    |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
corridors
• summary findings east 14th/international
el camino real
san pablo avenue
|
Summary Findings - Corridors
Land Use Local
governments are making progress toward their own, and regional and state
objectives by rethinking land use. Local governments are exploring new
opportunities for development on their aging retail centers, industrial
sites, and underutilized lands, including BART and retail center surface
parking lots. Prompting this reuse of land is often a community's own
policies to
With limited land alternatives, some communities are re-imagining and redeveloping their older auto-oriented regional shopping centers into places for people. Developers are working with cities to create new "lifestyle" centers that resemble older, mixed use downtowns. In Sunnyvale, the city has plans to convert an auto-oriented mall, the Sunnyvale Town Center, into an extension of its adjacent historic pedestrian-friendly downtown by adding new homes and reconnecting city streets. In San Pablo, the International Marketplace is undergoing extensive redevelopment to include a variety of homes alongside commercial and retail uses. In San Leandro, BART, the city, and Alameda County are working together on a plan to encourage higher density housing, a mix of uses, and pedestrian access on the large Bayfair BART surface parking lot and nearby Bay Fair Shopping Center.
Many communities have plans for housing and mixed use development on
low density commercial sites located directly on the highways. Many
are rezoning abundantly available commercial strip malls for mixed use
development. Alameda County is
Even in areas where local governments are not changing land use, the private sector is adapting traditionally auto-oriented uses into more people-oriented, compact, less land-intensive models. Land hungry auto dealerships can typically take up over 10 acres of land - acres of surface parking that adds little to enhance the pedestrian realm in downtown areas or near transit. In Mountain View, a five-story showroom has been built on a two-acre lot. Banks are also looking at new development models. The advent of online services has allowed banks to fill smaller spaces, now that less land is needed for drive-through tellers and large parking lots.
Underused industrial sites are also being eyes as development opportunities. Vacant lands make up four percent of the land along East 14th, eight percent of the land uses along San Pablo Avenue, and two percent along El Camino Real. This amounts to nearly 1,500 acres of land. San Pablo, Hercules, Emeryville, and Oakland have turned their underused industrial lands into places for new homes and retail. El Cerrito staff are focusing their planning energies on three vacant and underused parcels near the BART station and along San Pablo Avenue. They are working with developers to build more homes and shops on each site.
Most
communities along the corridors target their highways as areas for new
growth, at relatively higher densities than other areas
Along San Pablo Avenue, the highest density growth is allowed in the southern parts of the corridor, especially in downtown Oakland. Emeryville, West Berkeley, and Albany allow from 60 - 100 units per acre, which is also relatively high, but more fitting for the existing area. As you go north, the existing communities are less intensely developed, with more moderate densities. San Pablo and Richmond plans allow 45 units per acre.
Along El Camino, most communities have targeted historic downtowns and transit stations for high density growth. Millbrae, Mountain View, and Redwood City allow 80 -100 units per acre near their train stations, downtowns, or in areas along the highways. Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale each allow 50 units per acre in their downtowns and near train stations.
Housing Cities are taking concerted steps to facilitate development of affordable housing in their communities. One common strategy is inclusionary housing policies. Inclusionary housing policies require a percentage of all newly built units to be affordable to low-income families. Approximately half of the communities along East 14th/International Boulevard, El Camino Real, and San Pablo Avenue have adopted an inclusionary housing policy.
Creating a housing trust fund is another strategy that cities and counties use to facilitate development of affordable housing. Housing trust funds can be used to pool public funds with private investment, mostly from business groups who have an explicit interest in increasing housing availability for employees. The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo County and the Berkeley housing trust fund are excellent local models.
Nearly every city along the corridor has plans for higher density and multi-family housing, which can be an effective strategy for promoting affordable housing. Apartments and condominiums are often relatively more financially feasible housing options for people in the Bay Area than single-family homes.
