the time to conduct a public participation process and reach consensus on the plan proposals. Understanding that all of the figures stated at this time are very approximate, the charts on the following page summarize how this update could be funded. Z:\City Council\SFRPTSDM\GP.Update.3.29.05.doc • General Plan Update March 29, 2005 - Page 4 CONCEPTUAL TOTAL BUDGET General Plan Fund Prop. A & C CDBG Unidentified Resource TOTAL Land Use Element $55,000 --- $25,000 $145,000 $225,000 Circulation Element --- $100,000 --- --- $100,000 Public Participation & Community Outreach --- $55,000 $15,000 $30,000 $100,000 Environmental Impact Report $15,000 $45,000 $10,000 $55,000 $125,000 TOTAL $70,000 $200,000 $50,000 $230,000 $550,000 CONCEPTUAL 2005-06 BUDGET General Plan Fund Prop. A & C CDBG Unidentified Resource TOTAL Land Use Element --- --- $25,000 $50,600 $75,000 Circulation Element --- $50,000 --- --- $50,000 Public Participation & Community Outreach --- $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $75,000 Environmental Impact Report --- $20,000 $10,000 $20,000 $50,000 TOTAL - $100,000 $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 CONCEPTUAL 2006-07 BUDGET General Plan Fund Prop. A & C CDBG Unidentified Resource TOTAL Land Use Element $55,000 --- --- $95,000 $150,000 Circulation Element --- $50,000 --- --- $50,000 Public Participation & Community Outreach --- $25,000 --- --- $25,000 Environmental Impact Report $15,000 $25,000 --- $35,000 $75,000 TOTAL $70,000 $100,000 --- $130,000 $300,000 Z:\City Council\SFRPTSDN \GP.Update.3.29.05.doc General Plan Update March 29, 2005 — Page 5 ALTERNATIVES: The two basic options available to the City Council are either to (1) proceed or (2) not proceed at this time with an update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. If the desire of the Council is to proceed, it would be beneficial to direct staff to undertake some additional research into both available funding and the estimated costs of such an update. This would make it possible to more closely determine the necessary budget adjustments that would need to be made before the budget is adopted and a final decision is made. prepared y: Douglas N. McIsaac Planning Director Attachment 1: Excerpt from State General Plan Guidelines Attachment 2: Memo dated May 8, 2001 regarding General Plan Update Cost Estimates Attachment 3: Status of Local General Plans Z:\City Council\SFRPTSDM\GP.Update.3.29.05.doc ATTACHMENT 1 eral plan must resolve potential conflicts among the elements through clear language and policy consis- tency. Consistency Between Elements All elements of a general plan, whether mandatory or optional, must be consistent with one another. The court decision in Concerned Citizens of Calaveras Countyv Board ofSupervisors (1985) 166 Cal-App. 3d 90 illustrates this point. In that case, the county land use element contained proposals expected to result in increased population. The circulation element, however, failed to provide feasible remedies for the predicted traffic congestion that would follow. The county sim- ply stated that it would lobby for funds to solve the future traffic problems. The court held that this vague response was insufficient to reconcile the conflicts. Also, housing element law requires local agencies to adopt housing element programs that achieve the goals and implement the policies of the housing ele- ment. Such programs must identify the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements (§65583(c)). A city or county may incorporate by reference into its general plan all or a portion of another jurisdiction's plan. When doing so, the city or county should make sure that any materials incorporated by reference are consistent with the rest of its general plan. Consistency Within Elements Each element's data, analyses, goals, policies, and implementation programs must be consistent with and complement one another. Established goals, data, and analysis form the foundation for any ensuing policies. For example, if one portion of a circulation element indicates that county roads are sufficient to accommo- date the projected level of traffic while another section of the same element describes a worsening traffic situ- ation aggravated by continued subdivision activity, the element is not intemally consistent (Concerned Citi- zens of Calaveras County a Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Ca1.App.3d 90). Area Plan Consistency All principles, goals, objectives, policies, and plan proposals set forth in an area or community plan must be consistent with the overall general plan. The general plan should explicitly discuss the role of area plans if they are to be used. Similarly, each area plan should discuss its specific relationship to the gen- eral plan. In 1986, the Court ofAppeal ruled on an area plan that was alleged to be inconsistent with the larger Chapter 1: General Plan Basics general plan. The court upheld both the area plan and the general plan when it found that the general plan's "nonurban/rural" designation, by the plan's own descrip- tion, was not intended to be interpreted literally or pre- cisely, especially with regard to small areas. The court noted that the area plan's more specific "urban resi- dential" designation was pertinent and that there was no inconsistency between the countywide general plan and the area plan (Las Yrgenes Homeowners Federa- tion, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Ca1.App.3d 300). However, the court also noted that in this particular case the geographic area of alleged inconsistency was quite small. Text and Diagram Consistency The general plan's text and its accompanying dia- grams are integral parts of the plan. They must be in agreement. For example, if a general plan's land use element diagram designates low -density residential de- velopment in an area where the text describes the pres- ence of prime agricultural land and further contains written policies to preserve agricultural land or open space; a conflict exists. The plan's text and diagrams must be reconciled, because "internal consistency re- quires that general plan diagrams of land use, circula- tion systems, open -space and natural resources areas reflect written policies and programs in the text for each element." (Curtins California Land -Use and Planning Law, 1998 edition, p. 18) Without consistency in all five of these areas, the general plan cannot effectively serve as a clear guide to future development. Decision -makers will face con- flicting directives; citizens will be confused about the policies and standards the community has selected; find- ings of consistency of subordinate land use decisions such as rezonings and subdivisions will be difficult to make; and land owners, business, and industry will be unable to rely on the general plan's stated priorities and standards for their own individual decision -making. Be- yond this, inconsistencies in the general plan can ex- pose the jurisdiction to expensive and lengthy litigation. LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE ' Since the general plan affects the welfare of current and future generations, state law requires that the plan take a long-term perspective (§65300). The general plan projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining objectives. It also establishes long-term policy for day-to-day decision -making based upon those objectives. The time frames for effective planning vary among issues. The housing element, for example, specifically General Plan Guidelines 13 Chapter 1: General Plan Basics involves time increments of five years. Geologic haz- ards, on the other hand, persist for hundreds or thou- sands of years. Sewer, water, and road systems are generally