Growth Management. ESP 171 Urban and Regional Planning Professor Susan Handy Presented by Dillon Fitch 5/5/16

Transcription

1 Growth Management ESP 171 Urban and Regional Planning Professor Susan Handy Presented by Dillon Fitch 5/5/16

2 Did anyone notice the Google doodle yesterday? Who can tell me who this is?

3 What do we mean by Growth? Demographic Economic Urban Area SF/Sac Region 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 California GDP (millions of dollars)

4 How do we deal with growth? Source: USGS

5 Evolution Growth control = How do we stop it? Growth management = How do we guide it? Rate, sequence, or timing of development Type, location, quality, scale of development

6 The right project in the right place Katherine Hess, City of Davis speaking about the Cannery Project, 4/23/15

7 What does this mean? What do we mean by right? Individual perspective Societal perspective Community perspective Env sustainability Fiscal efficiency

8 How do cities get the right projects in the right places at the right time? Growth Management!

9 Growth Management Challenges To what degree can a city determine what kinds of growth it gets and how? To what degree can a city determine its rate of growth and how?

10 How much growth communities want Hmm, 650 residences times three people an average family times 144 gallons a day times 365 days Let s all think, broad and long and deep. Mayor Len Augustine described Vacaville as seeking to preserve quality of life but added that, When growth stops, cities die die-when-growth-stops-vacaville-mayor-says/

11 Source: California Department of Finance Read more here: TOP 10 FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN THE SACRAMENTO REGION IN 2014 Area 2014 population 2015 population Change Rancho Cordova 67,841 69, % Elk Grove 160, , % Lincoln 45,259 45, % Galt 24,285 24, % Folsom 74,014 74, % Roseville 127, , % Sacramento 475, , % Rocklin 59,746 60, % South Lake Tahoe 21,555 21, % Citrus Heights 84,550 85, % BOTTOM FIVE CITIES BY POPULATION GROWTH IN THE SACRAMENTO REGION Area 2014 population 2015 population Change Colfax 2,000 1, % Winters 6,970 6, % Davis 66,802 66, % Auburn 13,817 13, % Loomis 6,617 6, %

12 Legal Basis Established 2 key court cases see textbook Ramapo, NY 1972 Petaluma, CA 1975 Limit on how much development approved each year System for deciding which developments to approve Consistency with community goals Availability of infrastructure

13 Legal Constraints Actions must further a legitimate public purpose and bear a reasonable relationship to the public welfare Public welfare of all people who would be affected significantly, not just those within the boundaries of city or county adopting.

14 Defining an Urban Growth Management Strategy Step 1: Draw a boundary around city Where? Step 2: Direct location and design How? Use land within boundary wisely Avoid using land outside of boundary

15 Step 1: Draw the Boundaries A satellite image of Hillsboro, Oregon, shows the urban boundary where the city bumps up against farmland. Source:

16 Variations Urban Growth Boundary Urban Limit Line Urban Service Area And more

17 UGBs or ULLs in California Alameda County Farmersville Napa Sanger American Canyon Fremont Napa County Santa Barbara County Antioch Gilroy Nevada County Santa Clara County Arcata Half Moon Bay Newman Santa Cruz Atascadero Hanford Novato Santa Cruz County Azusa Hayward Palm Desert Santa Maria Buellton Healdsburg Petaluma Santa Rosa Calabasas Hollister Placerville Sebastopol Chico Humboldt County Pleasanton Sierra County Clearlake Kerman Point Arena Sonoma Colfax Kingsburg Porterville Sonoma County Colusa Livermore Redlands St. Helena Contra Costa County Livingston Ripon Stockton Cotati Lompoc Rohnert Park Tulare Crescent City Los Gatos Sacramento County Tulare County Cupertino Mammoth Lakes Salinas Tuolumne County Danville Merced San Bernardino County Ukiah Del Norte County Merced County San Diego Vacaville Delano Monte Sereno San Diego County Visalia El Dorado County Monterey County San Jose Watsonville Escondido Moorpark San Juan Bautista Windsor Exeter Morgan Hill San Luis Obispo Winters Fairfield Morro Bay San Luis Obispo County Woodland Mountain View San Mateo County Yountville

18 We adopted this Greenline urban growth boundary to keep sprawl in check, to preserve open space and to assure that new development does not overextend or overtax city and county infrastructure and services. - SJ Mayor Susan Hammer, Spring 1998 Environmental benefits Economic benefits

19 nning/documents/maps/usb_upa _Let_0111.pdf Leap-frog development

20 Passed in June 2006 with 53.7% of the vote

21 Source:

22 The Challenge Include enough land within boundaries to accommodate projected market demand within planning period But don t include too much land

23 What if you include too much land?

24 What if you don t include enough land? Drive up cost of housing? Force growth to go somewhere else? Contribute to jobs/housing imbalance? Encourage a different kind of development? See article Right Sizing UGBs - Expected population? - Amount of land needed?