Transportation
Automobile use accounts for 82 percent of trips on East 14th, 87 percent of trips along El Camino, and 92 percent of all trips along San Pablo Avenue. About 23,000 drivers take to the road on East 14th everyday, 35,000 cars move along El Camino, and 28,800 cars traverse San Pablo Avenue.
The Bay Area is the most transit-rich region in California. Two dozen Bay Area transit operators provide over 188 million vehicle miles of service and carry more than 475 million passengers each year. Buses provide just under half of all service miles and carry nearly two-thirds of all passengers. BART, commuter rail, light rail, ferries, and door-to-door vans and taxis carry the remaining third.
In many areas, local transit service is limited along the highway. Local transit service often lacks adequate routes and has long intervals between buses. Travel by local bus is difficult in West Oakland, where there are few local east-west routes. In this area, community surveys revealed that many people perceive walking a few blocks to the bus stop as unsafe, especially at night. In the northern section of San Pablo Avenue, AC Transit and WestCAT provide infrequent service that is reduced on weekends. Along El Camino, many bus stops do not have shelters, maps, or route information.
Local, subregional, and regional transit agencies are planning transit service improvements along each state highway. East 14th Street is a priority location for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) implementation. In the interim, rapid bus 1R began service the summer of 2007 between San Leandro and downtown Berkeley. Express buses currently run on all three corridors. San Pablo Avenue will also soon benefit from the development of a Hercules Amtrak Station, currently under construction. This station is to be located on the Hercules Waterfront, within walking distance of San Pablo Avenue.
On El Camino Real rapid bus service is available in Santa Clara County, and there are plans to increase the attractiveness of the bus system. The Valley Transportation Authority plans to invest in improved bus stop shelters with lighting and real-time service information. Caltrain is also planning access improvements at its stations along El Camino. The San Bruno Caltrain station will even be moved closer to downtown, in hopes of improving pedestrian access and ridership. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association and the San Mateo County Transit Authority are working on ways to provide faster express buses along El Camino. Both agencies are also working with local cities to bolster transit use by intensifying land uses around its train stations.
Walking Most
people value having transportation choices, especially walking. According
to community surveys, however, many people also believe that the highways
are unsuitable for walking and therefore avoid them in their walking
trips or choose not to walk at all. In
In the few places where the walking environments have been preserved, including West Berkeley, downtown Oakland, Old Town Pinole, San Leandro, and Albany at Solano Avenue, people often do walk and appreciate being able to do so. According to community surveys, in these places, people walk mostly because there are pedestrian amenities and places to walk to, including neighborhood retail. Walking is also common in low-income communities or where there is a large older population, for many people in these communities do not have cars. In general, people say they would walk more if the walking environment was improved.
Challenges and Opportunities There are financial, political, social, and institutional barriers to change. Without change, the state highways will continue as primarily auto routes, where land use and transportation are planned for the convenience of cars. The reality of whether East 14th, El Camino, or San Pablo Avenue can be truly redeveloped into places that serve communities of people, both in and out of their cars, will require a significant shift in development strategies, financial investments, political will, public attitudes, and institutional bureaucracies. There is, however, also hope. Within each of these challenges, there is evidence that the state, regional agencies, and local governments are finding ways to move forward.
Development Strategies Small,
irregularly-shaped parcels, common in all communities along the corridors,
present a real challenge for development. Assembling large parcels for
major development projects is a common technique for redeveloping large
areas into transit and
Good development on small parcels can add substantial density while enhancing the existing community. Small projects can work within the confines of a city's existing street grid pattern, effectively maintaining or improving the pedestrian environment. Development on small lots often results in diverse building types and aesthetically interesting streetscapes for people. Smaller projects are also often easier to integrate into the cities' existing neighborhoods. In addition, a neighborhood where older buildings are preserved has a better opportunity to support a mix of high and low-rent businesses, allowing for a variety of chain and independent businesses that often make a community unique.
These benefits have encouraged communities to work closely with developers to get projects built on small, odd lots. Berkeley and Redwood City have achieved densities of 100 units per acre on parcels of less than one acre and in projects that are five stories or less.