designed with a 30- to 50-year lifespan. Capital improvement planning is typically based upon a five - or seven-year term. Economic trends may change rap- idly in response to outside forces. Differences in time frame also affect the formula- tion of general plan goals, objectives, policies, and imple- mentation measures. Goals and objectives are longer term, slowly evolving to suit changing community values or to reflect the success of action programs. Specific policies tend to be shorter term, shifting with the political climate or self- "The genes imposed time limits. Implementation pro- consist of c grams tend to have the shortest span developm, because they must quickly respond to the and .shall demands ofnew funding sources, the re- diagram c sults of their own activities, and the and text s jurisdiction's immediate needs and prob- ob ect'ves, lems. Mostjurisdictions select 15 to 20 years standards as the long-term horizon for the general Proposals. ' plan. The horizon does not mark an end point, but rather provides a general context in which to make shorter -term decisions. The local jurisdiction may choose a time horizon that serves its particular needs. Remember that planning is a continuous process; the general plan should be reviewed regularly, regardless of its horizon, and revised as new information becomes available and as community needs and values change. For instance, new population projections that indicate that housing will be needed at a greater clip than antici- pated, an unexpected major development in a neigh- boring jurisdiction that greatly increases traffic congestion, or a ballot initiative that establishes an urban growth boundary may all trigger the need to revise the general plan. A general plan based upon outdated information and projections is not a sound basis for day -today decision - making and may be legally inadequate. As such, it will be susceptible to successful legal challenge. DEFINING.THE PARTS OFA GENERAL PLAN A general plan is made up of text describing goals and objectives, principles, standards, and plan propos- als, as well as a set of maps and diagrams. Together, these constituent parts paint a picture ofthe community's future development. The following discussions help to clarify the meanings of these and other important terms. Development Policy A development policy is a general plan statement that guides action. In a broad sense, development poli- 14 General Plan Guidelines cies include goals and objectives, principles, policies, standards, and plan proposals. Diagram Adiagram is a graphic expression of general plan's development policies, particularly its plan proposals. Many types of development policies lend themselves well to graphic treatment, such as the distribution of land uses, urban design, infrastructure, and geologic and other natural hazards. A diagram must be consistent with the general plan text (§65300.5) and should have the same 21 plan shall long-term planning perspective as the rest statement of of the general plan. The Attorney Gen- nt policies eral has observed that "...when the Leg - include a islature has used the tern `map,' it has required preciseness, exact location, and diagrams detailed boundaries...." as in the case of Iting forth the Subdivision Map Act. No such pre - principles, cision is required of a general plan dia- and plan gram (67 Cal Ops.Atty. Gen. 75,77). (§65302) As a general rule, a diagram or dia- grams, along with the general plan's text, should be detailed enough so that the users of the plan, whether staff, elected and appointed officials, or the public, can reach the same general con- clusion on the appropriate use of any parcel of land at a particular phase of a city's or county's physical devel- opment. Decision -makers should also be able to use a general plan, including its diagram or diagrams, in co- ordinating day-to-day land use and infrastructure deci- sions with the city's or county's future physical development scheme. At the same time, given the long-term nature of a general plan, its diagram or diagrams and text should be general enough to allow a degree of flexibility in decision -making as times change. For example, a gen- eral plan may recognize the need for and desirability of a community park in a proposed residential area, but the precise location ofthe park may not be known when the plan is adopted. The plan would not need to pin- point the location, but it should have a generalized dia- gram along with policies saying that the park site will be selected and appropriate zoning applied at the time the area is subdivided. In this sense, while zoning must be consistent with the general plan, the plan's diagram or diagrams and the zoning map are not required to be identical Goal A goal is a general direction -setter. It is an ideal future end related to the public health, safety, or general welfare. ATTACHMENT 2 City of West Covina Memorandum TO: IChristopher I Chung, Acting City Manager FROM: . Doug McIsaac, Planning Director DATE: May 8, 2001 SUBJECT:. General Plan Update Cost Estimates In the Planning Department's unfunded budget needs, an item was included for a comprehensive update of the General Plan at a total cost of $250,000 to $400,000. Council has asked to be provided with additional information as to how much the cost would be if the update process were' -phased on an element -by -element basis. In .Exhibit "C" (Page 24) of the Preliminary. Budget document, an estimated breakdown of costs by element was provided in which the overall cost was shown as being increased to $270,000 to $420,000. Since the time that breakdown was developed, staff has received responses from several consultants that engage in General Plan work and several cities that have recently undergone General Plan updates. Based on this new information, it appears that staffs previous estimates at the cost of a General Plan update is low compared to what has,been the case for other cities. Provided below are the estimated cost of recent General Plan updates for 14 jurisdictions. It should be noted that not all of these figures have been verified with the jurisdictions and are presented only for the purpose of establishing an "order of magnitude" cost figure. Laguna Niguel $250,000 Monterey Park $300,000 LaMirada $450,000 Mariposa County $450,000 - $500,000 Malibu $500,000 _ Rancho Santa Margarita $500,000 Yuba City $500,000 Brea $500,000 - $800,000 Huntington Beach $65.0,000 Folsom $800,000 Fontana $1,000,000 Santa Clarita $1,000,000 Anaheim $1,100,000 Corona $1,200,000 • • General Plan Update Costs May 8.2001 — Page 2 As is evident, these costs vary widely from $250,000 to $1,200,000. There are numerous reasons for this, including (1) the scope of work, number of issues to be addressed, and level of detail and analysis undertaken; (2) the extent of . public participation and community outreach included in the process; and (3) the extent of additional work included in the overall scope, such as updating the Zoning Ordinance. The average of the cost figures listed above is $670,000. Given the wide variation in cost figures above and the factors involved, though, it becomes difficult to estimate the actual cost of updating West Covina's General Plan with a high degree of accuracy or specificity. The City can control the basic costs by tailoring the scope of work to whatever budget might eventually be established for this undertaking. Based on conversations with six reputable General Plan consultants, it would appear that the costs of undertaking a comprehensive General Plan update with a moderate scope of work and level of detail would be in the range of $500,000 to $600,000. Based on this overall estimate, an estimate of costs by element would be as follows: