Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3 RegAgencSMARTWkshop CITY CLERK File # 420-70 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 6, 2001 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Concerned Business and Local Agency Interests Regarding the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Workshop (Report Prepared by Jeri Ram, Planning Manager) 1. Letter from Concerned Business and Local Agency Interests 2. Letter from Gerald E. Raycraft, Planning Director, ABAG RECOMMENDATION: x/~{'~. Receive Staff Report 2. Direct Staff if further action is to be taken FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No impact DESCRIPTION: On September 8, 2001, a workshop was held for Alameda County on the Regional Livability Footprint Project. Three Councilmembers and City Staff were present at the workshop. This workshop was then held in other locations in the Bay Area. The Regional Livability Footprint Project ("RLFP") is an om growth of the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development's vision for sustainable development as identified in their draft Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area. It is also supported by five regional planning agencies (who are also members of the BAASD). The City has received a letter from Concerned Business and Local Agency Interests regarding the Regional Agencies Smart ~Growth Strategy, Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development Regional Livability Footprint Project (Attachment 1). The letter asks the City Council to: "Send a letter to appropriate ABAG staff and, as soon as possible, the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Steering Committee requesting the opportunity for your agency's plarming staff to review and comment on the preliminary conclusions drawn from the Alameda County workshop of september 8, 2001; 2. Direct your planning staff to review and analyze the preliminary conclusions from the Alameda County workshop in order to conclude how the specific suggestions posed by workshop G:\correspo~ERIX2001\CCSRll-6-2.doc COPIES TO: In-House Distribution Concerned Business and Local Agency Interests ABAG ITEM NO. ~ participants would affect your jurisdiction specifically. For example, how' many existing homes and businesses would need to be replaced by higher density projects to accommodate your j urisdiction's share of the county-~vide housing need; Prepare a response to the Steering Committee and appropriate ABAG staff detailing your jurisdiction's reaction, and if appropriate your concerns, regarding the results of the first workshop. The response, which should occur no later than two weeks from the time planning staff receives feedback from ABAG, might include commenting on the following subjects: ao bo Implementation - How could your agency implement the suggestions made by workshop participants? Political Plausibility - What are the prospects for community-wide consensus necessary to support the types of suggestions made by workshop participants? c. Financial Feasibility - How likely is it that private market forces - including consumer Preference - would be receptive to the ideas posed by workshop participants?" ABAG has reviewed the letter from Concerned Business and Local Interests and submitted a response (Attachment 2). As noted in ABAG's letter and in the Briefing Book excerpt attached, following the first round workshops, there is a distillation and analysis period, then a second round of workshops. No conclusions were drawn from the first round of workshops. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council review the Staff Report and direct Staff if further action is to be taken. September 20, 2001 Honorable Members Dublin City Council 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568-2658 RE: Regional Agencies Smart Growth Workshops Dear Councilmembers: During the past several months, a number of regional planning organizations have advanced a project entitled the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy, Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development Regional Livabitity Foo¢rint.~ The work plan for the project, led in part bY the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), involves hosting public workshops throughout each of the nine Bay Area counties in order to Achieve support among public officials, civic leaders and stakeholder organizations for a preferred land use pattern that will inform how the Bay Area could grow over the next 20 years.2 At the inaugural workshop for Alameda County conducted Saturday, September 8, 2001, several business interests and local agency rePresentatives, including the signatories hereto, participated in what has been termed a "Place Type" mapping exercise. The purpose of the exercise was to engage various community participants so that each had the opportunity to help shape the "preferred land use pattern" referenced above. Using a map of Alameda County and real-time computer analyses, workshop participants provided ABAG's consulting team with a variety of suggestions about how best to accommodate the County's share of a million more jobs and people expected in the region by 2020. What follows is a sampling of the initial conclusions drawn from the first workshop: Alameda County's 20-year homing needs - estimated by ABAG at between 89,750 and 145,784 units (with a job-housing balance requiring 146,000 homes) - will be entirely met at sites near BART stations and in dowmown areas. A significant portion of Alameda County's housing needs can be accommodated by "simply" increaSing residential densities as much as 15% in existing neighborhoods. This aSsumes some of the existing housing stock would be replaced, and 100% of infill potential can and Would be exploited, regardless of constraints such aS toxic contamination or neighborhood opposition. Existing commercial/industrial sites would be developed as "mixed-me", including significant acreage for high-density residential construction. cl No "suburban edge" development is required to accommodate any of the homing needs of those expected to live and work within Alameda County. The County's homing needs can and will be accommodated by developing very high-density housing but very little, if any, single family detached dwellings. ~ Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development. 