The URL can be used to link to this page

Director's Report CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . ,------:;' Subject: Report of the Community Development Direct~ Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, July II, 2006 The City Council met on July 5, 2006, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Consider an a)llllication for Frankie Law (Law and Chow residence), 20055 & 20065 De Palma Lane: The City Council approved use permit, architectural & site approval tentative map, zone change (first reading of ordinance), and negative declaration, with six additional conditions: (see attached report) 1:1 Street maintenance; [J Pedestrian access; [J A joint use agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (sc:vvvD); [J Allow rear yard fencing with minimal side-yard fencing; D A landscape plan for the common area for which all residents would have access; 1:1 The sidewalk on the south side shall tie into the existing sidewalk on the R&Z Development until it reaches De Palma Lane; and [J Parking is prohibited on the westerly driveway extension of De Palma Lane. MISCELLANEOUS 1. I will be attending a seminar in Boston on Monday, July 10 -13,2006. The seminar is called Urban Retail Planning Principles for Cities, Towns & Commercial Centers. I will be out of the office from Friday, July 7 -14, 2006. 2. Smart Growth Scorecard: Attached are excerpted pages from the Greenbelt Alliance Smart Growth Scorecard report. Cupertino ranked 37 out of 89 Bay Area Cities. Enclosures: Staff Reports, Newspaper Articles G: \ Planning \ SteveP \ Director's Report \ 2006 \ pd07-11-06.doc 'DIe -I ., > . c ~ \; " \\'. ." ; ~~_~'_J' -'.;~.i, ~.-~: \" ...-'f, I ,J~ Fl ~...-.~ ~/ j-':'.~.- City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408)777-3333 0- . CUfEQINO Commumty Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: J ul y 5, 2006 Application: Z-2oo6-03, U-2oo6-04, ASA-2006-09, lM-2006-05, EA-2006-07 Applicant: Frankie Law Owner: Su Yong Law, Frankie Kan Yin Law, Felicia Chow & Joyce Chow Location: 20055 & 20065 De Palma Lane, APN 369-32-039, -006 Application Summary: . REZONING from R2-4.25 (Duplex Zoning) to P(RES) Planned Residential. . USE PER1v1IT AND ARCHITECTIJRAL & SITE AFPROV AL to demolish two existing houses and construct four single-family residences. . TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 0.652-acre parcel into four lots. . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reconunends on a 3-1-0 vote (Giefer no, Wong absent) that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative declaration, file number EA-2006-07. 2. Approve the Rezoning application, file number 2-2006-03, in accordance with Resolution No. 6397, Ordinance No. 06-1986 3. Approve the Use permit application, file number U-2oo6-04, in accordance with Resolution No, 6395. 4. Approve the Architectural and Site Approval application, file no. ASA-2006-09, in accordance with Resolution No. 6398. 5. Approve the Tentative Map application, file no. TM-2oo6-05, in accordance with Resolution No. 6396. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Med./Low. Density Residential 5-10 d.u./ gr.ac. Existing Zoning Designation: R2-4.25 Proposed Zoning Designation: P(RES) Gross Acres: 0.698 acre (30,428.3 square feet) 'P i~~;.;? File Nos.: Z-2oo6-03, U-2006-04, ASA-2006-09, TM-2006-05, EA-2006-07 July 5, 2006 Page 2 Net Acres: 0.578 acre (25,186 square feet) Residential: Dwelling units & type: 4 single-family detached residences Site density: 5.73 duj gr. Ac. Building Area: 13,142.6 square feet Site FAR: 52.1% Parking ratio: 5 spaces per dwelling (2 in garage, 2 in driveway apron, 1 guest space per dwelling) StoriesfHeight: 2 stories! 24' 2" Setbacks: North (Duplex side) West (Townhouse side) First Story South (Regnart Creek side) 19' 7.5" or greater East (Single Family side) 12' 3" (patio cover) 20' (building wall) 14' 7,5" or greater 12' 3" (patio cover) 20'3" (building wall) 20' Second Story 34' 10.5" 26' 3" or greater 24' 1.5" or greater Interior 26'3" 28' or greater BACKGROUND At its meeting of Jnne 13, 2006, the Planning Corrunission voted (3-1-0, Giefer no, Wong absent) to recommend approval of this project to demolish two single-family residences and construct four single-family dwellings at 20055 & 20065 De Palma Lane (See Planning Commission Resolutions and Exhibit A-I). DISCUSSION Planninf Commission Comments One Commissioner was concerned with the higher FAR houses proposed and a perceived "canyon'" visual effect along the street. A townhouse-style product in keeping with the project next door was preferred. Another