Public Participation & Community Outreach * $50,000 - $100,000 Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $100,000 Land Use Element $200,000 Circulation Element $60,000 - $100,000 Noise Element $30,000 - $50,000 Open Space & Conservation Element $20,000 - $40,000 Safety Element $20,000 - $40,000 Housing Element N/A * It is recognized that West Covina is currently undertaking a visioning process that could serve as a basis for the community outreach for a General Plan update and reduce the cost of this component. Nevertheless, it may be necessary or appropriate to undertake a separate or follow-up process that would focussed specifically on the General Plan update process. The Council had requested information on the cost by element for the purpose of possibly phasing the cost of updating the General Plan. However, there may be limited benefit in doing this since the majority of the cost are involved in public participation, the EIR, and the Land Use and Circulation Elements (which must be undertaken together because of the interconnectivity of the issues and analysis). Outside of these costs, the balance of the costs for the remaining elements would $70,OOQ to $130.000. Another option that might be viable would be to contract for an overall General Plan update at one time, but to spread the cost of the overall project over the span of two or three budget years. A number of cities have utilized this budgeting option as a comprehensive General Plan update process can often take two or three years to fully complete. An estimated overall cost of $500,000 to $600,000 spread over two or three years would result in annual budget allocations of $167,000 to $300,000. ZAMEMOLTR\DM\GP.Cost ATTACHMENT 3 STATUS -OF LOCAL GENERAL PLANS • • General Plan Status - Cities General PIan Status by City41 ° . r o °c Z01 m 0. m� a off` J� �� Jurisdiction County 2° Adelanto San Bernardino 9 18,130 53 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Agoura Hills Los Angeles 5 20,537 8 1994 1994 2001 1994 1994 1994 1994 Alameda Alameda 9 72,259 15 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Albany Alameda 5 16,444 1 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Alhambra Los Angeles 2 85,804 8 1986 1986 2001 1986 1986 1986 1986 Aliso Viejo Orange 1 Alturas Modoc 2 2,892 3 1988 1988 1993 1988 1988 1988 1988 Amador City Amador 1 196 1 1983 2000 1992 1983 1983 2001 1983 American Canyon Napa 2 9,774 3 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Anaheim Orange 25 328,014 50 2001 2000 1990 1984 1984 1984 1984 Anderson Shasta 1 9,022 6 1993 1994 1992 1985 1985 1985 1985 Angels Camp Calaveras 1 3,004 4 1995 1995 1992 1995 1995 1995 1995 Antioch Contra Costa 5 90,532 27 1988 1988 1992 1988 1988 1988 1988 Apple Valley San Bernardino 3 54,239 78 1998 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Arcadia Los Angeles 5 53,054 11 1996 1996 2001 1996 .1996 1996 1996 Arcata Humboldt 5 16,651 12 2000 2000 1993 2000 2000 2000 2000 Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 5 15,851 6 2001 2001 2003 2001 2001 2001 2001 Artesia Los Angeles 2 16,380 2 1993 1993 2002 1993 1993 1993 1993 Arvin Kern 1 12,956 6 1989 1989 1986 1989 1989 1989 1989 Atascadero San Luis Obispo 5 26,411 24 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Atherton San Mateo 2 7,194 6 1989 1990 1991 1990 1990 1990 1990 Atwater Merced 3 23,113 6 2000 2000 1992 2000 2000 2000 2000 Auburn Placer 3 12,462 7 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Avalon Los Angeles 1 3,127 1 1985 1985 1993 * * 1985 1985 Avenal Kings 1 14,674 20 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Azusa Los Angeles 4 44,712 9 1983 1983 2001 1983 1983 1983 1983 Bakersfield Kern 11 247,057 115 1999 1999 1995 1990 1990 1990 1997 Baldwin Park Los Angeles 3 75,837 7 2002 2002 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 Banning Riverside 1 23,562 22 1986 1994 1991 1986 1986 1986 1986 Barstow San Bernardino 3 21,119 40 2002 2002 2000 2002 2001 2001 1997 Beaumont Riverside 3 11,384 29 2003 2003 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 Bell Los Angeles 2 36,664 2 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Bell Gardens Los Angeles 2 44,054 2 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Bellflower Los Angeles 4 72,878 6 1997 1997 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Belmont San Mateo 4 25,123 4 1982 1982 2002 1994 1982 1982 1996 Belvedere Marin 1 2,125 2 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Benicia Solano 4 26,865 14 1999 1999 2003 1999 1999 1999 1999 Berkeley Alameda 23 102,743 10 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 Beverly Hills Los Angeles 14 33,784 6 1977 1977 2001 1977 1979 1976 1975 Big Bear Lake San Bernardino 5 5,438 7 1999 1999 2002 1999 1999 1999 1999 Biggs Butte 1 1,793 0 1998 1998 1995 1998 1998 1998 1998 Bishop Iryo 1 3,575 2 1993 1993 1995` 1993 11993 19933 1993 Blue Lake Humboldt 2 1,135 1 1986 1986 1993 1986 1986 1986 1986 Blythe Riverside 3 12,155 24 1989 1989 1994 1989 1989 1989 1989 Bradbury Los Angeles 1 855 1 1993 1993 1995 1993 1993 1993 1993 Brawley Imperial 1 22,052 7 1995 1995 2001 1995 1995 1995 1995 Brea Orange 6 35,410 11 1986 1993 2000 1997 1996 1986 1986 Brentwood Contra Costa 7 23,302 11 2001 2001 1998 1993 1993 1993 1993 Brisbane San Mateo 2 3,597 3 1994 1994 2002 1994 1994 1994 1994 Buellton Santa Barbara 1 3,828 2 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Buena Park Orange 3.5 78,282 10 2002 1994 2001 1994 1994 1994 1994 Burbank Los Angeles 10 100,316 17 1988 1964 2001 1972 1972 1997 1992 Burlingame San Mateo 5 28,158 5 1969 1969 2002 1973 1973 1975 1975 *Information not provided by jurisdiction The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists - 51 General Plan Status - Cities ACC 0. mid �O 0 o •.i° Jurisdiction County o' oQ Q �� Q �r v 6 of Q� O V y 2 Calabasas Los Angeles 5 20,033 12 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Calexico Imperial 1 27,109 6 1992 1992 2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 California City . Kern 0 8,385 204 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Calimesa Riverside 2 7,139 14 1994. 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Calipatria Imperial 2 7,289 2 1992 1992 1996 1992 1992 1992 1992 Calistoga Napa 2 5,190 2 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 Camarillo Ventura 6 57,077 19 1993 1995 2003 1989 1989 1999 1996 Campbell Santa Clara 6 38,138 6 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Canyon Lake Riverside 1 9,952 4 2003 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Capitola Santa Cruz 2.5 10,033 2 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Carlsbad San Diego 20 78,247 40 2001 1994 2000 1994 •1994 1994 1994 Carmel Monterey 4 4,081 1 1990 1983 1994 1983 1983 1983 1983 Carpinteria Santa Barbara 3 14,194 2 2001 2001 1996 2001 2001 2001 2001 Carson Los Angeles 9 89,730 19 1982 1981 1989 1982 1981 1981 1981 Cathedral City Riverside 3 42,647 19 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Ceres Stanislaus 5 34,609 7 1997 1997 1993 1997 1997 1997 1997 Cerritos Los Angeles 8 51,488 9 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Chico Butte 11 59,954 28 1994 1994 1992 1994 1994 1994 1994 Chino San Bernardino 13 67,168 29 1981 1992 2000 1990 1990 1974 1995 Chino Hills San Bernardino 6 66,787 46 1999 1994 2000 1994 1994 1994 1994 Chowchilla Madera 2 11,127 4 1986 1986 1994 1986 * 1986 1986 Chula Vista San Diego 32 173,556 52 2001 2001 2000 1989 1989 1989 1989 Citrus Heights Sacramento 5 85,071 14 2000 2000 2003 2000 2000 2000 2000 Claremont Los Angeles 7 33,998 14 1986 1992 2001 1981 1992 1992 1981 Clayton Contra Costa 2 10,762 4 1985 1985 2000 1985 1985 1985 1985 Clearlake Lake 0 13,142 10 1983 1983 