2 Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Devalopment Regional Livability Footprint Project, Project Description, September 6, 2001. ATTACHMENT '3-% ~,etter from concerned business and local agency interests RE: Regional Agencies Smart Growth Workshops September 20, 2001 The nature of these preliminary conclusions, of which we - the aforementioned signatories - agree, was perhaps best Verbalized by Dublin Councilmember, Claudia McCormick as she was quoted in a Contra Costa Times article about the workshops: "There's not a lot of reality'.~ Having witnessed first-hand the means by which the Alameda County workshop was conducted, not to mention the preliminary work product derived therefrom (i.e., the conclUsions listed on the previous page), we stand convinced that not only is your intervention warranted to interject some semblance of practicality into the workshops, there also is desperately needed a specific geographical accounting of "preferred" growth within and among local jurisdictions countywide. As representatives of business and local government, we are very Concerned that as-is, the Place Type exercise neglects a number of"reality checks" we feel must be incorporated into the project for it to reach the level of utility envisioned by its sponsors. We are especially concerned that without any accounting of where and by what means participants think growth can, should and will occur, the project is not a practical one. While we all respect the need for "vision" and creativity in the land use planning process, we also share an experience-driven respect for what is implementable, politically plausible and financially feasible. Much, if not all, of what is listed on the previous page, however, represents none of the three. That' s why we need your help as real- life decision-makers to help us temper the broad-brush approach with which the existing workshop structure indiscreetly solicits ideas about how best to shape anticipated growth without consideration for real outcomes or consequences. To that end, we respectfully ask that you, as an elected body, do the following: 1. Send a letter to appropriate ABAG staff and, as soon as possible, the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Steering Committee requesting, the opportunity for your agency's planning staff to review and comment on the preliminary conclusions drawn from the Alameda County workshop of September 8, 2001. 2. Direct your planning staff to review and a~alyze the preliminary conclusions from the Alameda County workshop in order to conclude how the specific suggestions posed by workshop participants would affect your jurisdiction specifically. For example, how many existing homes and businesses would need to be replaced by higher density projects to accommodate your jurisdicfion's share of the county-wide housing need. 3. Prepare a response to the Steering Committee and appropriate ABAG staff detailing your jurisdiction's reaction, and if appropriate your concerns, regarding the results of the first workshop. The response, which should occur no later than two weeks from the time planning staff receives feedback from ABAG, might include commenting on the following subjects: · Implementation - How could your agency implement the suggestions made by workshop participants? · Political Plausibility - What are the prospects for community-wide consensus necessary to support the types of suggestions made by workshop participants? · Financial Feasibility - How likely is it that private market forces - including consumer preference - would be receptive to the ideas posed by workshop participants? If you are generally amenable to this course of action, or have questions about what we're asking, we will make ourselves available either individually or collectively to further discuss our thoughts on the matter. Please note that the contact information for the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Steering Committee and ABAG staff is listed on the attached page. Contra Costa Times, September 9, 2001, Workshop yields ideas for 'smart growth' Page 2 of 3 ~et~er from concerned business and local agency interests RE: Regional Agencies Smart Growth Workshops September 20, 2001 To be certain, our hope in asking you to assist us is not to undermine the intent of the workshop project. Like the environmental and social equity communities, we believe wholeheartedly that the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy workshops represent a healthy first step in developing a more efficient land use pattern for the Bay Area. It must be achieved, however, vis- a-vis a workable, reasonable and rational approach. In our estimation this is the only way our regional community will be able to challenge the status quo; by engaging the practical application of sound urban planning. With your help we are confident this can be achieved. Should you or your staff have questions and/or comments about this transmittal, please contact Sunne Wright McPeak at the Bay Area Council Or Phil Sema at the Home Builders Association. Your time and consideration are very much appreciated. Sincerely, James