Cormnissioner was concerned with the lack of public attendance at this hearing. The applicants stated that they had met with all of the neighbors. One Commissioner pointed out that the homes were 24 feet tall, which is less than the City maximum height of 28 feet for R-I style dwellings, A majority of the Conunissioners supported the project as presented. Public Comments No members of the public attended the hearing, dpplicant Comments . The proposed houses are all for family members who desire to live in Cupertino. The applicant said they shared their housing plans with the De Palma Lane neighbors and they are supportive of the development. The applicant has agreed to be part of the private association that pays for the maintenance of De Palma Lane, which is a private street. I I \ 1/112 -3 File Nos.: Z-2006-03, U-2006-04, ASA-2006-09, TM-2006-05, EA-2006-07 July 5,2006 Page 3 Staff Comments Public meeting notices for this project were sent out to property owners within a 1,000- foot mailing radius, which is over three times the distance of the mailing for the abutting R&Z townhouse development approved five years ago. Staff recommends that an additional condition of approval be added to the project: PRIVATE STREET MAINTENANCE The applicant shall enter into a recorded agreement to share in the financial responsibility of maintaining De Palma Lane, which is a private street. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6395, 6396, 6397 and 6398 Draft Zoning Ordinance 06-1986 Exhibit A-1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 13, 2006 Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager 3i:4~ e~/&.u- Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development G:\Planning\PDREPORl\ CC\ U-2006-04 CC.doc Dt r2-f , BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 Contents l EXECUTIVE'SUMMARY Executive Summary. 3 , i:~;: ;-'. .; ~ ~..,: ~ - Introduction City Scorecard Results. County Scorecard Results. Combined City an~ County Analysis. Conclusion. .5 6 8 21. 22 30 35 APPENDIX Scores of All Bay Area Cities . . 36 TABLES Table 1: Bay Area Cities' Average Policy Scores. 8 Table 2: Bay Area Top.Scoring Cities 8 Table 3: Top Cities-Growth Boundary Policies 1.1 Table 4: Top Cities-Park P~oximity Policies 1.2 Table 5: Top Cities-Affordable Housing Policies :13 Table 6: Top Cities-Mixed. Use Development Policies. 14 Table 7: Top Cities-Development Density Policies. 15 Table 8: Top Cities-Policies to Reduce Parking Requirements 16 Table 9: Top Cities-Development Standards Policies . 17 Table 10: Factors Correlated With Cities' Policy Perfomu1nce 19 Table 11: Bay Area County Policy Scores 22 Table 12: Counties-Growth Management Policie~. 24 Table 13: Counties-Open Space Protection Policies 25 Table 14: Counties-Agricultural Zoning Policies . 26 Table 15: Counties-Natural Resource Conservation Policies 27 Table 16: Counties-Transportation Choices Policies . 28 Table] 7: Average City Policy Performance By County. 30 Table 18: County Policy Performance 30 Table 19: Bay Area City Policy Scores . 36 j ./ PI It -(, 1 I Executive Summary The San Francisco Bay Area will add a million new residents by 2020. What this means for the region depends largely on where and how this growth occurs. The region can accommodate growth while making its cities and towns a better place to live. This approach is called smart growth. It requires directing new growth into already- urbanized areas, protecting farms and natural areas, creating walkable neighborhoods, and revitalizing downtowns. To learn how well the region is doing at pursuing smart growth, Greenbelt Alliance has undertaken a landmark assessment of the planning policies of a1l101 cities and nine counties of the Bay Area. These policies provide the blueprints for how the region will grow in the future. Strong planning policies are critical to a vibrant, livable region. The Smart Growth Scorecard measures policies. It does not measure on-the-ground reality. For instance, the region's densest cities may not score highest on density, because their policies may not be strong enough to ensure that new development is also dense. Political will is also important to achieving 'il smart growth, as it ensures that ~ good policies translate into good ~ " development. The Scorecard does not ~ measure political will. The Scorecard &. evaluates only policies, which create the framework to make smart growth possible. BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 t Evaluating Cities and Counties The Smart Growth Scorecard evalu- ates cities and counties separately, to reflect their