Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12041990 - IO.6 -- I .O.-6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS sE--L- aE---. Contra FROM: Costa INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE: November 26, 1990 �orrA cour� cP County SUBJECT: ABAG POLICY PAPER ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Remove as a referral to our Committee the May 22, 1990 referral of a letter from ABAG asking the County to comment on a proposed regional land use policy framework for the San Francisco Bay Area, with no further action being required at this time by the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On May 22, 1990 the attached letter was referred to the Community Development Department and our Committee. Because ABAG had asked for a response from the County by June 1, 1990, it 'was not possible to schedule the matter for a hearing by our Committee. Community Development went ahead and responded to ABAG. A copy of their response is attached. Since there is no further action needed by our Committee or the Board of Supervisors at this time, we would recommend that the matter simply be removed as a referral to our Committee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTNO—YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURESTWWV ACTION OF BOARD ON Dert-mher 4+ 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED au.,#_/ 'y /990 Community Development Director PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382 (10/88) BY �x/� ,DEPUTY 7 • . Community Contra Harvey f ommu n o Development Director of Community Development Department Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, 6_tifornia 945530095 Phone: 646-2026 a RECEIVED COv� June 26, 1990 . UN 2 Z ED CLEM BOAMOF su"Mrsmi COSTA CO. Warren K. Hopkins, President Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter Eighth & Oak Streets Oakland, Ca. 94604-2050 Dear President Hopkins: Contra Costa County Community Development Department staff has reviewed the proposed Regional Land Use Policy Framework for the San Francisco. Bay Area, and in light of your schedule, I am forwarding our comments directly to you. We strongly support the efforts and direction of the Regional Planning Committee as depicted in the document. Nearly all of the policies contained within the document bear a very strong resemblance to goals or policies included in the Draft Contra Costa County General Plan. On the whole, the framework is consistent with the draft plan. With respect to the Actions contained within Policy One regarding guiding growth into suitable locations, the use of the term "shall" seems a bit strong, given the nature of ABAG's relationship to the member local governments. In Action B., we would encourage adding Local Agency Formation Commissions to the list of bodies which should discourage significant infrastructure extensions beyond urban growth boundaries. It is not entirely clear in Action C. whether the drafters intended that the phrase "higher intensity use in their general plans." includes changing land use type as well as the intensity, or density of use. Clarification of this point should be included in any future revisions which may be made. Under Policy Two, Action C. seems to leave no room for situations in which it may not be possible for a local jurisdiction to improve the jobs-housing balance, yet there is a great need to develop employment, non-transit accessible or otherwise. There should be an alternative means for jurisdictions in this circumstance to address the issue. Taken together with Policy Five, there may be opportunities for jurisdictions to participate on a subregional level where they lack the resources to address the issue directly. Warren K. Hopkins Page 2 June 26, 1990 Policy Three should make some provision for the types of uses normally considered to be "urban" which need to be located in non-urban areas because hey„supprAculiural operations. As written it is not clear whether such hing .'tiA�� hinery distributorships, veterinary clinics or hospitals and he nsidered "Urban Development". O oli y( e %earl identical in its theoretical basis to the monitoring ro ram proposed in the County's draft plan growth management element, which tcorporated as a requirement for jurisdictions seeking to ompit �.s'YUteasure C, our voter-approved transportation improvement .and growth management measure. Measure C has provisions for some $155 million (1988 dollars) for local transportation projects which will be distributed among the jurisdictions in the county which adopt growth management elements in the local general plan in conformance with guidelines of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Perhaps suggested legislation flowing from the RPC's efforts could incorporate some form of inducement for local governments to embrace these actions listed under Policy Five. Policy Six should be clarified, since it is unlikely that new communities could be built which would have no negative impact on existing communities. Under recommended State Actions, it may be more appropriate for the legislation to include a process to determine the regional impacts of development which is contrary to the framework than simply to permit imposition of an impact fee. Establishing a process may provide commonality in demonstrating the nexus between the impact of the development on the region and the fee which is imposed. It may also shift the burden of proof to the state, rather than the regional agencies. (We assume that the enabling legislation would be permissive, and applicable to all regions of the state.) Overall, staff sees the elements of the regional policy framework as being very much consistent with the direction in which the County of Contra Costa is moving through its General Plan Review Program; we applaud the Committee for its initiative and look forward to the regional debate regarding the framework. Sincerely yours, Harvey E. Bragdon Director of CommunitnDe opment cc: Board of Supervisors Glerk of the Board County Administrator I Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter Mailing Address: �I I rNjjl ; Eighth&Oak Streets P.O. Box 2050 Oakland Oakland, CA 94604-2050 i (415)464-7900 Fax: (415)464-7979 i Contra Costa County RE^,EIVED DATE: April 30, 1990 TO: Mayors and Board Presidents Coui A& i , FR: Warren K. Hopkins, President�V �- D Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park RE: Proposed Regional Land Use Policy Framework For the Francisco Bay Area Bay Vision 2020, a blue ribbon committee of area civic, education and business leaders, is approaching the middle of a one-year study, from