Fiscal Constraints The "fiscalization" of land use continues to be a land use challenge in local communities. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in the 1970s, local governments have been severely restricted in their ability to raise revenues through property taxes. These revenues are used for road improvements, schools, libraries, police, fire, and other public services. Since Proposition 13's passage, cities have resisted housing development because it no longer "pays for itself" - meaning new property taxes are insufficient to pay for the public services that residents will need. In response, local governments focus their efforts on attracting large retailers to their communities. Retailers are sought for the sales taxes they bring to the community. These sales taxes can offset losses from restricted property tax generation. This is in effect the "fiscalization" of land use, where fiscal impacts dominate local land use decisions. While in 1970, the intent of Proposition 13 was to protect home owners, the long-term impact has been to restrict home ownership opportunities for subsequent generations.
The key impediment to creating and preserving affordable housing is money. Given the high cost of land in the Bay Area, developing units that are affordable for very low and low-income households requires significant public subsidies. Cities and counties with redevelopment areas are required by law to use a portion of tax increment revenues to create or support affordable housing opportunities. Oakland has created another source of funding through a commercial linkage fee. Developers of commercial projects must pay a fee for the increased demand for housing that results from new commercial development and the jobs it creates. This fee goes to the city, where it is used to facilitate affordable housing development.
Establishing a "redevelopment area" and responsible redevelopment agency is a common strategy for financing planning and development in local communities. Cities with redevelopment agencies are generally better able to finance planned changes in their communities due to access to additional financial resources, specifically Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues come from the tax increment on new development a city receives on increased property values once a redevelopment area is established.
There are, however, some community concerns with redevelopment agency activities. These concerns are primarily with the use of eminent domain, which is often viewed negatively by the public, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2006. This perception exists even though Bay Area redevelopment agencies rarely use eminent domain (especially on properties with existing tenants) and some expressly forbid it. In addition, due in part to urban renewal activities in the 1960s and 1970s, redevelopment agencies carry the reputation for being insensitive to existing neighborhoods and for building large-scale projects that significantly alter communities. Community members often express concern about large-scale projects, which are often only possible with the presence of a redevelopment agency.
Public Resistance People hold strong negative perceptions about change. People often loudly voice these negative perceptions at local council meetings. Community surveys confirmed that resistance to new development is often presented in the context of fears, real or perceived, about increased traffic congestion or new populations coming into an area. This often results in limited political will to create and implement land use plans that would change the character of existing communities; especially changes that would allow more development in a community, especially at higher densities.
Although the voice of opposition is heard loudly at public meetings, there indeed appears to be a supportive "silent majority." Many people surveyed actually do support new development. Residents of lower-income communities are particularly supportive of development to enhance their neighborhoods, including added services and neighborhood retail. Upper-income communities also support development; especially if it is well designed, adds to the "character" of the neighborhood, and if it includes restaurants and other services.
Phone surveys revealed that few people are genuinely engaged in community planning. Most people react to decisions made without them. Communities are generally more reactive than proactive. Community surveys revealed that in general, people are more likely to be active, or reactive to planning and development when their individual neighborhood or business will be impacted. Many people also feel, however, that city staff often "react" to developers - that city staff are often highly responsive to developers and their needs, and not the needs of the community. Essentially, many people feel that city staff may be just as guilty in their "reactionism" to development as local government staff often claim residents are.
Phone surveys of East 14th, El Camino, and San Pablo community engagement can be attributed to several key factors. These factors include education and income levels, whether there are strong community-based organizations that educate and mobilize the community, and past experience with local government.
Many survey respondents expressed their belief that those who want to be engaged are and do participate in planning and development decisions. They also concluded that there are barriers to participation, such as timing of meetings, access to child care, and language or cultural barriers. The process itself is also considered a barrier, as the procedure and language used in public meetings are difficult to understand, especially to people who do not speak English.