separate roles. City Results The Smart Growth Scorecard reveals that across the region, Bay Area cities could be doing much more to support smart growth. Of 101 cities, only 17 earn scores of 50% or more, out of a possible 100%. On average, cities score 34%, with only one-third of the needed policies to achieve smart growth. To ensure a healthy environment and high quality of life, cities should be the sites of compact; lively, and pedestrian-friendly development, especially in their downtowns and near transit stations. Preventing Sprawl with Urban Growth Boundaries There are 78 cities in the Bay Area that are not encircled by water or other cities, and so should have urban growth boundaries. Of these, 25, or about one-third, have strong boundaries. The lack of boundaries in many areas leaves a significant amount of the region's open space at risk of sprawl development. Counties also have a critical role to play in fostering smart growth by channeling development to the cities; protecting natural resources, open space, and farmland; and providing transportation options between cities. , Protecting open space and improving the Bay Area's quality of Life requires good policies to guide growth. Today, Bay Area cities and counties are doing only a third of what is needed to achieve smart growth. DilZ -7 - 3 Making Sure Parks Are Nearby Many Bay Area cities should be doing much more to ensure their residents live near parks. Of 101 cities, only 31, about one-third, require parks to be within walking distance of every resident. Without this standard, open space may be inequitably distributed, leaving many residents unable to easily enjoy a neighborhood park. Creating Homes People Can Afford One of the Bay Area's greatest needs is for homes that people can afford. Many Bay Area cities do have policies supporting the creation of affordable homes. Fifty-nine of 101 cities have inclusionary policies, which require affordable homes to be included in new residential develop- ments. However, many cities do not have strong enough inclusionary policies or are lacking other neces- sary policies, and the ~verage score regionwide is 36%. In this critical area, cities are falling short. Encouraging A Mix of Uses The Bay Area's cities are doing better at allowing mixed-use development than they are in any other smart growth policy area. Of the region's 101 cities, 79 allow a mix of uses downtown and near transit" stations, though some require special permits. Mixing shops, jobs, and homes enlivens neighborhoods and helps people to get from place to place without having to drive. Encouraging Density in the Right Places Bay Area cities are not doing well at encouraging or requiring density even in the most appropriate places; downtown and near transit. On average, cities score only 29%, the second lowest regional average of all the policy areas. Without increasing density in the right places, the region will fail to accommodate growth while protecting open space and providing homes people can afford. 4 Requiring less land for Parking Cities in the Bay Area are doing very little to encourage better land use by reducing parking requirements. The regionwide average score is 26%, the lowest of any policy area. By keeping parking requirements high, cities are missing the opportunity to build more homes and commercial space. Defining Standards for Good Development With an average score of 32%, Bay Area cities are doing only one-third of what they could be to use develop- ment standards to make streets and sidewalks inviting. However, most cities do earn at least some points, and five cities earn scores of over 75%: Windsor, Walnut Creek, Sonoma, Livermore, and Oakland. Co~nty Results , Bay Area counties on the whole are doing somewhat better than cities. On average, they score 51 %, mean- ing they are doing half of what they could do to promote smart growth. Managing Growth In many cases, Bay Area counties are doing better than cities at preventing sprawling growth. Seven counties have adopted strong growth manage- ment policies intended to prevent urban development on greenbelt lands, though only three are voter- approved ordinances. Counties' average growth management score is 51%. P~rmanently Protecting Open Space Counties perform better in open space and parkland policies than in any other policy area, with an aver- age score of 60%. Only two counties in the Bay Area, Solano and Napa, have not yet established a public agency for open space acquisition and preservation. Preserving Agricultural land Bay Area counties can significantly improve their agricultural zoning