Yolo County Workshop October 27, 2003

Transcription

1 Yolo County Workshop October 27, 2003

2 WHAT YOU WILL DO TONIGHT Learn results of Yolo County Neighborhood Workshops Analyze pro and cons of four scenarios for Yolo County s future through 2050 Choose the scenario you like best (or dislike least!) and amend it to make it better

3 How The Four Scenarios Were Created A Continuation of current trends SACOG Staff, local planner input B, C and D Citizen input from neighborhood workshops Many other issues SACOG and local government planning staff

4 How Blueprint Will Use Your Input Tonight Number of Scenarios likely narrowed Remaining scenarios modified, refined Three new Regionwide scenarios created Public input on Regional scenarios begins April 30, 2004 SAVE THE DATE!

5 Yolo County Neighborhood Workshops Spring, 2003: four evening workshops (each city) Two study areas at each workshop 252 participants

6 West Sacramento Neighborhood Workshop

7 What Neighborhood Participants Did Test Drove Smart Growth Principles Created conceptual plans, with 50 year horizon Infill/redevelopment neighborhood Greenfield neighborhood Examined short-term economic feasibility

8 Yolo County Neighborhood Workshop Study Areas Results affected County Scenarios B, C and D WOODLAND INFILL WOODLAND GREENFIELD WEST SAC. INFILL WINTERS GREENFIELD DAVIS GREENFIELD WINTERS INFILL DAVIS INFILL WEST SAC. GREENFIELD

9 Davis Infill Site Land Use Plan Economic Feasibility

10 Woodland Infill Site Land Use Plan Economic Feasibility

11 Neighborhood Workshop Themes Strong community building features Comprehensive mix of land uses Diversity of residential products Parks, schools (especially for greenfield sites) Increased densities, especially in infill/redevelopment centers and corridors Tonight, Scenarios B, C and D directly use input from these neighborhood workshops

12 Redevelopment evolution: strip retail to mixed use Urban Land Institute

13 Redevelopment evolution: strip retail to mixed use Urban Land Institute

14 Redevelopment evolution: strip retail to mixed use Urban Land Institute

15 Redevelopment evolution: strip retail to mixed use Urban Land Institute

16 Redevelopment evolution: strip retail to mixed use Urban Land Institute

17 Some of the Key Countywide Planning Issues Yolo County a smart growth model But. Today: 1.5 jobs for every household Maintaining agriculture long-term with growth pressures Unique issues across the County Looking for some win/win solutions

18 Regional Projections 2050 Increase in millions Data from Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy Population Employment Households

19 Annual Rates of Growth In SACOG Region 1.8% 1.3% Data from Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy 1990 to to 2050

20 Growth in Households 2002 to % Data from Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy 21% 55 and Over With Children

21 Growth in Households 2002 to % Data from Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy 23% 55 and Over With Children

22 Housing Product Preference (Own and Rent) attached 25% rural residential 1% Metro Chamber Housing Survey 2003 single family large lot 43% single family small lot 31%

23 Housing Preferences Of Households 55 and Over Who Say They Will Move in 1 to 5+ Years Own/Rent Detached S-F Lg Yd 33% Own/Rent Attached 34% Metro Chamber Housing Survey 2003 Own/Rent Detached S-F Sm Yd 33%

24 Home Type Likely to Purchase For Buyers 49% 66% Metro Chamber Housing Survey % 25% 19% 5% 55 and Over Under 55 Det SF, Lg Yd Det SF, Sm Yd Attached

25 Housing Preferences of Households 55 and Over Who Say They Will Move in 1 to 5+ Years 34% 32% 32% Own/Rent Attached Own/Rent Detached S-F Sm Yd Own/Rent Detached S-F Lg Yd

26 CSUS 2002 Survey Yolo County Single family with small lot IF closer to work and shorter commute? 16% Multi-story, multi-family housing (such as condo or apartment) IF walk to shops, schools, transit? NO NO YES 32% YES 67% 84%

27 CSUS 2002 Survey Yolo County Single family with backyard in suburbs IF far from work and a long commute? NO YES 43% 57%

28 CSUS 2002 Survey Yolo County Dense neighborhood of single family homes very close together IF near parks and greenbelt areas? 5% 45% NO YES 50%

29 CSUS 2002 Survey Yolo County Multi-story, multi-family housing (such as condo or apartment) IF walk to shops, schools, transit? 32% NO YES 67%

30 PLACE Type Menu

31

32

33

34

35

36 Medium Density Mixed Residential ULI, The New Shape of Suburbia

37 Medium Density Mixed Residential Doe Mill, Chico

38 Small Lot Single Family 3500 sq. ft. lots private yards Detached town homes (Metro Place West Sacramento)

39 High Density Mixed Residential ULI, The New Shape of Suburbia

40 Low Density Mixed Use Center or Corridor ULI: Place Making - Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and Urban Villages

41 Davis Commons and Aggie Village

42 Medium Density Mixed Use Center or Corridor ULI: Place Making - Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and Urban Villages

43 High Density Mixed Use Center or Corridor ULI: Place Making - Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and Urban Villages

44 Employment Focused Mixed Use Center or Corridor

45 4 County-wide Scenarios for 2050 (A,B,C,D) 7 common information sets for all 4 scenarios Population growth Performance on 6 smart growth principles Housing Choices Use of Existing Assets Compact Development Natural Resource Conservation Mixed Land Uses Transportation Choices

46

47

48 Existing Yolo County Share of Region Employment Yolo County 10% Share of Region Housing Yolo County 9% Balance of Region 90% Balance of Region 91%

49 Scenarios A and C Growth Yolo County Share of Region Employment Yolo County 12% Share of Region Housing Yolo County 12% Balance of Region 88% Balance of Region 88%

50 Scenarios B and D Growth Yolo County Share of Region Employment Yolo County 10% Share of Region Housing Yolo County 10% Balance of Region 90% Balance of Region 90%

51 Planning Theme Future development like today s. High Growth in Yolo County from outward regional growth pattern.

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70 Planning Theme Lower growth rate. Balance of jobs and housing for new growth in cities. Somewhat higher densities.

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89 Planning Theme Exactly like B, except higher growth, which is placed in a new town north of Woodland.

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108 Planning Theme Lower growth rate. Balance of jobs and housing for new growth in cities. Higher density housing, and more growth through redevelopment.

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127 Decrease in Annual Agriculture Income (million $) $28.4 $13.8 $16.1 $8.9 A B C D

128 Percent New Residential Units through 2050 on Agricultural Lands 67% 40% 52% 27% A B C D

129 What the Scenarios Are and Are Not Intended to explore General Concepts/Themes Sophisticated modeling, but not intended to be parcel specific, unofficial General Plans

130 Explanation of Small Group Exercises Discuss pros/cons of each of the 4 scenarios Group decision on which scenario is best Goal is everyone agrees If not, most votes wins BUT, then modify the chosen scenario to best reflect your preferences Individual questionnaire at end.

131 Stickers You CAN modify a scenario Change AMOUNT of growth Change LOCATION of growth Change TYPE of growth Change TRANSPORTATION system

132 Report Outs Count how many tables chose each scenario Review top 3 changes each table made to its preferred scenario Review a few technical indicators (changes to jobs, housing, etc.) Spokespeople from some of the tables

133 Finally Have fun Be nice Plan well!