Political Will
Along El Camino Real, the congestion management agencies have also designated major transportation routes, predominately the state highway, and transit stations as a target area for new growth. Santa Clara's Valley Transportation Authority's "Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas" also designates El Camino Real as a location for new land uses and services. The City/County Congestion Management of San Mateo ahs an incentive program to encourage new residences on El Camino Real. Along San Pablo and East 14th/International Boulevard, AC Transit and BART are also taking on land use planning projects in partnership with local communities.
The timing between intensifying land uses and improving transit service is a source of tension between transportation and land use planners. Developing new housing before high-quality transit service is available can increase local traffic congestion, since residents are often still dependent on their cars. The added congestion is difficult for cities to manage and creates community resistance to new development.
On
the flip side, transit agencies need a sufficient number of riders to
justify expenditures on new or expanded service. They have limited funding
available to improve or expand bus services without assurances that
these improvements will add riders. The
To have any meaning, non-local governmental plans must be adopted and then incorporated into local land use plans. Local governments, cities, towns, and counties make land use decisions. Their general, specific, and other land use plans designate areas in their communities for development at various levels of intensity. If not adopted into these local plans, the land use plans created by outside agencies, including regional land use and transportation agencies or even community-based groups, become meaningless.
Disregarding non-locally developed land use plans is often a result of local governments feeling unengaged in the process. For these plans to be truly recognized by local governments, local governments need to be engaged in the planning process. The engagement needs to occur to the extent that local governments eventually "own" the process - they need to feel and therefore believe that the process is theirs.
Many local community leaders have also expressed that the regional planning process completely ignored their own plans. Local plans are developed under an extensive and expensive community-engagement process that creates public ownership. To revisit them, to question their value, local governments and their constituent communities need a clear reason - essentially strong motivation to do so. An outside entity, such as a regional planning body, or a transportation agency, must provide that reason and motivation. Only in this way can an outside group ensure full participation in a new planning process and eventual ownership of the revised plan.
In 2002, the regional agencies failed to provide that motivation when it embarked on the Network of Neighborhood Vision. Consequently, the region failed to fully engage local governments in the development of the regional vision. As a result, the vision became the "regional agency's vision," rather than the region's vision.
To correct this, to make the regional vision real to and owned by local governments, the regional agencies have embarked on "FOCUS." This program is an attempt to develop a genuine regional plan, one developed and owned by its constituent local governments. The program seeks out willing jurisdictions to voluntarily partner and coordinate with the regional agencies on a shared vision. In this way the final plan is both developed and owned by local governments.
The (Lack of) Support for Housing To encourage increased housing production throughout the state, the State of California requires local governments to identify a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its "fair share" of the state's housing need. In a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the state, region, and local governments work together to allocate total housing units each local government must plan for. Local governments must then demonstrate how they will accommodate these units in the Housing Elements of their General Plans.
The words "we can't" - and the many reasons why - dominate local and regional conversations over the entire RHNA process. The most common reason given is that local communities are "built out" and there is no more room to grow. Housing is also seen as a drain on local government resources, as additional populations require schools, libraries, police and fire protection. In many communities, there is also the perception that planning for housing promotes growth, and that if communities simply don't plan for it, it won't happen. What goes unacknowledged is that growth does continue to happen. It simply "spills out" to surrounding areas. It is the Bay Area's neighboring cities and regions, including the Central Valley, that must take on this growth - they are planning for the Bay Area's housing needs. The resulting traffic congestion and loss of agricultural land reduces the quality of life for Bay Area residents.
Some innovative community leaders actually say "we can" when it comes to housing. They view the RHNA process as an opportunity to resolve the difficult question, "How can we build housing in our communities?" RHNA moves these communities toward innovative housing solutions. The process helps local leaders find ways to provide housing choices and to ensure that future changes benefit existing residents. For those communities that want to provide more housing options to residents, but think there is no more room, identifying sufficient sites helps them to come up with creative strategies for accommodating housing. These jurisdictions recognize that, given the popularity of the Bay Area, population growth will continue, and real though should be given to how that growth can best serve local communities and the region.