ordinances. They score only 49% on average. County ordinances that allow rural land to be split into smaller parcels, or allow multiple houses on each parcel, represent a latent threat to the greenbelt. San Mateo's model agricultural ordinance should be imitated by lower-scoring counties including Santa Clara, Marin, and Sonoma. Conserving Natural Resources Bay Area counties average 48% in enacting conservation policies to protect creeks, trees, and steep slopes. Often counties have taken a first step by stating the importance of these resources, but few have specific ordinances to ensure their protection. . . Offering Transportation Choices The region's counties vary widely in their transportation planning, poli- cies, and investment, with an average regional score of 41 %. Santa Clara County leads the way with significant transit funding. Solano and Napa lag because they do not have transporta- tion sales taxes that could provide funding for local transit. The Way Forward These scores are low. In general, Bay Area cities and counties are doing only a fraction of what is needed to ensure smart growth. But that can change. For every policy area, there is a city or county that can I guide other jurisdictions as they seek to improve. The future of the entire region is at stake. Drt! -6 BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 j Introduction The San Francisco Bay Area is famous for its high quality of life, which springs from the region's spectacular natural surroundings and its diverse, vihrant cities. The region's quality of life attracts entrepreneurs and skilled workers, fueling innova- tion and powering the economy. But the Bay Area is not without problems. Already, housing costs are some of the highest in the nation; the majority of residents cannot afford the median-priced home. Traffic is consistently a major concern in regional polls. The region is feeling the pressure of growth-and there is still much more growth to come. An additional million people will live in the Bay Area by 2020, bringing the region's population to eight million. The Bay Area's challenge will be to accommodate that growth in a way that does not reduce the region's famous quality of life. If the region continues to grow the way it has for the past several decades, it will fail the challenge. Sprawling, haphazard, low-density development on the region's edge will pave over working farms and natural areas, create long commutes, dog freeways, and pollute the air and water. There is a different way to grow. A smarter way. We can direct growth inward, not outward. We can take advantage of existing infrastructure to keep costs down. We can invest in existing cities and revitalize historic downtowns. We can create more homes that people can afford, near where they BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 o " L "- need to go, and give them more options about how to get around. We can protect open space, and make sure people live near parks so they can enjoy that open space. In recent years, the Bay Area's cities and counties have started along this new path toward smart growth. But how well are they doing? Are they making sure that growth will make the region better instead of worse? Are they adopting enough good policies to make a difference? The Smart Growth Scorecard Green belt Alliance surveyed the entire region to find out. The result, the Bay Area Smart Growth Scorecard, is the first report of its kind. It measures how well each of the region's 101 cities and nine counties are doing at creating policies to meet smart growth goals. The survey was created in conference with local planning professionals, to create a realistic, achievable list of policies that Bay Area cities and counties could adopt to promote smarter growth. One million more people will live in the Bay Area by 2020; by adopting strong smart growth policies, cities and counties can accommodate this growth while keePing the region a great place to live. The Smart Growth Scorecard scores cities and counties differently, because each has a unique role to play in guiding growth. Cities, as the managers of local growth, should be the sites of compact, lively, and pedestrian-friendly development. Counties, meanwhile, should channel growth to the cities. They should also protect the county's natural resources, open space, and farmland, and provide a variety of transportation options between cities. The Smart Growth Scorecard focuses on policies, rather than the situation on the ground now. For instance, instead of measuring a city's current downtown density, the Scorecard is concerned with the density a devel- oper could build downtown today. The policies in place today will affect the growth that occurs in the future. The Smart Growth Scorecard is a look at the region's future, and a blueprint for making it better. DlJe -9 5 City Scorecard .. . - , ~, .'