which will come recommendations to the new legislature and governor on the future of the Bay Area, including its governance. In addition, as you know, growth management and regional governance issues have become topics of great interest around the state in recent months. Several proposals are currently being considered in the state legislature which deal with different aspects of regional governance and growth management. ABAG's Executive Board believes that it is in the best interests of Bay Area local governments to be proactive and put forth a proposal outlining the policies and enabling actions we envision as necessary to successfully move toward an improved system of regional governance. We feel it is especially important to offer guidance to Bay Vision 2020 as it formulates recommendations for legislative and policy adoption. Earlier this year, the Executive Board requested that the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) develop a guiding policy, or framework, which would enable local governments in the Bay Area to implement growth management and to preserve our quality of life in the process. The RPC met on April 4 and 11, and developed the enclosed Policy Framework. The Board considered this paper at its April 26 meeting, and voted to forward it to the member agencies for input and comment before adoption. In considering this policy paper we ask that you keep in mind that it is just that, a policy framework. It does not. seek to address or identify implementation or operational issues, and that is not what we are asking of you. We need your input on the concept and policy statements. e� I� Mayors and Board Presidents RPC Policy Paper Page 2 We request that you consider this document and forward your comments to ABAG's Executive Director by June 1, 1990. 1 have asked the RPC to set aside June 13 and 27 to consider your input and amend the paper as necessary for the Board's review and anticipated adoption in July. This is a tight time schedule. However,In order to ensure that our point of view is heard and considered by Bay Vision 2020 and the legislature, time is of the essence. Your input will be valuable to this process, and I thank you in advance for taking the time to consider this at a Council or Board meeting in the next month. We look forward to your comments. cc: County and City Administrators and Managers County and City Planning Directors A PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA ADO=BY THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS APRIL 11, 1990 Many citizens in the Bay Area have noticed that their quality of life is being jeopardized by haphazard regional growth patterns. People are becoming increasingly aware of the impact of problems such as: • traffic congestion • cost and supply of housing • loss of open space and deterioration of the environment • diminished air and water quality • perception of economic decline The real dilemma is not that these problems exist, but that they appear largely unresolvable by our present structure of independent local decision-making. Recent attempts at inter-jurisdictional land use cooperation and coordination have generally fallen short while problems have worsened. GUIDING PRINCIPLE POLICIES AND ACTIONS The Regional Planning Committee of the While recognizing that there are numerous Association of Bay Area Governments growth-related issues that could be believes that local governments must find a addressed in any new approach, the way to balance local self-determination with Committee elected to develop a discrete set effective subregional and regional policies of policies aimed at the most critical land and decision-making. The Committee also use issues confronting the Bay Area. believes that it is far better to develop our own common vision and inteijurisdictional approach to decision-making within the Bay Area than to have unilateral actions dictated by the State of California PROPOSAL OVERVIEW The Committee proposes the establishment of a policy framework for future land use decision-making in the Bay Area which respects the need for strong local control. The framework advocates a city-centered concept of urban development, with balanced growth guided primarily into or around existing communities while preserving surrounding open space. The proposed system reduces public costs by encouraging a more efficient use of existing and future infrastructure. Subregional decision-making is established to resolve interiurisdictional land use issues and to carry out regional objectives. Finally,the policy framework addresses existing fiscal constraints and motivations influencing many existing land use decisions. 2 POLICY ONE POLICY TWO Growth shall be encouraged where Encourage development patterns and regional infrastructure capacity,such as policies that discourage long distance freeway,transit,water,and solid waste automobile commuting and increase capacity,is available or committed. resident access to employment,shopping and recreation by transit or non-auto Actions means. A. Regional agencies shall advocate a Actions priority in allocating Federal, State, and special district grants,loans and"funds to A. Cities and counties shall designate support housing,industry retention and new office and industrial land (in excess of long- job growth in those communities that are term need) for residential use where easily accessible to existing concentrations necessary to balance future employment of unemployed or underemployed workers. and housing. B. Cities,counties and special districts B. Cities and counties shall encourage shall discourage significant infrastructure employment and housing in proximity to. extensions beyond urban growth transit stations. boundaries. C. Cities and counties shall ensure that C. Cities and counties shall designate non-transit accessible employment vacant or underused land with available improves job/housing balance within the infrastructure for higher intensity use in community or subregional area. their general plans. D. All public agencies shall support telecommuting opportunities. E. Cities and counties shall encourage employment that provides jobs for local residents. F. Regional agencies shall advocate funding priority to transportation projects in . communities with programs that reduce job/ housing imbalances. 