1996 1983 1983 1983 1983 Cloverdale Sonoma 3 6,831 7 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Clovis Fresno 9 68,468 16 1993 1993 2002 1993 1993 1993 1993 Coachella Riverside 4 22,724 35 1998 1998 2001 1998 1998 1998 1998 Coalinga Fresno 1 11,668 5 1994 1994 1997 1994 1998 1994 1993 Colfax Placer 1 1,496 1 1998 1998 1993 1998 1998 1998 1998 Colma San Mateo 4 1,191 2 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 Colton San Bernardino 3 47,662 17 1986 1993 1991 1986 1986 1986 1986 Colusa Colusa 1 5,402 2 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 . Commerce Los Angeles 4 12,568 7 1987 1987 1990 1987 1987 1987 1987 Compton Los Angeles 4 93,493 10 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Concord Contra Costa 10 121,780 31 2001 2000 2002 1994 1994 1994 1994 Corcoran Kings 1 14,458 6 1997 1997 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 Corning Tehama 1 6,741 4 1994 1994 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 Corona Riverside 10 124,966 37 1986 1086 2000 1986 1976 1976 1990 Coronado San Diego 5 24,100 13 1996 1995 2002 1996 1994 1974 1999 Corte Madera Marin - 3 9,100 4 1992 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989- 1989 Costa Mesa Orange 7.5 108,724 17 .2002 2002 2000 2002 2002 2002 2002 Cotati Sonoma 2 6,471 2 1998 1999 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Covina Los Angeles 3 46,837 7 1989 1999 1994 1999 1999 1999 1999 Crescent City Del Norte 1 4,006 1 2001 2001 2003 2001 2001 2001 2001 Cudahy Los Angeles 2 24,208 1 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Culver City Los Angeles 10 38,816 5 1996 1996 2001 1996 1996 1973 1975 Cupertino Santa Clara 6 50,546 12 2001 1997 2001 1993 1993 1999 1993 Cypress Orange 4 46,229 7 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1993 Daly City San Mateo 4 103,621 7 1987 1987 1996 1987 1989 1994 1989 Dana Point Orange 6 35,110 6 1995 1995 2000 1995 1995 1995 1991 Danville Contra Costa 5 41,715 20 1999 1999' 2001 1999 1999 1999 1999 *Information not provided by jurisdiction The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists • 52 General Plan Status - Cities off �°g c °c o Jurisdiction County _° Q°� Q�0 Gam°°� Davis , Yolo 9 60,308 10 2001 2001 1993 2001 2001 2001 2001 Del Mar San Diego 6 4,389 2 1993 1976 1999 1985 1979 1993 1985 Del Rey Oaks Monterey 0 1,650 2 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Delano Kern 2 38,824 9 2000. 2000 1993 2000 2000 2000 2000 Desert Hot Springs Riverside 2 16$82 22 .2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Diamond Bar Los Angeles 3 .56,287 15 1995 1995 2001 1995 1995 1995 1995 Dinuba Tulare 25 16,844 4863 1997 1997 1992 1997 1997 1975 1997 Dixon Solano 2.5 16,103 5 1994 1994 2002 1994 1994 1994 1994 Dorris Siskiyou 0 886 1 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992, 1992 Dos Palos Merced 0 4,581 2 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Downey Los Angeles 6 107,323 12 1992 1992 2001 1992 1992 1992 1992 Duarte Los Angeles 5 21,486 6 1989 1989 1992 1989 1989 1989 1989 Dublin Alameda 8 29,973 12 1992 1992 1990 1992 1992 1992 1992 Dunsmuir Siskiyou 0 1,923 10 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 East Palo Alto San Mateo 3 29,506 7 1999 1999 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 El Cajon San Diego 6 94,869 14 1991 1991 1999 1991 1991 1991 1991 El Centro Imperial 1 37,835 9 1989 1989 1992 1989 1989 1989 1989 El Cerrito Contra Costa 1.2 23,171 3 1975 1975 1991 1975 1975 1975 1975 El Monte Los Angeles 4 115,965 9 1991 1991 2001 1991 1991 1991 1991 El Segundo Los Angeles 3 16,033 5 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Elk Grove Sacramento 11 * 39 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Emeryville Alameda 3 6,882 1 1993 1993 2001 1993 1993 1993 1993 Encinitas San Diego 14 58,014 19 1995 1995 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995 Escalon San Joaquin 10 5,963 1440 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Escondido San Diego 13 133,559 36 2000 2000 2000 1997 1997 1994 1990 Etna Siskiyou 0 781 2 1987 1987 1992 1987 1987 1987 1987 Eureka Humboldt 4 26,128 16 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Exeter Tulare 1 9,168 2 2002 2002 1992 1991 1991 1975 1976 Fairfax Marin 1 7,319 2 1986 1976 1990 1976 1976 1976 1976 Fairfield Solano 8 96,178 36 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Farmersville Tulare 1 8,737 1 1987 1989 1994 .1987 1987 1974 1989 Ferndale Humboldt 1 1,382 1 1986 1986 1992 1986 1986 1986 1986 Fillmore Ventura 2 13,643 3 2002 2002 2001 1989 1989 1989 1989 Firebaugh Fresno 2 5,743 2 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Folsom Sacramento 8 51,884 25 1988 1988 2002 1988 1988 1988 1988 Fontana San Bernardino 9 128,929 36 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Fort Bragg Mendocino 2 7,026 2 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Fort Jones Siskiyou 0 660 4 1989 1989 1993 1989 1989 1989 1989 Fortuna Humboldt 2 10,497 4 1993 2000 1993 1993 1988 1988 1988 Foster City San Mateo 5 28,803 4 1999 1999 2001 1993 1993 1995 1993 Fountain Valley Orange 2.5 54,978 10 1995 1995 2000 1995 1995 1995 1995 FowlCr Fresno v 3,973 2 1976 -1976 1992 -1976 1976 ' 1976 1976 Fremont Alameda 17 203,413 89 1996 1996 1992 1995 1995 1991 1991 Fresno Fresno 17 427,652 105 1984 1984 2002 1989 1984 1984 1984 Fullerton Orange 5 126,003 22 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Galt Sacramento 4 19,472 5 1990 1990 1992 1990 1990 1990 1990 Garden Grove Orange 5 165,196 18 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Gardena Los Angeles 3 57,746 6 1999 1975 2000 1973 1973 1975 1976 Gilroy Santa Clara 4 41,464 15 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 Glendale Los Angeles 15 194,973 30 '1994 1998 2000 1993 1993 1975 1978 Glendora Los Angeles 5 49,415 19 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Goleta Santa Barbara 1 Gonzales Monterey 1 7,525 1 1996 1996 2003 1996 1996 1996 1996 *Information not provided by jurisdiction The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists 53 • • Jurisdiction Grand Terrace Grass Valley Greenfield Gridley Grover Beach Guadalupe Gustine Half Moon Bay Hanford Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Hayward Healdsburg Hemet Hercules Hermosa Beach Hesperia Hidden Hills Highland Hillsborough Hollister . Holtville Hughson Huntington Beach Huntington Park Huron Imperial Imperial Beach Indian Wells Indio Industry Inglewood Ione Irvine Irwindale Isleton Jackson Kerman King City Kingsburg La Canada-Flintric La Habra La Habra Heights La Mesa La Mirada La Palma La Puente La Quinta La Verne Lafayette Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel General Plan Status - Cities °° mley arc or m o County G°h San Bernardino 3 11,626 4 1988 1998 2002 1999 1988 1988 1988. Nevada 3 10,922 4 19.99 1999 1995 1999 1999 1999 1999 Monterey 2 12,583 2 1981 1981 1994 1981 1981 1981 1981 Butte , 1 5,382 1 1999 1999 1994 1999 1999 1974 1984 San Luis Obispo 4 13,067 2 1992 1988 1993 1973 1973 2000 1993 Santa Barbara 1 5,659 4 1989 1989 1999 1989 1989 1989 1989 Merced 1 4,698 1 2001 2001 1995 2001 2001 2001 2001 San Mateo 4 11,842 8 1993 1992 1994 1993 1993 1991 1991 Kings 3 41,686 13 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Los Angeles 1 14,779 0 1992 1992 1992 1992. 