-::F" '-i~J ,. ...~"'r. . ..~ .'. , - ""'''-" -- . - ...- .~~;0;\';:; - u //,- .,r.<!. "'" /.- These before-and-after images of Gilroy's Caltrain station area use computer visioning to illustrate how smart growth can make the region's cities and towns more livable for all residents. Cities have a great deal of power to do smart growth, because they directly oversee the development that occurs within city boundaries. The vision the city establishes in its general plan guides its growth, The zoning ordinances and other regulations in the municipal code directly regulate building and have the force of law. also have impacts far beyond their boundaries. In a regional economy and housing market, cities' decisions not to grow can push development elsewhere, into other cities and out onto farms and natural areas. The policies and ordinances estab- lished by cities directly affect the day-to-day experience and quality of life of residents. But cities' actions Cities can adopt smart growth policies to accommodate new growth within defined boundaries. This makes cities more attractive places to live and protects the greenbelt. The Smart Growth Scorecard evaluates the extent to which each city is doing its part. 6 Surveying Cities Numerous city planners contributed valuable time to answer Scorecard survey questions. Greenbelt Alliance researched any questions that went unanswered, then gave planning department staff the opportunity to review and correct the information. Greenbelt Alliance relied on the answers cities provided and did not independently verify responses. The scores represent a snapshot in time. Many cities have policies or ordinances in draft form, but these were not conside.red since they had not been enacted. Bay Area cities were first contacted in January 2005 and invited to participate. The scores reflect city policies adopted by ~ May 2005, though some follow-up u ~ questions were resolved up until I January 2006. '" e i When scoring responses, every effort was made to give credit to cities for oj ~ established policies. When a range of !l' possibilities was permitted, or when a ~ ~ broad policy was applied in a variety f of ways on a case-by-case basis, scorecard researchers attempted to determine what was the typical case. In general, any interpretation of policies was resolved by allocating the highest relevant score in that policy area. Scoring Cities The Scorecard evaluates cities in seven policy areas: growth boundar- J ies, park proximity, affordable housing, mixed-use development, density, parking, and development standards. Each policy area includes several questions to evaluate the strength of a city's policies. The questions are weighted based on their importance in guiding better growth. f){t<...-to BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 The maximum score for each city policy area is 40 points. The maxi- mum score for each city, across all seven policy areas, is 280 points. All scores are reported as a percentage of possible points. Cities may be exempted from questions in two policy areas. Cities surrounded by water or other urban areas are exempt from the growth boundaries question, and cities without a transit station are exempt from all transit-related questions (e.g., questions about density or mixed-use development in transit station areas). In evaluating the policy areas of mixed-use development, density, parking, and development standards, survey questions about specific zoning focused on two areas: the city's downtown and the half-mile radius around transit stations. Cities should focus growth in these core areas to create compact, walkable neighborhoods near jobs and services. Overview of Policy Areas The Smart Growth Scorecard mea- sured cities' support for smart growth in seven policy areas. Below is a brief description of each policy area. D Preventing Sprawl with Urban Growth Boundaries Has the city established a boundary beyond which it will not grow or permit development, to contain urban growth and prevent it from sprawling into the countryside? Is this boundary geographically specific, codified in ordinances, controlled by voters, and long-lasting? II Making Sure Parks Are Nearby poes the city have a policy that ensures every resident can walk to a park or green space? How close to residents must green spaces be? III Creating