3 POLICY THREE POLICY FOUR Establish firm growth boundaries for the Encourage the provision of housing urban areas of the Bay Area. Urban opportunities for all income levels. development shall be encouraged and permitted only within these growth Actions boundaries. A. Cities and counties shall make every Actions effort to improve the supply and affordability of housing in their local plans A Cities and counties shall develop and programs to accommodate both local.: long-range plans to accommodate and regional needs. population and employment growth projected by the regional agency. B. City and county growth manage- Assuming reasonable residential and ment plans and programs shall develop employment densities,localities shall strategies and actions to meet local and propose an urban growth boundary for regional housing needs. inclusion in their general plan. C. Regional agencies shall advocate B. Land that is located beyond urban funding priority within communities having growth boundaries will be protected for effective housing policies and programs. agricultural or rural use. D. Regional agencies will advocate C. Regional agencies will be ultimately restricting funds to jurisdictions who have responsible for final acceptance of locally plans inconsistent with this policy. proposed urban growth boundaries. D. Regional agencies will advocate restricting funds to jurisdictions who have plans inconsistent with this policy. 4 POLICY FIVE POLICY SIX Coordinate local land use plans with Allow for the development of new neighboring jurisdictions on a communities along transit corridors when subregional basis. they would not negatively impact existing communities. Actions Actions A. Cities,counties and special districts shall jointly develop subregional policies A. Counties could designate in their and review boards.to resolve matters relating general plans, and regional agencies shall to job-housing balance,the amount and prioritize,areas appropriate for new allowable density of needed housing,open community development. space buffers,coordination of infrastructure, and capital needs and responsibilities. B. New communities shall provide residents with the ability to live, work and B. Once subregional policies have been shop within their boundaries. adopted, they will be reflected in local general plans and relevant special district C. All public agencies shall ensure that programs. new communities include a full range of facilities, such as water, sewer, C. Local jurisdictions shall participate transportation, schools and recreation. in interagency tax sharing agreements on a subregional basis when appropriate to balance fiscal inequities caused by land use policies. D. The mitigation of significant adverse impacts of a plan or project on a neighboring community shall be required unless,on a subregional basis,mitigation is deemed infeasible due to overriding social or economic considerations. E. Cities and counties shall consider sharing and pooling of local housing funds on a subregional basis. F. Cities and counties shall, on a subregional basis, develop procedures for improved notification and communication on planning and development issues. 5 ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDED STATE ACTIONS, CONSOLIDATION AND INCENTIVES AND ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION MECHANISMS The Committee recognizes that many Full achievement of this regional policy critical issues remain unresolved in this framework requires state action in a variety proposed framework. A key to directing and of areas. It is crucial to recognize the need implementing this system is both horizontal for additional revenue in conjunction and vertical consistency between the plans with this or any,new system. The impact and policies of public agencies. No specific of Proposition 13,costly mandated x recommendations have yet been formed activities relating to county social, health about the need to merge, add to,or abolish and justice services,and the need for existing levels of authority. Finally,the increased maintenance of existing Committee has not suggested the means of infrastructure precludes full electing or appointing policy persons to implementation of the proposed policy manage this proposed new system, or on the framework without new revenue. The details of authority at either the subregional state should: or regional level. A. Allow for the establishment of authority at the subregional and regional level to carry out adopted land use policies and actions. B. Require special districts, local agency formation commissions (LAFCO's), and regional agencies to coordinate their efforts. C. Either directly provide a new and stable source of funding,or enable regional comprehensive planning agencies to raise revenues to fund comprehensive planning and infrastructure programs. D. Reduce the 2/3 vote requirement for infrastructure bond issues. E. Improve flexibility in rules governing tax sharing arrancements between local jurisdictions. 6 i i F. Allow for the withholding of new REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE revenue as well as grant funds to cities, MEMBERS counties and special districts that do not comply with adopted land use policies and Tom Powers,Chair, Supervisor,Contra Costa County actions. Emily M.Renzel,Vice Chair,Councilmember,Palo Alto G. Permit the imposition of a regional Albert Aramburu,Supervisor,Marin County impact fee on developments which proceed Dorothy L.Bremer.Vice MayoA San Rafael contrary to the regional policy framework. Robert H.Bury,Councilmember, Redwood City Sam Caddie,Supervisor,County of Solano Louis M.Cortez,Councilmembm Newark Robert E.Davis,Mayor,Cotati Paul DeFalco,Consultant,League of Women Voters John C.Dustin,Bay Conservation&Development Commission Bonnie England,Coalition of Labor and Business David A.Fleming,Councilmember,Vacaville Marge F.Gibson-Haskell,Councilmember, Oakland Maria Gonzalez,La Confederacion De La Raza Unida Mary Griffin,Supervisor,County of San Mateo Gary Hambly,Building Industry Association of Northern California Stana Hearne,League of Women Voters of the Bay Area John Holtzclaw,Sierra Club Warren K.Hopkins,ABAG President,Councilmember, Rohnert Park Tom Hsieh,Supervisor,City&County of San Francisco Roberta H.Hughan,Mayor,Gilroy,Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mary L.Jefferds.East Bay Regional Park District William Lucius.Commissioner,Metropolitan Transportation Commission Kenneth R.Mercer,Mayor,Pleasanton,Regional Water Quality Control Board Kenneth Milam,Bay Area Planning Director's Association Larry Orman,Greenbelt Alliance Susanna M.Schlendorf,Councilmember,Danville Angelo J.Siracusa,Bay Area Council Richard Spees,Councilmember,Oakland Percy H.Steele,Jr.,Bay Area Urban League William H.Steele,ABAG Associates Edwin J.Suchman,Councilmember. San Leandro Mel Varrelman,Supervisor,County of Napa Staff: Gary Binger,ABAG Planning Director 7