1992 1992 1992 Los Angeles 2 84,112 6 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 Alameda 14 140,030 61 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Sonoma 3 10,722 4 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Riverside 2 58,812 26 1992 1992 1995 1992 1992 1992 1992 Contra Costa 2 19,488 7 1997 1997 1990 1997 1997 1997 1997 Los Angeles 4 18,566 1 1994 1990 2000 1990 1990 1990 1990 San Bernardino 3 62,582 70 2003 2001 2001 1991 1994 1991 1991 Los Angeles 1 1,875 1 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 San Bernardino 5 44,605 13 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 San Mateo 2 10,825 6 1995 1994 2002 2002 2002 1994 1994 San Benito 4 34,413 6 1995 1995 1993 1995 1995 1995 1995 Imperial 0 5,612 1 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Stanislaus 1.5 3,980 1 1984 1984 1995 1984 1984 1984 1984 Orange 14 189,594 27 1996 1996 2000 1996 1996 1996 1996 Los Angeles 3 61,348 3 1996 1991 2000 1992 . 1992 1992 1992 Fresno 2 6,306 1 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Imperial 1 7,560 8 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 San Diego 3 26,992 4 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Riverside 4 3,816 14 1996 1996 2000 1996 1996 1996 1996 Riverside 9 49,116 26 2001 2000 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Los Angeles 1.5 777 11 1971 1971 1989 1971- 1971. 1975 1974 Los Angeles 7 112,580 9 1998 1992 2000 1995 1997 1995 1987 Amador 1 7,129 4 1989 1991 1994 1989 1989 1989 1989 Orange 23 143,072 46 2002 2002 2001 1999 1999 1999 1999 Los Angeles 2 1,446 9 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 Sacramento 0 828 0 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 Amador 1 3,989 3 1999 1999 1994 1987 1987 1987 1987 Fresno 1 8,551 2 1993 1993 1991 1993 1993. 1993 1993 Monterey 2 11,094 3 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Fresno 1 9,199 3 1997 1992 2002 1992 1992 1992 1992 Los Angeles 5 20,318 8 1993 1995 1993 1980 1980 1980 1980 Orange 7 58,974 7 ' 1990 1 1990 2003 1990 1990 1990 1990 Los Angeles 1 5,712 6 1991 1978 2002 1978 1978 1978 1978 San Diego 5 54,749 9 1996 1996 1999 1996 1996 1996 1996 Los Angeles 1 46,783 7 2002 2002 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 Orange 1 15,408 2 1998 1998 2002 1998 1998 1998 1998 Los Angeles 3 41,063 3 1988 1972 1991 1972 1972 1972 1972 Riverside 7 23,694 32 2002 2002 1995 2002 2002 2002 2002 Los Angeles 6.5 31,638 9 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 Contra Costa 7 23,908 14 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Orange 7 23,727 9 1998 1999 2001 2002 2002 1995 1974 Orange 2 31,178 6 1994 1994 2001 1994 1994 1994 1994 Orange 7 61,891 14 2002 1992 2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists - 54 Jurisdiction Laguna Woods Lake Elsinore Lake Forest Lakeport Lakewood Lancaster Larkspur Lathrop Lawndale Lemon Grove Lemoore Lincoln Lindsay Live Oak Livermore Livingston Lodi Loma Linda Lomita Lompoc Long Beach Loomis Los Alamitos Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Angeles Los Banos Los Gatos Loyalton Lynwood Madera Malibu Mammoth Lakes Manhattan Beach Manteca Maricopa Marina Martinez Marysville Maywood McFarland Mendota Menlo Park Merced Mill Valley Millbrae Milpitas Mission Viejo Modesto Monrovia Montague Montclair Monte Sereno County Orange Riverside Orange Lake Los Angeles Los Angeles Marin San Joaquin Los Angeles San Diego Kings Placer Tulare Sutter Alameda Merced San Joaquin San Bernardino Los Angeles Santa Barbara Los Angeles Placer Orange Santa Clara Santa Clara Los Angeles Merced Santa Clara Sierra Los Angeles Madera Los Angeles Mono Los Angeles San Joaquin Kern Monterey Contra Costa Yuba Los Angeles Kern Fresno San Mateo Merced Marin San Mateo Santa Clara Orange Stanislaus Los Angeles Siskiyou San Bernardino Santa Clara 2 4 7 2 5 ,4 2.5 3 2 4 2 1 1 1 11 1 5 3 2 5 21 2 3 5 3 149 2 7 3 4 2.5 7 5 6 4 0 5 2 2 2 0 2 5 5 3 2 6 4 8 4 0 4 2 General Plan Status - Cities H � •,y c +� �'Q y J `m yr � yc' o a m a y c y y° d 16,507 28,928 58,707 79,345 118,718 12,014 10,445 31,711 24,918 19,712 11,205 10,297 10,473 18,681 41,103 461,522 6,260 11,536 27,693 7,902 3,694,820 69,845 12,575 7,093 33,852 49,258 1,111 25,101 35,866 12,268 28,083 9,618 7,890 30,785 63,893 13,600 20,718 93,1 188.8 1,45 3,483 4 2002 2002 2003 2002 2002 2002 2002 38 1990 1995 2000 1990 1990 1990 1990 17 2601 2001 2000 2001 2001 2000 2000 3 1999 1998 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 10 1996 1996 1994 1996 1996 1996 1996 94 2002 1997 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 2 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 19 1991 1991 2001 1991 1991 1991 1991 2 1992 1992 2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 4 1996 1996 1992 1996 1996 1996 1996 9 1995 1995 1993 1995 1995 1990 1990 19 2000 1998 2002 1988 1988 1988 1988 2 1989 1989 1992 1989 1989 1989 1989 1 1993 1993 2002 1993 1993 1993 1993 23 1976 1989 1991 1976 1976 1976 1977 3 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 12 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 7 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 1973 2 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 11 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 59 1990 1990 2001 1974 1974 1975 1974 7 2002 2002 1994 2002 2002 2002 2002 4 1999 1999 2001 1999 1999 1999 1999 6 2002 2002 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 8 1975 1999 2002 1975 1975 1975 1975 467 1982 1999 1993 1973 1973 1996 1999 8 1999 1999 1996 1999 1999 1999 1999 14 2000 2000 2002 2000 2000 2000 2000 0 1981 1981 1993 1981 1981 1981 1981 3 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 12 1992 1992 1993 1992 1992 1992 1992 19 1995 1995 2001 1995 1995 1995 1995 24 1999 2000 1992 1987 1987 1987 1997 3 1987 1987 2001 1987 1987 1987 1987 16 1988 1988 1988 1989 1988 1988 1988 1 1972 1972 1986 1973 1973 1975 1974 10 2000 2000 1995 2000 2000 2000 2000 11 1973 1992 1994 1972 1972 1985 1990 4 1985 1985 1997 1985 1985 1985 1985 1 1993 1989 2001 1989 1989 1989 1989 2 1992 1992 2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 2 1991 1991 1992 1'991 1991 19511991 19 1994 1994 1992 1973 1973 1976 1978 21 1997 1997 1992 1997 1997 1995 1995 4 2002 1989 2003 2002 1989 1989 1989 3 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 14 2002 1994 2002 1994 1994 1994 1994 17 1998 1990 2000 1999 1999 2003 1995 36 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 14 1993 1993 2003 1966 1966 2002 2002 1 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 5 1999 1999 2000 1999 1999 1999 1999 2 1995 1995 1990 1995 1995 1995 1995 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists • 55 General Plan SYatus - Cities mrc m %o °c m or Jurisdiction County 4° Montebello Los Angeles 4 62,150 8 1973 1973 1993 1973 1973 1975 1975 Monterey Montereiy 8 29,674 8 1983 1994 1992 1983 1983 1983 1983 Monterey Park Los Angeles 4 60,051 8 2601 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Moorpark Ventura 6 31,415 12 1992 1992 2001 1986 1986 2001 1998 Moraga Contra Costa 3 16,290 9 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Moreno Valley Riverside 8 142,381 50 1989 1989 2000 1989 1989 1989 1989 Morgan Hill Santa Clara 5 33,556 12 2001 2001 1992 2001 2001 2001 2001 Mono Bay San Luis Obispo 3 10,350 7 1988 1988 1995 1988 1988 1988 1995 Mount Shasta Siskiyou 2 3,621 3 1998 1993 1998 1993 1993 1993 1993 Mountain View Santa Clara 13 70,708 12 1995 1992 2002 1992 1992 1992 1992 Murrieta Riverside 5 44,282 25 1999 1999 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Napa Napa 8 72,585 18 1998 1998 2001 1998 1998 1998 1998 National City San Diego 5 54,260 8 1996 1996 2000 1996 1996 1996 1996 Needles San Bernardino 1 4,830 25 1997 1997 1997 1997 -1997 1997 1997 Nevada City Nevada 1 3,001 2 1986 1986 1992 1986 1986 1986 1986 Newark Alameda 3 42,471 13 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 .1992 1992 Newman Stanislaus 1 7,093 1 1992 1992 1998 1992 1992 1992 1992 " Newport Beach Orange 10 70,032 21 1988 1988 1992 1998 1974 1975 1994 Norco Riveriside 4 24,157 14 2001 2000 2000 1985 2002 1985 1985 Norwalk Los Angeles 4 103,298 9 1996 1996 2001 1996 1996 