Community Workshop #2: Alternative Futures
|
|
Workshop Objectives On October 24, 2001, over 40 people attended the second of three community workshops to review alternatives for the 2,016-acre West Highway 198 planning area. The workshop objectives included reviewing planning objectives and features identified by participants in the first workshop, evaluating alternatives, and discussing implementation activities.
At the October 11, 2001 community workshop, participants identified five overall planning objectives for the West Highway 198 area. These included: Objective 1: Maintains scenic corridor
Objective 2: Mix of uses
Objective 3: Fully integrated open space system
Objective 4: High standards for site planning and design
Objective 5: Reasonable economic scenario for property owners
|
|
| |
| Workshop Summary The objectives above were used at the workshop to evaluate three alternative policy futures for the area. The alternatives contained planning features identified in the first workshop and were prepared to allow the community to evaluated and discuss policy options. The alternatives developed for the workshop include: Alternative 1: Open Space Preservation Emphasis Alternative 2: Commercial Emphasis Alternative 3: Scenic Corridor Design Overlay Participants worked as members of six teams to evaluate the alternatives and identify actions required to implement the plan. Alternative 1: Open Space Preservation Emphasis The first alternative was given high marks for how it maintained the traditional scenic qualities of the western entry to Visalia and how open space was integrated into the plan. It was given low marks for introducing a mix of uses and economic return for property owners. In terms of implementation, participants felt it would be hard to attract the college indicated in the plan and to find funding for open space and preserving agricultural uses. Alternative 2: Commercial Emphasis The second alternative was praised for introducing a mix of uses, presenting an opportunity for high quality development and economic solution for property owners. Participants felt the open space and scenic corridor experience was "ok" but could be improved. Implementation actions identified included "selling the plan to citizens" and finding funding for open space. Alternative 3: Scenic Corridor Design Overlay The third alternative was viewed as providing
the highest return to property uses but at the expense of other objectives.
Participants felt the plan lacked an open space solution and would alter
the scenic travel experience. The industrial activities were viewed as
incompatible with other uses. In terms of implementation, the design guidelines
and standards contained in the "design overlay" would need to
be defined with the community. Team 1
Actions required to implement the plan: Alternative1 Locate willing college seems unlikely with CSUF only 40 minutes away Significant dollars to acquire land Alternative 2 Utilize waterways as active open space Needs multifamily Significant dollars to acquire land Alternative 3 NA
Team 2
Actions required to implement the plan: Alternative 1 College Good politically Basically stays the same Alternative 2 Attracting businesses and jobs Define open space Alternative 3 Attracting business Promoting housing
Team 3
Actions required to implement the plan: Alternative 1 Infill of existing urban areas Land trusts provide compensation to landowners for ag and open space Zoning Designate compensation Alternative 2 Zoning Design guidelines Zoning standards Alternative 3 Zoning Design guidelines Zoning standards
Team 4
Actions required to implement the plan: Alternative 1 Compensate property owners Enlist university Zoning (ag/open space can be interchangeable) Alternative 2 High design standards Sell idea to community Phasing development in a logical way Alternative 3 Sell to both the community and property owners Want higher value uses than residential
Team 5
Actions required to implement the plan: Alternative 1 Compensate property owners at fair market value Alternative 2 Requires developers to pay for all costs Existing General Plan changes Enforce rigorous standards Alternative 3 Enforce rigorous standards Extensive General Plan changes Require developers to pay all scenic corridor costs
Team 6
Actions required to implement the plan: Alternative 1 Resolve ag-urban conflict issues Acquire conservation funding College site too small and land-locked Weak demand for office Alternative 2 Resolve politically Shirk interchange with Downtown Need funding for open space Develop green belts along ditcheswork with ditch companies Alternative 3 Create good design standards Change "M" to "AG" Resolve Plaza interchange politically with Downtown
|
