HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 ABAG's Regional Land Use Policy Framework q-2-0 so
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 29 , 1990
SUBJECT: ABAG' s Proposed Regional Land Use Policy
Framework
REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Draft Letter of Opposition
Exhibit B: ABAG' s Proposed Regional Land Use
Framework for the San Francisco Bay Area with
cover letter
RECOMMENDATION: WzA aConsider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
ABAG, the Association of Bay Area Governments, has prepared a Proposed
Regional Land Use Policy Framework for the San Francisco Bay Area. In
its cover letter, ABAG is requesting City input on the concept and
policy statements contained in its Policy Framework. ABAG is
requesting the City to forward comments to the ABAG Executive Director
by June 1, 1990 .
The Policy Framework proposes subregional and regional governments to
address land use planning in the Bay Area. The Policy Framework
proposes six policies to address "the most critical land use issues
confronting the Bay Area" (page 2 ) . The proposed policies involve:
1 . Growth where infrastructure is accessible to workers .
2 . Jobs/Housing Balance.
3 . Urban limit lines .
4 . Housing for all income levels .
5 . Subregional land use planning.
6 . New towns/new communities along transit corridors .
The Policy Framework has not suggested how the subregional or regional
governments would be organized nor how the policy makers would be
selected (page 6 ) .
The Policy Framework recommends that the State legislature allow
subregional and regional land use authority to be established and
additional revenue sources become available (page 6 ) .
The Policy Framework raises a number of significant land use planning
issues and questions . Staff has prepared a draft letter of opposition
(Exhibit A) for the City Council ' s consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. _47. COPIES TO: General/Agenda-File
[abag5-29 ] Project Planner
DRAFT LETTER OF OPPOSITION
ABAG Executive Director:
Thank you for requesting the City of Dublin' s input on the
concept and policy statements contained in ABAG' S Proposed Regional
Land Use Framework for the San Francisco Bay Area. The City Council
of Dublin is strongly opposed to the Policy Framework.
Subregional and regional government would not provide for the
direct representation of local constituents . Direct representation is
a vital component in our system of self-government . Subregional and
regional governments would be unaccountable to the local electorate .
They would be susceptible to subregional and regional special interest
groups . They would be contrary to effective local government.
Traffic is considered a top issue only because, by comparison,
local government does such a good job in other urban service areas
such as police, fire, parks and recreation, and schools . A
subregional or regional government ' s actions to address the traffic
issue may seriously impact other local quality of life areas that are
just as important, or even more important, than the traffic issue.
The City-centered concept could mean focusing all future urban
development and services toward San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose .
Dublin would be adamantly opposed to another city, such as Oakland,
controlling Dublin' s land use policies through a subregional or
regional government. The Policy Framework is the first step in Dublin
losing control over the City' s future.
In addition to the above comments, the Policy Framework raises
the following issues and questions :
1 . Have the most critical land use planning issues confronting the
Bay Area been identified? (Page 1) . Are the problems/issues :
- traffic congestion?
- high cost of housing?
- need to enhance open space and urban living environments?
- need to protect air and water quality?
- need for economic vitality?
2 . Can a subregional or regional government effectively address
these issues? Is there an example of a subregional or regional
government that has effectively addressed the high cost of housing, or
traffic congestion, or open space?
3 . How can an individual- ,city make certain that its interest and the ,
interests of its constituents are protected, while helping to address
the City' s fair share of the land use issues? For example, some
cities have done their fair share providing housing opportunities
a �
r 7
while other cities have not. What certainty would there be that each
city will do its fair share regarding housing?
4 . What role would an individual city have in establishing its urban
limit line? (policy 3)
5 . How would a city and regional agency address the funding issue
that is a major obstacle towards meeting the housing needs for all
income levels? (policy 4 )
6 . How would subregional or regional jobs/housing balance address
traffic congestion and high housing costs? Jobs/housing balance seems
like a relatively minor component toward effectively addressing the
issue.
7 . How might an "inter-agency tax sharing agreement" and
"subregional impact mitigation fee" be established to make certain
that individual cities ' interests are protected? (policy 5)
8 . What is the intent of the New Towns/New Communities policy in
addressing critical land use issues? (policy 6 )
In conclusion, the City Council of Dublin strongly opposes the
concept and policy statements contained in the Policy Framework.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, or me.
Sincerely,
Paul Moffatt
Mayor
PM/LLT:df
0
I' IIII 'ii Joseph 1. .rt MetroCenter Mailing Address:
AM& Eighth & Oak Streets P.O. Box 2050
IIIIIII! I �li Oakland Oakland, CA 94604-2050
QA.BM
IIIIIIIIIi I III .,ii (415) 4647900 Fax: (415) 464-7979
RECEIVED
DATE: April 30, 1990 MAY 21990
TO: Mayors and Board Presidents / CITY OF DUBLIN
resident '
FR: Warren K. Hopkins, P ✓/V� ,
Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park
RE: Proposed Regional Land Use Policy Framework For the San
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.
- 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. I 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
fi.
A PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
ADOPTED 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.
0
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 interjurisdictional
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 interjurisdictional 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.
D
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.
D
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 Action.
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.
e
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
Action
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.
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
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 arrangements between
local jurisdictions.
p
6
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.Breiner,Vice Mayor,San Rafael
contrary to the regional policy framework. Robert H.Bury,Councilmember, Redwood City
Sam Caddie,Supervisor,County of Solano
Louis M.Cortez,Councilmember,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,Mefropolitan
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
9
7