1996 1996 Novato Marin 6 47,630 25 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Oakdale Stanislaus 3 15,503 5 1994 1994 2001 1994 1994 1994 1994 Oakland Alameda 31 399,484 57 1998 1998 1992 1996 1996 1974 1974 Oakley Contra Costa 2 25,619 13 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Oceanside San Diego 8 161,029 42 1989 2000 2000 1975 1975 1975 1975 Ojai Ventura 2 7,862 4 1997 1997 1993 1987 1987 1991 1991 Ontario San Bernardino 13 158,007 50 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Orange Cove Fresno 2 7,722 2 1979 1979 1995 1979 1979 1979 1979 Orange, City of Orange 10 128,821 34 1989 1989 2001 1989 1989 1989 1989 Orinda Contra Costa 4.5 17,599 17 1989 1987 1991 1987 1987 1987 1987 Orland Glenn 1 6,281 2 2003 2003 1998 2003 2003 2003 2003 Oroville Butte 1 13,004 12 1995 1995 1993 1995 1995 1995 1995 Oxnard Ventura 10 170,358 24 1990 1990 2001 1990 1990 1990 1990 Pacific Grove Monterey 5 15,522 2 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Pacifica San Mateo 3 38,390 12 1988 1980 1992 1984 1980 1983 1980 Palm Desert Riverside 5 41,155 26 1994 1994 1992 1980 1980 1980 1980 Palm Springs Riverside 7 42,807 101 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Palmdale Los Angeles 8 116,670 102 1993 1993 2001 1993 1993 1993 1993 Palo Alto Santa Clara 12 58,598 26 1998 1998 2002 1998 1998 1998 1998 Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 3 13,340 5 1972 1972 2001 1972 1972 1975 1975 Paradise Butte 2 26,408 10 1994 1994 1998 1994 1994 1994 1994 Paramount- Los Angeles 3 55.266 5 1990 1990 1990 '1990 1990 1990 1990 Parlier Fresno 1 11,145 2 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Pasadena Los Angeles .30 133,936 23 1994 1994 2002 1976 1976 2002 2002 Paso Robles San Luis Obispo 5 24,297 19 1991 2000 1994 1974 1974 1974 1994 Patterson Stanislaus 2 11,606 3 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Perris Riverside 2 36,189 33 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Petaluma Sonoma 5 54,548 13 1987 1987 1991 1987 1987 1987 1987 Pico Rivera Los Angeles 5 63,428 8 1993 1993 2001 1993 1993 1993 1993 Piedmont Alameda 3 10,952 1 1996 1996 2002 1996 1996 1996 1996 Pinole Contra Costa 1 19,039 5 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo 4 8,551 3 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Pittsburg Contra Costa 6 56,769 16 2001 2001 1994 2001 2001 2001 2001 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists • 56 General Plan Status - Cities m°� 141 arc oc o or oQ� Jurisdiction County 2° Q°A Placentia Orange 3 46,488 7 1989 1982 1989 1974 1974 1975 1974 Placerville El Dorado 2 9,610 7 1990 1990 1992 1990 1990 1990 1990 Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 4 32,837 8 2063 2003 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 Pleasanton Alameda 11 63,654 23 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Plymouth Amador 1 980 1 1994 1995 1997 1986 1990 1986 1986 Point Arena' Mendocino 0 474 .2 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Pomona Los Angeles 7 149,473 22 1976 1976 2001 1976 1976 1976 1976 Port Hueneme Ventura 0 21,845 4 1998 1998 2001 1998 1998 1998 1998 Porterville Tulare 3 39,615 14 1995 1993 1992 1995 1995 1998 1988 Portola Plumas 1 2,227 305 2001 2001 1993 2001 2001 2001 2001 Portola Valley San Mateo 4 4,462 18 1998 1998 1990 1998 1998 1998 1975 Poway San Diego 7 48,044 39 1991 1991 1993 1991 1991 1991 1991 Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 14 127,743 38 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Rancho Mirage Riverside 4 13,249 25 1997 1997 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 8 41,145 13 1975 1975 2001 1975 1975 1975 1975 Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 4 47,214 13 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Red Bluff Tehama 2 13,147 8 1993 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Redding Shasta 10 80,865 59 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Redlands San Bernardino 6 63,591 36 1995 1995 2000 1995 1995 1995 1995 Redondo Beach Los Angeles 4 63,261 6 1992 1992 2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 Redwood City San Mateo 8 75,402 32 1990 1993 1993 1990 1990 1990 1990 Reedley Fresno 1 20,756 5 1994 1994 2003 1994 1994 1994 1994 Rialto San Bernardino 3 91,873 23 1992 1992 2001 1992 1992 1992 1992 Richmond Contra Costa 9 99,216 56 1998 1994 1994 1996 1996 1996 1994 Ridgecrest Kern 2 24,927 23 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Rio Dell Humboldt 0 3,174 2 1980 1977 1993 1972 2001 1975 1975 Rio Vista Solano 3 4,571 6 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Ripon San Joaquin 1 10,146 5 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Riverbank Stanislaus 1 15,826 4 1988 1988 1998 1984 1984 1984 1985 Riverside Riverside 20 255,166 79 1994 1994 2000 1994 1994 1994 1994 Rocklin Placer 7 36,330 16 1991 1994 1992 1991 1991 1991 1991 Rohnert Park Sonoma 2 42,236 7 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 Rolling Hills Los Angeles 1 1,871 3 1990 1990 2001 1990 1990 1990 1990 Rolling Hills Estates Los Angeles 4 7,676 4 1992 1992 1994 1992 1992 1992 1992 Rosemead Los Angeles 3 53,505 6 1987 1987 2000 1986 1986 1986 1986 Roseville Placer 16 79,921 31 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Ross Marin 1 2,329 1 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 Sacramento Sacramento 42 407,018 111 1988 1988 2000 1998 1988 1988 1988 Salinas Monterey 7 151,060 18 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 San Anselmo Marin 3 12,378 .3 1995 1991 1995 1991 1984 1976 1975 San Bernardino San Bernardino 6 185,401 62 1989 1989 2003 1989 1989 1989 1989 Sail Bruno San ivlateo 4 40,165 5 1984 1984 1984 i984 1984 1984 1984 San Carlos San Mateo 7 27,718 4 1994 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 San Clemente Orange 9 49,936 17 2002 2001 2000 2001 1993 1993 2001 San Diego San Diego 113 1,223,400 342 1992 1985. 2001 1997 1997 1979 1985 San Dimas Los Angeles 4 34,980 15 1991 1991 2002 1991 1991 1991 1991 San Fernando Los Angeles 2 23,564 2 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 San Francisco San Francisco 93 776,733 49 1997 1995 1992 1998 1996 1997 1996 San Gabriel Los Angeles 3 39,804 4 1990 1990 1997 1990 1990 1990 1990 San Jacinto Riverside 2 23,779 26 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 San Joaquin Fresno 2 3,270 1 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 San Jose Santa Clara 60 894,943 179 2000 2000 2000 1994 1994 1994 1994 San Juan Bautista San Benito 1 1,549 4 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists • 57 General Plan Status - Cities 7 `011� _'Q a Jurisdiction County �° Q°Q, Q� G`°Jy San Juan Capistrano Orange 4 33,826 13 1999 1999 2000 1999 1999 1999 1999 San Leandro Alameda 6 79,452 15 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 10 44,174 11 109 1994 1994 1994 1973 2000 1996 San Marcos San Diego 4 54,977 34 1995 1999 1995 1995 1995 1987 1987 San Marino Los Angeles 2 12,945 3 1973 1995 2000 1973 1973 1973 1973 San Mateo San Mateo 8 92,482 15 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 San Pablo Contra -Costa 2 30,215 3 1996 1996 1993 1996 1996 1996 1996 San Rafael Marin- 10 56,063 22 1996 1996 1996 1988 1988 1988 1997 San Ramon Contra Costa 6 44,722 13 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Sand City Monterey 3 261 3 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Sanger Fresno 2 18,931 4 1988 1988 1991 1995 1988 1988 1988 Santa Ana Orange 16 337,977 27 1998 1998 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara . 31 92,325 19 1964 1998 1995 1964 1979 1979 1979 Santa Clara Santa Clara 9 102,361 19 2002 1992 2002 1992 1992 1992 1992 Santa Clarita Los Angeles 10 151,088 46 1991 1997 1995 1991 1991 1991 1991 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 14 54,593 12. 