Sorensen Planning Director Alameda County Mary V. King Former Alameda County Supervisor/ Private Consultant Tom Kambe Community Development Manager Shea Homes Michael Ghielmetti Vice President Signature Properties %? Surme Wright McPe~k CEO/President Bay Area Council Phillip R. Serna Vice President of Regional Governmental Affairs Home Builders Association of Northern California Linda Brown Marketing Director California Alliance for Jobs Attachment cc: Richard C. Ambrose, Dublin City Manager Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director Alameda County Board of Supervisors Susan S. Muranishi, County Administrator Livermore City Council Linda Barton, Livermore CitY Manager Marc Roberts, Livermore Community Development Director Eric Brown, Livermore Planning Manager Page 3 of 3 Mailing address: Association of Bay Area Governments P,O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA. 94604-2050 Addressees: Regional Agencies Smart Growth Steering Committee, c/o The Honorable Stephen Kinsey, Chairman Eugene Leong, ABAG Executive Director Gerald Raycraft, ABAG Planning Director Victoria Eisen, ABAG Senior Regional Planner ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS Representing Gity and County Governrnen~s of the San Francisco Bay Area October 19, 20.01 ~ '~; '"~' :~' ' '~: t~ :: Ms. JeriRam ':' :' ' :"- ' .... Planning Manager, City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Drive Dublin, CA 94568-2658 Via Facsimile and Regular Mail g L, 1 ~b DUgL1N PLANNING Dear Jeri: Thank you for inviting me to comment on the September 20, 2001 letter regarding the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Workshops sent to the Dublin City Council and signed · by seven individuals representing planning and economic interests. I truly respect the opinions of the individuals who signed the letter so I do not intend to try to contradict or refute their conclusions. Rather, I want to offer some information about process that I hope may address some, if not all, the issues raised. First of all, the' individuals who signed the September 20 letter first notified us of their concerns following the September 8 Alameda County workshop. In response to their input, a nUmber of changes were made to the workshop presentation, program and process,, in time"to be implemented at the remaining eight county workshops. Based on positive feedback from these other eight workshops, we believe their concerns were addressed. To put the workshops in the context of the overall project, I have attached two pages · from the Smart Growth/Regional Livability Footprint Briefing Book. (The Briefing Book was included in material provided to workshop participants.) The pages describe the Smart Growth Strategy goals and process, commencing with the Round One workshops (the subject ofthe September 20 letter), through a Distillation and Analysis phase and a series of Round Two workshops. What is important to note in the description -of the process is the on-going input and feedback being.sought from local officials and key stakeholders. In the Distillation and Analysis phase of the project, the output from the Round One workshops will be distilled into "three thematic regionwide alternatives in conjunction with local representatives from each county." The three scenarios will then be the subject of further analysis relating to employment, housing, income distribution and displacement, to name just a few of the factors. While it may not be explicit in the' description of this Distillation and Analysis, the "reality" of the three alternatives most assuredly will be tested. In fact, I expect that those who signed the September 20 letter will be invited to participate in the distillation prOcess as "local representatives." ' O 1961-2001 Celebrating 40 years of Regional Service Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 . Oakland, California 94604-20S0 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7970 Location: Joseph P. Bott MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756 infoOabag.ca.gov' ~ ~ ATTAOHMENT Following the analysis of the three alternatives, it is hoped that they Will be brought back out to the pablic for the development of a single regionwide land use vision as part of a · Round Two workshop process. What I have tried to show is that the process of developing a single regionWide land use alternative does not begin and end With the Round One workshops. There Will be on- going input and analysis, and the involvement of local planning professionals and stakeholder groups is critical to the success of the process. While I understand and respect the opinions contained in the September 20 letter, to support those opinions would, I feel, undermine the value of involving local officials, staff members, representatives of stakeholder groups, and the public in a participatory public process and would presuppose an outcome. Again, I thank you for allowing me to comment and should you or your Council wish to discuss this further, I or Victoria Eisen, Project Manager of the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint project, is available. Sincerely, ~e}~ld~. Raycraft Planning Director CC: Regional Agencies Smart Growth Steering Committee Eugene Leong, ABAG Executive Director Victoria Eisen, Principal Planner/Smart Growth Project Manager Attachment: Smart Growth/Regional Livability Footprint Briefing Book, Pages 1 and 2 Over the next 20 years, the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to expand by mom than I MILLION residents. A broad range of interests have come together to find ways of retaining and even ENHANCING ~ the Bay Area's uni'que beauty, natural resources, diversity and LIFESTYLE in the face of this growth. A CALL TO