Homes People Can Afford Does the city require that some portion of large-scale housing BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 20D6 t developments be affordable to lower- income residents? What percentage of the housing development must be affordable, and to which income levels? Do cities have other important policies to ensure affordable housing? EI Encouraging A Mix of Uses Does the city allow residential, commercial, or even industrial activi- ties to occur together in the same building or in adjacent buildings in the city's downtown and around its transit station? Is mixed-use develop- . ment allo~ed automatically, or only after obtaining a special permit? II Encouraging Density In the Right Places How many homes per acre do the city's development codes allow in the city's downtown and near transit stations? Does the city anow high-density development in these areas by setting high or no maximum densities? Does the city prevent extremely low-density development by establishing density minimums? II Requiring less land for Parking How much parking is required for developments in the downtown and near transit stations? Are automatic parking reductions available for low-income or senior housing, or if developments share parking with neighboring buildings? Do cities encourage developers to "unbundle" City policies can focus new growth in existing cities, protecting surrounding hillsides and farmlands. the cost of parking from the cost of development? flI Defining Standards for Good Development Does the city have urban design standards in its downtown, around transit nodes, in neighborhood com- mercial centers, and throughout the city so that development contributes to auractive, pedestrian-fri"endly public spaces? Due ..-1 { 7: '. Regional Results well for growth: growth boundaries, '" j"---'--.- ... Across the region, Bay Area cities park proximity, affordable housing, /--..--.' could be doing much better at plan- mixed-use development, density , ning well for growth. The average promotion, parking reduction, and . . score for all cities is 34% (Table 1), development standards. \ meaning that they ate only taking " "- about one-third of the needed steps As Table 1 illustrates, cities' average RANK CITY SCORE ? .~ 1 Petaluma 70% (, to ensure good growth and a healthy scores in most policy areas range ". 2 San Jose 69% '. environment. Only 17 of 101 cities between 26% and 36%. This means '- , 3 Napa 65% "'- earned even half of possible points that most cities need to strengthen 3 Santa Rosa 65% (Table 2). Most cities earned total their policies significantly to ensure 5 Windsor 6~% scores of between 11 % and 50%. that growth happens in a way that 6 Pleasanton 58% makes them better places to live. 7 Rohner t Park 58% There are seven policy areas that 8 Mountain View 57% determine whether cities are planning One area where the region's cities are 9 San Rafael 56% doing relatively well is in allowing 10 Morgan HIli 56% Table 1: mixed-use development. Creating a 11 Sebastopol 55% Bay Area Cities' Average Polley Scores mix of residential and commercial 12 Novato 55% POLICY AREA REGIONAL AVERAGE activities brings round-the-clock 13 Benicia 53% RANK CITY SCORE Growth Boundaries 29% activity to streets and puts residents 13 Milpitas 53% 52 Lafayette 33% Park Proximity 27% closer to shops and jobs, creating 15 Hayward 52% 53 Vallejo 33% safer, more vibrant, and more 16 Livermore 50% 54 Yountville 32% Affordable Housing 36% complete neighborhoods. 17 Walnut Creek 50% 55 Concord 31% Mixed-Use Development 79% 18 San Mateo 49% 56 Brentwood 31% Development Density 29% But in most policy areas, Bay Area 19 San Francisco 49% @ Burlingame 30% ReduCed Parking 20 Richmond 49% . Larkspur 30% 26% cities are not doing welL More Requirements 21 Dublin 48% $) Santa Clara 29% than half the region's cities lack Development Standards 32% 21 Palo Alto 48% (I Corte Madera 28% Overall 34% urban growth boundaries to keep 21 Pittsburg 48% Qjjj Mill Valley 28% development from sprawling out 24 Cotati 47% @ Brisbane 28% onto surrounding farms and natural 25 Berkeley 47% . Clayton 28% areas. More than half also lack park 26 San Ramon 46% . EI Cerrito 28% Table 2: Bay Area Top-Scoring Cities proximity policies, which ensure that 26 Fairfield 46% 4)1 Calma 27% CITY SCORE every resident lives within walking 28 Millbrae 46% <<I> Calistoga 27% Petaluma 70% distance of a park. Cities are also 29 Gilroy 45% $) Tiburon 26% San Jose 69% not doing enough to reduce parking 30 St. Helena 44% .. Vacaville 26% Napa 65% requirements and increase density, to 31 Albany 44% . Antioch 26% Santa Rosa 65% create walkable neighborhoods and 32 Sonoma 44% ,. Portola Valley 25% accommodate growth sustainably. 