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 4 17,438 9 1993 1994 2000 1994 1994 1994 1994 Santa Maria Santa Barbara 8 77,423 20 1991 1994 1993 1996 1996 1995 1997 Santa Monica Los Angeles 19 84,084 8 1987 1987 1998 1997 1975 1995 1992 Santa Paula Ventura 3 28,598 4 1998 1998 1995 1998 1998 1998 1998 Santa Rosa Sonoma 14 147,595 41 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Santee San Diego 5 52,975 16 1998 1997 1990 1984 1984 1984 1984 Saratoga Santa Clara 5 29,843 12 1983 1999 2002 1993 1988 1987 1988 Sausalito Marin 4 1,330 2 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 4.5 11,385 4 2001 1994 1993 2001 1994 1994 1994 Seal Beach Orange 2 24,157 13 1999 1999 1990 1999 1999 1998 1999 Seaside Monterey 3 31,696 9 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Sebastopol Sonoma 2 7,774 2 1994 1994 1997 1994 1994 1994 1994 Selma Fresno 2 19,444 4 1998 1998 1993 1983 1983 1991 1991 Shafter Kern 1 12,736 18 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Shasta Lake Shasta 2 9,008 10 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 Sierra Madre Los Angeles 3 10,578 3 1996 1996 2003 1996 1996 1996 1996 Signal Hill Los Angeles 4 9,333 2 2001 1989 2002 1986 1986 1986 1986 Simi Valley Ventura 25 111,351 39 1993 1988 2001 1993 1993 1999 1988 Solana Beach San Diego .4 12,979 3 1988 1999 1999 1988 1988 1988 1988 Soledad Monterey 1 11,263 3 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Solvang Santa Barbara 1 5,332 2 1995 1993 1992 1988 1989 1989 1989 Sonoma Sonoma 3 9,128 2 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Sonora Tuolumne 1 4,423 3 1984 1984 1994 1983 1983 1983 1983 South El Monte Los Angeles 2 21,144 3 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 South Gate Los Angeles 4 96,375 8 1986 1986 1993 1986 1986 1986 1986 South Lake Tahoe. E1.Dorado 4 23,609 ..12 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003.: 2003 South Pasadena Los Angeles 3 24,292 3 1998 2001 2001 1998 1998 1998 1998 South San Francisco San Mateo 5 60,552 9 1999 1999 1992 1999 1999 1999 1999 St. Helena Napa 2 5,950 4 1993 1993 2002 1993 1993 1993 1993 Stanton Orange 2 37,403 3 1992 1992 1994 1992 1992 1992 1992 Stockton San Joaquin 8 243,771 55 1990 1990 1994 1990 1990 1990 1990 Suisun City Solano 2 26,118 4 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 12 131,760 24 1997 1997 2002 1992 1992 1993 1997 Susanville Lassen . 2 13,541 6 2000 1990 1993 1991 1991 1991 1991 Sutter Creek Amador 1 2,303 1 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Taft Kern 1 6,400 15 2003 2003 2003 1986 1986 1986 1986 Tehachapi Kern 1 10,957 6 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lisis • S8 General Plan Status by Jurisdiction - Cities General Plan Status - Cities y r040 %a ° Q� ¢�� rJ . iVJ Jy`r Qry Cy0� yym Jurisdiction County Tehama Tehama 0 432 1 1997 1997 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 Temecula Riverside 10 57,716 27 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Temple City Los Angeles 2 33,377 3 1986 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1986 Thousand Oaks Ventura 18 117,005 56 1999 1999 2000 1996 1996 1996 2000 Tiburon Marin 4 8,666 18 1989 1994 1994 1989 1989 1989 1989 Torrance Los Angeles 20 131,946 20 1992 1992 2001 1992 1992 1992 1992 Tracy San Joaquin 7 56,929 15 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Trinidad Humboldt 1.5 311 1 1986 1986 1996 1986 1986 1986 1986 Truckee Nevada 5 13,864 34 2000 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Tulare Tulare 3 43,994 16 1993 1993 1993 1975 1975 1990 1987 Tulelake Siskiyou 0 1,020 1 1986 1986 1996 1986 1986 1986 1986 Turlock Stanislaus 4 55,810 14 2002 2002 2003 2002 1993 2002 1993 Tustin Orange 6 67,504 11 2001 2001 2002 2001 2001 2001 2001 Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 1 14,764 58 1998 1990 2000 1988 1988 1991 1990 Ukiah Mendocino 3 15,497 4 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Union City Alameda 4 66,869 18 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Upland San Bernardino 6 68,393 15 1998 1998 1998 1986 1986 1990 1982 Vacaville Solano 10. 88,625 26 1999 1999 2001 1999 1999 1999 1995 Vallejo. Solano 5 116,760 51 1999 1996 2001 1996 1996 1996 1996 Ventura Ventura 15 100,916 21 1989 1989 1993 1989 1989 1989 1989 Vernon Los Angeles 3 91 5 1989 1992 2001 1989 1989 1992 1989 Victorville San Bernardino 4 64,029 74 1997 1997 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 Villa Park Orange 0 5,999 2 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Visalia Tulare 5 91,565 28 1996 2001 1993 1989 1989 1975 1995 Vista San Diego 5. 89,857 18 1988 2002 1999 1988 1984 1976 1982 Walnut Los Angeles 3 30,004 9 1978 1978 2000 1978 1978 1978 1975 Walnut Creek Contra Costa 10 64,296 .20 1993 1993 1994 1989 1989 1989 1993 Wasco Kern 2 21,263 7 1988. 2000 1993 1973 1973 1995 1974 Waterford Stanislaus 2 6,924 2 1991 1991 1995 1991 1991 1991 1991 Watsonville Santa Cruz 5 44,265 6 1994 1994 1992 1994 1994 1994 1994 Weed Siskiyou 0 2,978 4 1987 1993 1993 1987 1974 1978 1986 West Covina Los Angeles 5 105,080 17 1985 1985 1995 1985 1985 1985 1985 West Hollywood Los Angeles 9 35,716 2 1988 1988 2002 1988 1988 1988 1988 West Sacramento Y010 5 31,615 22 2000 2000 1997 2000 2000 2000 2000 Westlake Village Los Angeles 2 8,368 5 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Westminster Orange 7 88,207 10 1996 1996 2001 1996 1996 1996 1996 Westmorland Imperial 0 2,131 1 1984 1974 1989 4974 1974 1978 1975 Wheatland Yuba 1 2,275 1 1986 1980 1992 1980 1980 1980 1980 Whittier Los Angeles 4 83,680 14 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Williams Colusa 0 3,670 4 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 Willits Mendocino 1 5,073 3 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 Ciann 1 6,220 3 2000 • 19°1 1992 1981 1931 1974 1974 Windsor Sonoma 4 22,744 6 1996 1996 2002 1996 1996 1996 1996 Winters Yolo 1 6,125 2 1992 1992 2002 1992 1992 1992 1992 Woodlake Tulare 1 6,651 2 1975 1975 1992 1975 1975 1975 1976 Woodland Yolo 3 40,151 10 1996 1996 1992 1996 1996 1996 1996 Woodside San Mateo 3 5,352 14 1988 1988 2001 1988 1988 1988 1988 Yorba Linda Orange 4 158,918 21 1999. 1997 1999 1993 1993 1993 1993 Yountville Napa 2 2,916 3 2001 1992 2002 1992 1992 1992 1992 Yreka Siskiyou 1 7,290 10 1979 1979 1996 1977 1977 1977 1998 Yuba City Sutter 3 36,758 10 1989 1989 2003 1989 1989 1989 1978 Yucaipa San Bernardino 2 41,207 27 1992 1992 1 2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 Yucca Valley San Bernardino 3 16,865 32 1995 1995 2000 1995 1995 1995 1995 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists - 59 • • General Plan Status - Counties General Plan Status by County rah .may 0 oC �r oc o or mo a �� o County County Seat Zo• 4j41, o�Vim` �o� 04� Voc ya� y Alameda Oakland 17 1,443,741 737 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 1982 1975 Alpine Markleeville 1 1,208 726 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1982 Amador Jackson 2 35,100 568 1991 1998 1992 1991 1991 1974 1988 Butte . Oroville 8 203,171 1,670 .1979 1971 1981 1973 1971 1977 1977 Calaveras San Andreas 4 40,554 1,019 1996 1996 2003 1996 1996 1996 1996 Colusa Colusa 2. 18,804 1,153 1989 _ 1989 1993 1989 1989 1989 1989 Contra Costa Martinez 36 948,816 805 1996 1991 2001 1991 1991 1991 1991 Del Norte Crescent City 3 27,507 1,008 1988 1976 1992 1084 1984- 1976 1976 El Dorado Placerville 17 156,299 1,713 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Fresno Fresno 20 799,407 6,000 2000. 