ACTION A quiet revolution is under way in the San Francisco Bay Area. From suburban enclaves to inner cities, a new pattern of devel- opment is sprouting. Faceless strip malls are giving way to attractive, mixed-use plaz .as that invite walking and social inter- action. Where uninterrupted tracts of single-family homes have long ruled, pockets of high,density housing are taking shape, often near transit stations. Jurisdictions that once embraced development at any cost are drawing the line on growth, setting 'aside precious open space for future generations. And here and there, dty streets teetering on the edge of urban decay are get- ting a facelift and an infusion of investment. In 1999, five regional agencies involved in transportation planning, environmental protection and local government coordination! came together to discuss how to nurture these seeds of "smart growth," and propagate them across the region's nine counties and 101 cities. As part of their work, this group sought to identify and obtain the regulatory changes and incentives that would be needed to implement a new growth vision in the Bay Area. ~, Meanwhile, the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development2 embarked on an ambitious public participa- tion exercise to reach consensus on, and generate support for, a "regional livability footprint" - a preferred land-use pattern to suggest how the Bay Area could grow in a smarter and more sustainable way. Althgugh the two efforts represent diverse interests, they share a common, urgent goal: to address the region's mount- l'.Association of Bay Area ~0~ernments (ABAS), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Air Quality M~nagement District, Bay Conservation and Development Commission and . Regional Water Quality Control Board. ing traffic congestion, housing affordability crisis and shrink- ing open space. In 2000, they merged their respective out- reach efforts. Thus was born the Bay Area Smart Growth Strategy and Regional Livability Footprint Project. What Are We Trying to Accomplish? Today, the joint project is in the midst of engaging locally elected officials and their staffs, private developers, stake- holder group representatives, and the public at large throughout the nine-county Bay Area~to: 1. Create a smart growth land use vision for the Bay Area to minimize sprawl, provide adequate and affordable housing, improve mobility, protect environmental quality, and preserve open space. 2. Identify and obtain the regulatory changes and incentives needed to implement this vision. 3. Develop 20-year land use and transportation projections based on the vision and the likely impact of the new incentives - projections that will in turn guide the infra- structure investments of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and other regional partners. How Will We Get There? To achieve these bold goals, the regional agencies and the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development have embarked on a campaign to engage decisionmakers and the public from Gilroy to Guerneville, and Pacifica to Pleasanton, to participate in two rounds of public worlkshops in each Bay Area county. A multistakeholder coalition organized around the three"Es" of sustalnability: Economy, Environment and Equity, in partnership with local government. From a REGIONAL perspective, the objective of a smart growth campaign is to create a fiscal, regulatory and political environment that ENCOURAGES new development that is compact, sustainable and less automobile-dependent than current growth patterns. First Round Workshop - September and October 200 I In facilitated groups of 10, participants at each workshop will iden- tify the most appropriate locations in, their county for future growth, and the regulatory changes and 'incentives needed to real- ize this vision. They also will consider the character and design of new development. To facilitate this exercise, a geographic informa- tion system (GIS), called PLACE3S, will give participants in each group immediate feedback on the impact of their ideas on the future supply of housing and jobs and their proximity to public transit, overall pedestrian friendliness, and resource consumption. Distillation and Analysis The countywide smart growth visions developed at the nine first round workshops will be distilled into three thematic regionwide alternatives in consultation with local representatives from each county. These three scenarios will undergo further PLACE3S analysis and a more in-depth look at their likely impacts on the region's supply of affOrdablehousing,;displacement of existing residents, the relationship between housing cost and incomes provided by nearby jobs, and regional transportation and air quality impacts. Second Round Workshop - Spring 2002 Participants will reconvene in spring 2002 for another workshop in each county. Based on the between-workshop analysis of the three regionwide alternatives, participants will work together to choose or create a preferred smart growth vision for the region. What's Next? With the Bay Area smart growth vision dearly defined, the next phase of this monumental undertaking will begin. The goals of this '.work will be to: 1. Develop and adopt 20-year land use and transportation projections based on the smart growth vision. 2. Obtain needed regulatory changes and incentives. 3. Work with local governments to help implement the vision in communities throughout the Bay Area. By considering growth and development issues within the frame- work of smart growth, the region will be taking an important step toward sustainability. Nothing less than the future health of the Bay Area - and the quality of life for our current and future residents ~ is at stake.