The 2005 reconsolidation occurred at what will ultimately be the midpoint of the General Plan's 30-year term. Since the reconsolidation, the General Plan has been revised through individual amendments affecting relatively small portions of the document. The only exception to this has been State-mandated updates to the Housing Element, which most recently occurred in 2014.   
  
State of California General Plan Guidelines  
  
To assist local governments in preparing general plans and facilitate public participation in that process, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) publishes the General Plan Guidelines (GPG). While the GPG document is advisory, it closely adheres to statute and case law. From time to time OPR updates the GPG, with the most recent update released in August 2017. Any substantial update of the General Plan should be generally consistent with the current version of the GPG.   
  
Transportation and Circulation Element Update  
  
The approach to transportation planning has fundamentally shifted over the past 15+/- years and is likely to continue shifting, thus necessitating a substantial effort to revise the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element (TCE). These fundamental shifts include:

• Context Sensitive Planning (2000): An approach to transportation decision-making that takes the surrounding land uses into consideration.
• Complete Streets (2005/2008): Something of a refinement of Context Sensitive Planning, “complete streets” is an approach to transportation decision-making that requires streets to be planned, designed, constructed, and operated to accommodate all users (pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, public transportation users, wheelchair users, etc). Passage of the 2008 California Complete Streets Act established complete streets practices in statute.
• Greenhouse Gas-Related Initiatives (2006): The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) and subsequent Sustainable Communities Act of 2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375) resulted in the further emphasis of, among many other things, the importance of active transportation modes.
• SB 743 (2013): This bill has a number of significant impacts, three of which are relevant to the General Plan update and discussed below (final guidance from the State is substantially delayed and has not yet been adopted):

• Reduce speed and increase driver attention
• Protect Vulnerable road users
• Reduce overall VMT and sprawl

  
In addition to the issues discussed above, the following will be addressed in the Transportation and Circulation Element update:

• Impacts of sea level rise on transportation investments and existing infrastructure.
• Accommodation of Connected Vehicles & Automated Vehicles (CV/AV): This rapidly evolving field may require specific policy accommodation.
• Transportation Network Companies (TNCs [Lyft, Uber, etc.]): The impacts of these rapidly evolving services are starting to emerge including unintended consequences (increased congestion in some areas) and heightened interest in curb management policies due to inexperienced commercial drivers not adhering to traffic laws when picking up or dropping off passengers.
• Unsafe speeds: The evolution of transportation planning described above is likely to continue. The next phase of this evolution may be to address unsafe speeds. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently released a study, “Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes” which has received a substantial amount of attention. This study, combined with 1) the new safety elements in the updated OPR General Plan Guidelines, 2) safety elements of SB 743, and 3) ongoing interest in the public health field, may foreshadow the next phase in transportation planning.

• Evolution of public transit: The pressure from TNCs (and eventually CV/AV technology) is likely to result substantial changes in how public transit is administered and operated. While the County has no direct role in the provision of public transit, the service is addressed in the General Plan.
• SB 1000 (2016): Land use: general plans: safety and environmental justice: This legislation further expands on the complete streets concept:

  
Growth Management Element Update  
  
Passage of the Measure J transportation sales tax in 2004 extended and revised policies originally established by passage of Measure C-1988. In response, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) revised the Growth Management Program Implementation Guide to incorporate the Measure J changes. CCTA member jurisdictions were then requested to update their growth management elements (GMEs) to reflect the new policies in Measure J.  
  
In consultation with CCTA, the County chose not to update its GME in favor of a more efficient approach of using a Measure C-to-Measure J “correspondence table” that illustrate's how the existing GME is consistent with the requirements of Measure J. This decision was made citing: 1) the existing Measure C-compliant GME was consistent with the new Measure J policies, and 2) considering that existing policies were sufficient, the simpler approach would be a more efficient use of the County’s limited resources. The correspondence table was added to the General Plan in 2016.   
  
However, as the County is undertaking a more comprehensive update to the General Plan that will likely require substantial revisions to the GME, it would now be appropriate to more precisely reflect CCTA's preferred GME language. Furthermore, and possibly most significantly, the GME contains LOS policies and standards no longer required under Measure J or CEQA. As discussed earlier, with this General Plan update, the County will be considering if and how to continue using LOS.   
  
Proposed Options for Updating the County General Plan  
  
By the time the General Plan is set to expire in December 2020, 30 years will have elapsed since its original adoption. For the most part the document's goals and policies reflect the planning philosophy of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which encouraged low-density, sprawl-type development. However, as explained above, the approach to land use and transportation planning in California is changing rapidly, primarily because of the State's focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The emphasis now is on infill, densification (especially in proximity to transit stops), mixed uses, greater reliance on public transportation, and alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. The objective of this General Plan update should be to produce a document that is accurate and philosophically current. DCD staff proposes following three basic options for updating the General Plan.   
  
Option 1: Comprehensive Clean-up  
  
Option 1 involves a basic work program similar to the 1996 and 2005 reconsolidations described above. This option focuses on bringing the General Plan up to date. Option 1 would include the nine items described in the reconsolidation discussion above, for the period from 2005-2020, along with the following additional suggested tasks: Option 1 is best characterized as a comprehensive General Plan clean-up. This option includes items that are either required by statute or local initiative, or simply necessary to bring the document up to date. The narrative text, data, statistics, and maps would be revised and made current. Policy changes would generally be limited to those necessary for the General Plan to be consistent with adopted statutes, the updated GPG, and updated regional plans. The General Plan's format, appearance, and organization would essentially remain unchanged. Under this option the General Plan would be factually current, but still somewhat stale philosophically. Staff estimates the cost associated with Option 1, including environmental review, to be approximately in the $1.5 million to $2 million range.  
  