2000 1991 2000 2000 2000 2000 Glenn Willows 4 26,453 1,317 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Humboldt Eureka 10 126,518 3,500 1984 1984 1992 1984 1984 1984 1984 Imperial Imperial 8 142,361 4,597 1998 1996 2000 1996 1996 1996 1996 Inyo Independence 8 17,945 10,140 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Kern Bakersfield 21 661,645 8,073 1982 1992 2002 1982 1982 1976 1989 Kings_ Hanford 5 1291461 1,392 2002 1994 1992 1996 1996 1994 1994 Lake Lakeport 10 .58;309 1,317 1981 1981 1996 1981 1981 1981 1981 Lassen Susanville 6 33,828 4,557 1999 1999 1993 1999 1999 1974 1989 Los Angeles Los Angeles 82 9,519,338 4,083 1980 1980 2001 1980 1980 1990 1974 Madera Madera 12 123,109 2,147 1995 1995 1993 1995 1995 1995 1995 Marin San Rafael 25 247,289 521 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Mariposa Mariposa 9 17,130 1,495 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Mendocino Ukiah 12 86,265 3,510 1981 1981 1993 1981 1981 1981 1981 Merced Merced 9 210,554 1,984 2002 2001 1992 2002 2002 1990 1990 Modoc Alturas 2 9,449 4,092 1989 1989 1993 1989 1989 1989 1989 Mono Bridgeport 6 12,853 3,060 2000 1998 1993 1993 1993. 1993 1993 Monterey Salinas 36 401,762 2,127 1982 1982 1992 1992 1982 1982 • 1982 Napa Napa 13 124,279 801 1999 1983 1992 1998 1998 1983 1983 Nevada Nevada City 9 92,033 937 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Orange Santa Ana 43 . 2,846,289 798 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 Placer Auburn 19 248,399 1,506 1994 1994 2002 1994 1994 1994 1994 Plumas Quincy 5 20,824 2,618 2003 1994 1993 2000 2000 2002 1986 Riverside Riverside 35 1,545,387 7,400 1984 1984 .1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 Sacramento Sacramento 61 1,223,499 994 1993 1993 1994 1993 1993 1993 1993 San Benito Hollister 5.5 53,234 1,396 1998 1990 1994 1995 1995 1980 1984 San Bernardino San Bernardino 25 1,709,434 0,062 1989 1989 2003 1989 1989 1989 1989 San Diego San Diego 42 2,813,833 3,570 2000 1994 1999 2000 2000 1975 1980 San Francisco San Francisco 65 .776,733 49 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1.996 San Joaquin Stockton 9 563,598 1,440 1992 1992 1992 1992' 1992 1992 1999 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 42 246,681 3,316 1996 1996 1993 1998 1974 1999 1992 San Mateo Redwood City 16 707,161 450 1986 1986 1992 1986 1986 1986 1986 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 110 399,347 2,750 2002. 2002 1995 1991 1994 2000 1986 Santa Clara Santa Clara 23 1,682,585 1,300 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 24 255,602 441 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Shasta Redding'. 8 163,256 3,850 1998 1998 1994 1998 1998 1998 1998 Sierra Downieville 2 3,555 959 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Siskiyou Yreka 4 44,301 6,300 1980 1987 2003 1972 1973 1975 2003 Solano Fairfield 7 394,542 898 1999 1999 1992 1996 1996 1977 1977 Sonoma Santa Rosa 22 458,614 1,500 1989 1989 2002 1989 1989 1989 1989 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists 60 General Plan Status - Counties m4(0 rr r •��y � r m�� �o •` +-¢`� ♦� County County Seat 2° 4eJ Stanislaus Modesto 12 446,997 1,854 1994 1994 1996 1994 1994 1994 1994 Sutter Yuba City 6 78,930 607 1998 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Tehama Red Bluff 3 56,039 2,976 1983 1987 1996 1983 1983 1987 1972 Trinity Weaverville 9 13,022 3,222 1988 2002 1992 1973 1973 2002 2003 Tulare Visalia 20 368,021 4,863 1981 1984 1992 1972 1972 1975 1988 Tuolumne Sonora 9 54,501 2,217 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Ventura Ventura 39 753,197 1,873 2000 2000 1992 1998 1994 1988 1994 Yolo Woodland 4 168,660 1,035 1983 1983 2003 2002 1983 1-983 1983 Yuba Marysville 3 60,219 640 1996 1996 1991 1996 1996 1980 1976 The California Planners' 2004 Book of Lists • 61 ATTACHMENT 3 City of West Covina Memorandum Planning Department TO: Andrew G. Pasmant City Manager FROM: Douglas N. McIsaac Planning Director DATE: August 25, 2005 SUBJECT: WEEKLY REPORT ITEMS General Plan Update At the Council meeting of August 16, 2005, a question was raised regarding the status of the updating the City's General Plan. On March 29, 2005, the Council reviewed a report regarding this matter, which presented some conceptual cost estimates and funding' scenarios for undertaking this endeavor. The cost of the project was estimated at $550,000, of which staff had identified approximately $320,000 in potentially available funding from a combination of the General Plan fund, Prop. A and C funds, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. This left an estimated funding "gap" of approximately $230,000. Upon reviewing this report, Council gave direction to staff to continue pursuing the project with the caveat that General Fund monies not be used. At this time, the one other potential source of non -General Fund money that staff believes could be used for the General Plan update is redevelopment funds, possibly including housing set -aside funds. Staff is continuing to review this option with the Community Development Commission, the City Attorney, and the Finance Department to determine how much of these funds could appropriately be expended for this purpose. Using redevelopment funds, however, may compete with other funding priorities of the Community Development Commission. As staff continues to more definitively determine the amounts and availability of restricted funding sources, staff believes that it would be beneficial at this time to proceed with developing and circulating a request for proposals (RFP) for the General Plan update. As previously stated, the cost for a comprehensive General Plan update can vary considerably depending on the scope and depth of the update and the associated community participation process. Compared to General Plan updates done by other cities, the $550,000 estimate quoted by staff would probably afford for a relatively austere program. • • r Weekly Report August 25, 2005 — Page 2 As the answers to the funding questions may still take some time to be clarified, staff feels it would be expeditious to solicit bids from consultants emphasizing a "basic" budget and scope, with alternatives for other "extras," such as a more detailed public outreach and participation process. By knowing the true costs of the General Plan update, staff would then be better able to know what, if any additional efforts would be needed to secure the necessary funding. If sufficient funding is available, the City would be a position to proceed. An RFP of this nature needs to be thorough and specific. Staff is currently attempting to collect similar RFP's from other cities to use as models. With the current workload, staff estimates that the RFP could be prepared and circulated within 45 days, with another 30 days allowed for the submittal of proposals. In a related matter, staff does not believe that the cost or time line of the General Plan update should in any way affect the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan or delay its implementation. If anything, the completion of the Downtown Master Plan should eliminate the need to address that area of the City in more detail as part of the General Plan update as a long-range plan for the area will have already been established. Following the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan, staff will need to prepare zoning standards, most likely in the form of a specific plan, to implement the Downtown Master Plan land use.plan and design standards. A General Plan amendment will be needed as well, but this would just be a matter of changing the land use designation of the area. Also, a master environmental impact report should be prepared to quicken the processing and approval of individual development projects. All of this, however, should be able to be done separate and apart from the General Plan update.