25 Constrained Unconstrained

26 Step 2: Strategies to Regulation Incentive Action Encourage within boundaries e.g. up-zoning e.g. density bonus; CEQA exemption for infill development e.g. capital investments; redevelopment Discourage outside of boundaries e.g. downzoning e.g. tax breaks for keeping land in agriculture e.g. purchase of conservation easements

27 Up-Zoning = raise heights, greater density /05/01/MNO010B B08.DTL m/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/ 2012/03/13/MN3A1 NJBIF.DTL

28 Santa Cruz Corridor Plan Santa Cruz County s bus system faces major cuts By Samantha Clark, Santa Cruz Sentinel POSTED: 03/25/16, 5:11 PM PDT UPDATED: ON 03/25/2016

29 Down - Zoning = larger parcels, lower density

30 Issues Issue 1: Ballot Box Planning Issue 2: Takings Issue 3: State Role

31 Issue 1: Ballot Box Planning Use of initiative and referendum in the planning arena, for any legislative act, e.g. zoning change or general plan amendment: Initiative: Legislative action initiated by voters that changes the law Referendum: Vote on whether or not to accept action taken by legislative body; undoes the action if approved Direct Democracy concept from 1907

32 Ballot Box Planning Issues Can t be undone without another vote Exempt from CEQA! Why? Citizens taking planning into their own hands.

33 e.g. Davis Measure J initiative approved in 2000 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DAVIS AMENDING THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A POLICY REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OR ENTITLEMENTS OF PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ENACTING THE CITIZENS' RIGHT TO VOTE ON FUTURE USE OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR VOTER APPROVAL OF (1) ANY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT THAT CHANGES A LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM AN AGRICULTURAL OR URBAN RESERVE DESIGNATION TO AN URBAN DESIGNATION OR FROM AN AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION TO AN URBAN RESERVE DESIGNATION AND (2) ANY PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE LAST TWO LARGE VACANT PROPERTIES DESIGNATED FOR URBAN USE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE COVELL CENTER AND NISHI PROPERTIES; THIS ORDINANCE TO BE ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS AND EFFECTIVE UPON ADOPTION BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY

34 e.g. Davis Measure J Initiative: to adopt Measure J Referendum: to accept or reject decision by city council on change in land use designation, as required by Measure J

35 e.g. Davis Measure J Rationale 1. Protection of existing agricultural and open space lands, natural habitats and reserves is of critical importance to the present and future residents 2. Continued urban encroachment into agricultural land and open space impairs agriculture and threatens the public health, safety, and welfare - traffic congestion, air pollution, water 3. Unique character and quality of life depend on the protection of agricultural, open space lands, and natural habitats General Plan contains policies for compact urban form and protection of agricultural lands from urban development.. 5. General Plan promotes preservation of agricultural lands and habitat and the availability of affordable housing 6. Ordinance consistent with the General Plan

36 Covell Center Property px?page=1525 Nishi Properties

37 Approved by city council in 2004 Source:

38 Measure X 2005 Source:

39 Measure X results 2005 Votes Percent Yes 8, No 12,

40

41 Approved by city council in ects/wildhorse/pdfs/site_pla N_1-Conceptual-Site-Plan- With-Design-Images.pdf

42

43 Measure P results 2009 Votes Percent Yes 3, % No 9, %

44 June

45 Measure R results 2010 Votes Percent Yes 10, % No 3, %

46 Davis Target Store City council voted to: Amend General Plan Amend East Davis specific plan Amend zoning ordinance Approve development agreement + Referendum on approval of project

47 November 2006

48 Measure K results 2006 Votes Percent Yes 11, % No 11, %

49 Before-and-After Target Survey 90% of respondents shopped there Agreement that It was a good decision to allow a Target store in Davis : 59.9% in % in 2010 Savings of 18.9 miles per month per adult: 7.5 million VMT per year 2,800 metric tons of CO 2 emissions per year Source: Lovejoy, Sciara, Salon, Handy, and Mokhtarian, 2013

50 Next up: Nishi (Measure A)

51

52

53 Arguments YES ON A SMART. SUSTAINABLE. SUPPORTING LOCAL JOBS, ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITY, AND EDUCATION IN DAVIS

54 Economic Reports Housing (Affordable % negotiated out with a Finance 1 million and developer Budget office: payment) $1,400,000 of annual benefit passed on a vote; dissenters agreed DEIR (Significant and Unavoidable) that the benefits would be positive, but suggested numbers in the $500,000 range. Traffic (LOS D or F likely) Agriculture (removal) GHGs (87% onsite electricity generation, most GHG impact due to vehicular travel ~36-45k daily VMT) Noise (temporary construction) Air Quality (Impacts between in a million cancer risk)

55

56 What do you think?

57 June 2014 Measure B City of San Francisco Voter Approval of Waterfront Construction Exceeding Height Limits Initiative Approved by 55.8% November 2014 Proposition F City of San Francisco Pier 70 Redevelopment Initiative Approved by 72.8%

58 Issue 2: Takings Fifth amendment to U.S. Constitution says that no property shall be taken from a private individual by the government unless the government pays just compensation to the property owner. Next week: Eminent domain i.e. physical taking

59 Takings Expanded If a land use regulation is overly restrictive, it creates a taking of property equivalent to physical occupation regulatory taking and entitles a property owner to monetary damages.