Option 2: Major Overhaul and Incorporating Additional Topics  
  
Option 2, the staff recommended option, builds on the work program described for Option 1. This option includes all items described under Option 1 plus the following suggested tasks: The five items listed under Option 2 are staff suggestions and "voluntary" in that they are not statutorily required. This list may be augmented as the Board desires. However, including these items in the final work program would be good planning practice and yield an up-to-date General Plan addressing a broader range of contemporary planning issues. The document would also have a more modern appearance and be more user-friendly. Staff estimates the cost associated with Option 2, including environmental review, to be approximately in the $2 million to $4 million range. The main cost variable is which, and how many, additional topic areas would be addressed under this option.  
  
Option 3: New County General Plan  
  
Option 3 entails preparation of an entirely new General Plan; however, staff views this option as potentially unnecessary. Independent of the legislation discussed above, county residents have approved four local initiatives (Measure C-1988, Measure C-1990, Measure J-2004, and Measure L-2006) that form the foundation of land use and transportation planning policy in Contra Costa County. Measure C-1988 established a one-half cent sales tax to fund transportation projects and programs, and instituted the Growth Management Program (GMP), which links planning for growth and development to transportation. Measure C-1990 created the original County ULL and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, which limits urban development to no more than 65 percent of the land in the county. Measure J-2004 extended the half-cent transportation sales tax through 2034 and amended the GMP to, among other things, require all 19 cities and towns to adopt either the County’s ULL or their own. Measure L-2006 extended the term of the County ULL through 2026. Together these initiatives created a strong countywide planning framework that focuses development pressure toward existing communities, coordinates land use and transportation policy, and preserves almost two-thirds of the land in the county for non-urban uses. The General Plan, despite being outdated in many respects, remains consistent with these voter-approved initiatives. Furthermore, the General Plan cannot deviate from the requirements of these initiatives, meaning a new document would necessarily be similar to the existing document in terms of its foundational principles and policies.   
  
Staff estimates the cost associated with Option 3, including environmental review, to be up to $7,000,000. In staff's opinion, updating the County Zoning Code would be a more effective use of the County's limited resources.   
  
Updating the County Zoning Code  
  
The County Zoning Code (County Ordinance Code Title 8) is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan, and by law, must be consistent with the General Plan.   
  
The County Zoning Code was originally adopted in 1947, when the county population was slightly under 300,000, heavy industry was still prevalent in West County and along the waterfront, the suburbs of Central County were just beginning to develop, and agriculture was by far the dominant land use in East County. The original version of the Zoning Code reflected these conditions, particularly in its permissiveness of certain heavy industrial and agricultural uses, such as refineries, explosives plants, and stockyards. However, while Contra Costa subsequently transformed into a largely suburban county with over 1,100,000 residents, the Zoning Code never underwent a comprehensive review and update to address this reality. Instead it has been updated piecemeal to comply with State legislation and address local issues as they've arisen. This approach has resulted in a compendium of somewhat outdated regulations that are complicated and difficult to administer, and fail to adequately address many contemporary planning issues. The Zoning Code's cumbersome processes are also a potential hindrance to economic development. In staff's opinion, addressing the Zoning Code's deficiencies would be an effective complement to the effort to update the General Plan.   
  
DCD staff estimates that an adequate update of the Zoning Code would cost up to $1.5 million. Staff anticipates completing most of the work in-house, though a consultant's assistance may be necessary for certain technical aspects and completion of the CEQA review.   
  
Environmental Review  
  
The General Plan update will be subject to review under CEQA. DCD staff has determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) will be the appropriate level of review, regardless of which option the Board chooses. EIRs are comprehensive documents addressing a broad range of environmental subject areas. Preparation of a complete and legally-adequate EIR requires numerous technical studies assessing potential environmental impacts related to air quality, biology, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, utilities, and a host of other topics. The EIR process also includes significant opportunity for public involvement, particularly in the form of submitting comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR document. Substantial cost will be incurred responding to these comments, which is a requirement of CEQA. Staff anticipates that completing the CEQA process will account for approximately 50 percent or more of the total cost for updating the General Plan.   
  
Public Outreach and Participation  
  
Updating the General Plan necessarily involves significant public outreach and participation in addition to the public agency consultation that is required by statute. The nature and extent of this public outreach will depend greatly on the work program ultimately chosen by the Board. Public outreach will involve community meetings and workshops, public hearings, utilization of social media, and any other methods as directed by the Board. Staff notes that this work significantly impacts the budget (the cost estimates above assume an ambitious public outreach effort proportional to each proposed option).   
  
Timeline  
  
As noted above, the General Plan is set to expire in December 2020, leaving three years to complete the update. Staff will be able to provide a project timeline once the Board decides on the details of the work program. However, the first step in the process, which DCD hopes to complete by the end of April 2018, will be to select a consultant to assist with updating the General Plan and preparing the EIR.   
  
Conclusion  
  
Staff is requesting direction from the Board on the approach for updating the County General Plan. Given the time constraint, estimated cost, and necessity of also updating the County Zoning Code, it is staff's opinion that the work program described for Option 2 represents the most efficient use of County resources.   

---