According to our surveys, support for more housing in existing neighborhoods may be achieved if people's needs are met first. In general, community leaders believe that people will support housing if they have a voice in its design, location, and amenities. Survey responses also revealed that people think that homes should be built in the right locations, i.e. near transit, and be well integrated into the existing community. In some communities, there is interest in having more low and moderate-income housing. Some people, however, did express concerns about the impacts that more housing has on open spaces or parks, parking, and local schools.
Similar to land use changes, community members often oppose housing development because they were not engaged early in the planning process, not necessarily because they failed to recognize that more housing was needed in their community. As with development in general, many people responding to our surveys feel that city staff often "react," or are highly responsive to housing developers and their needs, and not the needs of the community.
Institutional Barriers Thirty-two jurisdictions have authority over land use along East 14th Street/International Boulevard, El Camino Real, and San Pablo Avenue. Ten state, regional, and subregional agencies have authority over transportation service and improvements. In addition, numerous community and nonprofit and private sector groups, including Urban Habitat, East Bay Community Foundation, and Joint Venture Silicon Valley, have a vested interest in the places along the highways. Finding effective ways to coordinate amongst these multitude of parties can be a daunting challenge for local governments interested in corridor planning.
Often, traffic movement goals on state-owned highways can conflict with broader state, regional, and local goals to promote development and to encourage walking and transit use. The state has clearly articulated policies that advocate for increased compact housing development in existing urban communities, especially near transit. The objective is to reduce auto use by promoting pedestrian and transit activity. The California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), however, which owns, operates, and maintains the state highways, also has the safe, unimpeded movement of cars as a primary objective. At times, this goal can conflict with state goals to promote infill development near transit and to encourage walking.
There
are strategies for making neighborhoods along state highways and near
transit more walkable. The number of traffic lanes can be reduced, lanes
can be narrowed, median refuges and bulb-outs can be added, sidewalks
widened, and corner curb radii can be reduced. In 2001, Caltrans adopted
Context-Sensitive Solutions (CSS) as an institution-wide effort to support
such local efforts to improve state highways that serve as local streets.
Context-Sensitive Solutions aim to balance local community, aesthetic,
historic, and environmental values with Caltrans' traditional transportation
safety, maintenance, and performance goals. Caltrans
The adoption of Context-Sensitive Solutions prompted extensive staff training at Caltrans and a commitment to plan for all travel modes. Change, however, is often slow. That Caltrans has adopted CSS is still not widely known - many cities remain unaware of the agency's new priorities. Some local governments interviewed had heard about CSS. Representatives, however, remained reluctant to proceed with planning projects along the highways due to previous difficult experiences. An examination of local plans also revealed that some cities perceive changes to a state highway as an insurmountable obstacle and therefore plan around it. Redwood City, for example, originally left El Camino Real (State Route 82) out of their Downtown Specific Plan, although the plan goes into great detail for the surrounding land uses and street designs. Therefore, even with Context-Sensitive Solutions in place, there continue to be challenges.
Current
transportation standards encourage inefficient use of valuable urban
land. Although new development may lead to an increase in local traffic,
evidence indicates development in urban areas, such as along East 14th,
El Camino, and San Pablo
Applying suburban trip generation rates to development projects in urban areas, where transit is available and more people walk, results in an overstatement of potential auto trips and consequent traffic congestion. As found in our community surveys, increased traffic is a top reason that community members oppose new developments. To quell the protest, cities often plan and approve development at lower densities, and with excessive amounts of parking. Lower densities and parking requirements can make development projects financially infeasible for developers.
Level-of-Service (LOS) is another standard used to measure traffic congestion and delay at intersections. Pedestrian-oriented downtowns are places where cars naturally move slowly and experience delays, and therefore often have poor or failing LOS grades. A poor or failing grade is another indicator of congestion and, as with the trip generation data, acts as an impediment to future development in the area.