60 Takings Expanded regulatory takings are only compensable when the government cannot show some social justification, broadly conceived, for its imposition - Richard A. Epstein, Physical and Regulatory Takings: One Distinction Too Many Stanford Law Review. March 1, 2012 (64).

61 Key Cases First English vs. Los Angeles County, 1987: even if taking is temporary, property owner entitled to compensation Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992: regulation that deprives property owner of all economically viable use of land constitutes a categorical taking

62 Key Cases Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002: Temporary development moratorium does not automatically amount to regulatory taking of private property requiring just compensation

63 Implications Uncertainty: When is a regulation so extreme that it creates a taking of property? Certainty: Government s power to impose land use regulation limited, so... Incentives: ex. Tax breaks for infill Actions: ex. Purchase of development rights

64 Fundamental Problem w/gm according to Fulton & Shigley local political solutions to problems associated with regional economic and population growth. a blunt instrument applied to a subtle and sophisticated problem.

65 Issue 3: Importance of State Role Most growth management efforts will fail if done in isolation from regional or state interests growth management is most effective when done within a statewide context - Nelson and Duncan

66 State & Regional Frameworks State-imposed planning Mandatory planning with strong state role Mandatory planning with weak state role Regional planning Special areas Hawaii Oregon, Florida, to some degree also Maine, NJ, Rhode Island, Washington California, Georgia, Vermont Minneapolis, Portland North Carolina, California

67 Oregon s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Established in 1973 by ballot initiative Two goals: Contain urban sprawl Preserve ag land and forests Mechanisms: Regional growth boundaries w/ service limit Local plans in compliance with state goals

68 Portland Metro s Growth Boundary brary/article/portlandmetrocouncil

69 Portland Metro UGB controversies Causing increases in home prices? Destroying existing neighborhoods? Increasing racial segregation? Hurts real estate markets? Hasn t really stopped sprawl?

70 Growth Management Challenges should To what degree can a city determine its rate of growth? should To what degree can a city determine what kinds of growth it gets?

71 One View Is the Sierra Nevada going to be a highaltitude suburbia with a lot of golf courses, big developments and traffic congestion? Or is it going to be this majestic landscape? That s what s at stake here LA Times 10/17/04

72 Another View What has happened essentially is that those already inside the castle have pulled up the drawbridge, so that outsiders can t get in Much of this exclusionary agenda [on the SF Peninsula] is pushed by people who inherited great wealth are using it to buy a sense of importance as moral leaders protecting the environment. - CS Monitor 4/25/05

73 Another View I certainly respect the interests of the smartgrowth people. But as the mayor [of Bakersfield], I support prosperity. You just can t stop growth. USA Today, 5/19/06

74 Another View Quote on strong town movement Tax base for city (fiscalization of landuse) Charles Maron

75 A green city block was once the site of John A. Owen Elementary School, recently torn down as part of a Detroit Public Schools initiative to demolish vacant schools, seen as safety hazards.

76 A Completely Different Perspective In 1950, Detroit was the country's fourth largest city. Nearly two million people called it home. Today, the Motor City has less than half that number. But Detroit still spends close to $3 billion a year to provide city services, even in neighborhoods that are largely abandoned. So local officials are considering a radical idea: shut down whole swaths of the city and move residents from decaying neighborhoods to more viable areas. Marketplace, APM

77 Topics to Follow Encouraging development within boundaries: redevelopment, fiscal zoning, eminent domain Matching growth to infrastructure: adequate public facilities ordinances, concurrency requirements, assessment districts, transit-oriented development Using infrastructure to manage growth: regional transportation planning

78 Topics to Follow Protecting ag land and open space: conservation easements, transfer of development rights, Williamson Act Protecting nature: Endangered Species Act, habitat conservation planning, conservation banking Protecting humans: hazards planning

79 For Tuesday Start your Demographic Report now! Due Tuesday Available on website us if you have questions!

80 Oregon s Measure 37 Approved by voters in November 2004 Created a claim for compensation for the enactment or enforcement of a land use regulation if the land use regulation restricts the use of the property and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property Options? Pay or change regulation

81 Oregon s Measure 37 Measure 37 is an unfunded mandate with one clear objective: to rollback Oregon's land use protections. The measure makes the false promise of payments to property owners, but local and state governments simply do not have the money for such payments. Victims of Oregon s tyrannical web of land use restrictions, ordinances, and regulatory takings can finally seek justice. Measure 37 passed on November 2 and it allows Oregon property owners who have been wronged by any myriad of radical land use restrictions imposed by the state and local governments to seek just compensation for their monetary losses.

82 Oregon s Measure 49 Approved by voters in November 2007 Limits some development that Measure 37 permitted: Subdivisions not allowed on high-value farmlands, forestlands and groundwater- restricted lands. No more than three homes allowed. Claimants can t use measure to override current zoning laws that prohibit commercial and industrial developments, such as strip malls and mines, on land reserved for homes, farms, forests and other uses.