Cities and transit agencies are finding ways to better manage parking. Pricing and shared spaces are common tools used in local communities. In its current planning efforts for the downtown bus rapid transit stop, San Leandro intends to develop alternative parking standards in recognition that ITE rates are much too high for urban sites. Redwood City has also had success managing its parking through pricing. The city charges more for meters that are in high-demand locations. The city recently raised rates to 75 cents for its prime downtown spots that had been free, and removed one-hour time limits, so cars can prepay for as much time as they need. The move has helped steer more cars to its underutilized parking garage located just blocks away from downtown.
BART, which used to require a 1:1 replacement of lost parking spaces at transit stations, adopted a policy in 2004 that allows a reduction in spaces if other access improvements and plans are in place. This policy has the potential to open up valuable transit-adjacent land for redevelopment.
While most cities on the corridors have land use plans that support walkable, higher density communities, their own zoning codes and development standards often prevent or inhibit development. Zoning often limits development through large setbacks and minimum lot sizes. In Mountain View, the San Antonio Center Precise Plan requires large setbacks, or development to be significantly away from the street to accommodate surface parking immediately in front of the buildings. This requirement fosters the continuation of an auto-oriented environment, which is surprising since the surrounding area has increasingly become more transit-friendly. In single-family neighborhoods, city zoning for minimum lot sizes and prohibitions on duplexes also prevent higher residential densities that could support transit service.
|
|||||||
protect
existing single-family neighborhoods. Single-family neighborhoods make
up a significant portion of the land along most of the corridors.
considering
residential uses in existing commercial areas directly along East 14th.
The City of Millbrae is looking at building housing on land once used
exclusively for restaurants and auto-related services.
Other
local strategies include indirect and direct financial assistance to
developers. Indirect assistance often includes reduced or waived development
impact fees and bonus densities for developments with affordable units.
Direct assistance, though less common than indirect, comes from increases
in the amount of public funding directed toward affordable housing development.
Oakland has increased its redevelopment area set-asides devoted to affordable
housing; from the state mandated 20 percent to twenty-five.
The
Bay Area's transportation system is predominately auto-based. An estimated
84 percent of all work, shopping, or recreational trips are done by
car. There are 620 miles of freeways (federally-owned), where more than
30 billion miles are logged each year. This freeway system is supplemented
by 800 miles of state highways. Most of these state-owned highways are
major auto thoroughfares linking communities in the outer suburban and
rural parts of the Bay Area. A small number of these state highways
run through the inner Bay Area and are indistinguishable to most travelers
from locally owned urban roadways, including East 14th/International
Boulevard from Oakland to Hayward (State Route 185), El Camino Real
from San Jose to San Francisco (State Route 82), and San Pablo Avenue
(State Route 123) from Oakland to Hercules in the East Bay.
There
is good access and availability to regional transit service on East
14th, El Camino, and San Pablo Avenue. There are seven BART stations
within walking distance of East 14th, four near El Camino, and six accessible
from San Pablo Avenue neighborhoods. Amtrak provides additional regional
and interregional service for East 14th and San Pablo residents. On
the Peninsula, there are fourteen Caltrain stations within one-half
mile of El Camino. Depending on where you are, anywhere between 4 and
14 percent of people living near or traveling to the corridors take
transit to and from their destinations.
many
auto-oriented communities safety is cited as the most common reason
why people do not walk more often. Where the highways are particularly
wide and busy with heavy traffic moving at high speeds, people feel
unsafe walking along or across them.
pedestrian-friendly
communities. Millbrae has had much success with this approach. As even
Millbrae planners will attest to, however, large parcels and parcel
assembly are not always financially feasible and therefore not practical,
even with public assistance. In addition, if not well designed, large-scale
projects may contrast with existing neighborhood character, which can
result in community opposition. 
Proposition
13 has effectively flipped the control of local planning and development
from communities to developers. Cities plan for and approve development
at the behest of retailers, especially "big-box" national
chains whose stores bring significant retail taxes to the city. This
phenomenon plays out in many communities that develop terrific plans
for pedestrian-oriented places, but then feel fiscally pressured to
allow developers to do traditional auto-oriented projects.
Using
tax increment funds, local governments have been able to do facade and
streetscape improvements, attract new tenants, and develop housing,
including affordable housing. Due to State law, redevelopment activities
guarantee increased funding for the creation and maintenance of very
low and low-income housing.
In
essence, strong public opposition to increased densities or development
acts as a strong impediment to local efforts to make planning or development
decisions that would increase housing near transit and therefore promote
state and regional goals. In interviews with local planning staff, one
local planner commented that it was necessary to "plow through"
community resistance in order to make development happen.
Regional
agencies and local transportation agencies are increasingly aware of
the important link between land use and transportation. They are therefore
emerging as new players in the land use planning game. The region's
Network of Neighborhoods Vision was a major regional planning process,
undertaken by the region's land use, air quality, and transportation
agencies (amongst others). This process produced a vision for concentrating
future development along transportation corridors, near transit and
in existing communities around the region.
presence
of new housing centers and economic activity before improved transit
services are in place ensures that there will be enough riders to support
transit. It is therefore important to transit agencies and cities to
coordinate to ensure that transit-supportive land uses are planned before
improvements are made. The City of Hercules is an example of city planners
and transit agencies working together to implement improved transit
and supportive land uses simultaneously.
The
development of the Network of Neighborhoods Vision, the region's vision
for where growth and development ought to occur, is a clear manifestation
of how difficult genuine engagement is. In recent interviews with local
governments, most communities acknowledged that they were unaware of
the regional vision. Those that were aware of it simply saw it as an
abstract exercise that had no real meaning or relevance to them. Local
governments also reported that they were never part of the planning
process; that it was essentially undertaken by people who did little
to include them.
The
RHNA process for planning for housing is one of the most contentious
issues in California. It presents a clear view into local political
attitudes toward housing. Many jurisdictions see the state mandate as
an unwarranted intrusion on local authority and resent being "forced"
to plan for more housing, even though local governments have autonomy
in planning where and at what densities it can occur. Negative attitudes
toward planning for housing are deepened by the perception that the
State's estimates of future growth, and consequently the number of housing
units local communities must plan for, are unrealistically high.
People
are well aware of the region's housing affordability issue. There is
more concern, however, for how developing housing in existing neighborhoods
would affect people. Community surveys revealed that people have concerns
about how well new housing will meet the needs of existing and future
residents. Crowding, density, building heights, and access to parks
and open space are common concerns.
Regional
and transit agencies can play a key role in this coordination, as they
are in many ways "coordinating agencies" whose members are
often the very agencies that need to be coordinated. Communities that
have found effective ways to coordinate, both with and without regional
or transit agency assistance, have made some progress toward creating
land use and transportation plans to accommodate more residents and
offer alternative transportation choices.
adopted
CSS in part because many locally desired changes for pedestrian improvements
and traffic calming measures were difficult to adopt under Caltrans'
standards, which are set in the Highway Design Manual.
Avenue,
generates fewer auto trips than in suburban areas. City planners, however,
often must calculate the number of auto trips that will arise from new
development based on standards developed by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). Local governments also use ITE's data to develop parking
requirements for new projects and to determine congestion impacts at
intersections. ITE's rates for trip generation and parking are based
on suburban driving patterns because the data collected to develop these
rates is collected exclusively from suburban, auto-oriented sites. ITE's
data collection criteria states that data collection sites should have
isolated parking and driveways, i.e. no shared or off-street parking
or shared driveways with other developments.
Some
innovative communities have found ways to navigate around these challenges.
Cities can actually accept lower LOS standards, meaning they can develop
policies that explicitly allow for some amount of traffic delay. San
Leandro has a lower LOS standard for its downtown area than for the
rest of the city, in recognition of the city's goal to ensure downtown
is maintained as a pedestrian area. The City of San Jose has an "intersection
protection policy" that designates certain intersections where
no further increases in width or capacity are allowed and multimodal
treatments must be used instead. LOS at these intersections can be poor
or failing.