32 Newark 44% . Redwood City 25% Windsor 61% 34 San Leandro 43% ", San Bruno 24% Pleasanton 58% 35 Oakland 42% . Arnerican 24% All these policies are reasonable and Rohnert Park 58% South San Canyon within reach; they are all being done 36 Francisco 41% . San Pablo 24% Mountain View 57% well by some cities in the region. 37 Cupertino 41% . Menio Park 23% San Rafael 56% 38 Campbell 41% . Belmont 23% Morgan Hill 56% 39 Fremont 40% . Martinez 22% Sebastopol 55% 40 Healdsburg 40% . Sausallto 2~% 41 Rio Vista 39% G Cloverdale 21% Novato 55% 42 Sunnyvale 39% $) Pacifica 20% Senieia 53% 43 Hercules 38% . Los Gatos 20% Milpltas 53% I 43 San Carlos 38% . Los Altos 18% Hayward 52% 45 Half Moon Bay 37% . San Anselmo 18% Livermore 50% 46 Suisun City 37% . Pinoie 17% Walnut Creek 50% 47 Alameda 37% . Ross 17% 48 Union City 36% ..., East Palo Alto 17% San Mateo 49% 49 Emeryville 35% .. Foster City 15% San Francisco 49% 50 Oakley 35% . Los Altos Hills 15% , . Danville Richmond 49% 51 Pleasant Hill 34% 14% 8 DiP. -{,;( BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 20'06 '<-, ..._--~ </ '" ''-, I .. " -) , (~C1 ~ ) \ . 7 \ · ,;/ > 24 ( ,J.. ..r.,..r-.."",,,,,,~ 32 3 ( 'i"L. "". 1 '" 2646 SOLANO j i\ ~'1 '- . ',c.~. " ,.____~ .---' _ , , . . ~ l J\ \~>., ". ~ /d0<> -"~'~ M f'\ R I N 12\J',_~3 ~~~__. \'~Q_ j.~ ( ;' '.,,7. J Iifo\~"'~ ~'--:'.' ':.-' f ?l".li.i;:. /'-':.7 \_~ 21 ,0 L(_ .. 9 > _, ~.43 I) 55 8 50 ~ . \.. "::-20 51 a. c~ .~' _l ~ 56 J 8) 1.J::~. .r. 17 :; '~'"\ -. 31 52 , ._~\ 'OA: G ~~4:5 C () N T n l\ e () S T f.\ \,;, ..,~ ' \~. ..:-... <<I . ~_...-... ,~ SAN,-l ). ~41:,~5 . \19 'j '....._p ~RANCI Sea 1 \-..~ \. .. 1 "f\ 34 -36) '\ . c. ~ 15 28~ 48 ..~-\ l · 18~,._ \ <@ , .4/~ I. 32 39 \... ~ 45 @.. rC( \ . ~1 7r~ 13 8 ... ~2 .. .3 )NOMA ore: 50-70%" 31-49% I 0-30% ) city scored above 70% IK CITY SCORE '- "- ) ~ I Daly City I Saratoga I Fairfax I Moraga f Woodside f Monte Sereno f Piedrnont f Dixon f Orinda f Atherton I Belvedere I HiIIsborough rank5 ~re based on swres re rounding, so some cities 3e scores appear tied arg ,crually tied, @ -v-- ? r '\ >,-" 7 . ~ ) rSI \, 7r' i ,..; ,- ,40 Bay Area' City Smart Growth Policy Scores '"' '\' .~~.,.~ ~-' , ..'. ., ,; " .>r':~ ....' j ., , ! -"'-+---'- < NAPA > ,..- 5 , , .'---, \ 30. * 3 (on' -~ r-" 11 54 ',- ----. )-: .---/.,._"..-r . , J .-/-~.- / '" ) '. './"', 26. ..,.-- '-~ . (~16 6 (J"}~I,:t ;~ ,> /- / /. AlAM EDt.\ : i j ~ '-----<. '- ,. / / / / 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 11% 10% 3% 0% 0% 37 2 N 38 0.. SANTA CLARA , ( \ , ........., , l.. , L @l ~ 10 29 ~ i:'- ~v.....;J./ [:>112-/3 ~~.." EED ""IT 5 , f- -.. Peta/uma's strong smart growth policies earned it the highest score of aUlOl Bay Area cities. Selected City Profiles The following profiles illustrate how a few cities earned their scores. Petaluma Petaluma is the top-ranking city, with a total score of 70%. Petaluma's experience illustrates that through strong local leadership in planning for growth, a city of moderate population can create a livable town and help protect the greenbelt. Petaluma is the second-largest city in Sonoma County and the oldest city between San Franc.isco and Eureka. Its location on the Petal urn a River and near prime farmland made it an industrial and agricultural center early on. In the 1950s, highways brought rapid growth to Petaluma's edges, and local leaders started to realize that this threatened the city's fiscal and economic vitality. In 1972, Petaluma adopted an urban limit line to prevent growth from sprawling outside the city. Over the following decades, planning efforts built on Petaluma's history 10 and architectural character to create a vibrant and economically thriving downtown. In 2003, Petaluma adopted a plan to channel develop- ment into the geographic heart of the city. As part of this process, the City adopted a type of zoning known as a "Smart Code," which pays attention to how buildings relate to the street, rather than their uses. This approach encourages mixed-use development and makes neighborhoods more inviting for pedestrians. Petaluma is doing a good job at planning for growth. To do even bet- ter, it should reduce its high parking requirements, establish a minimum density in its downtown, and create design guidelines for areas outside of downtown. These steps would further encourage the revitalization of its downtown, and help the rest of the city to grow in an attractive and inviting way. San Jose San Jose is the only city of the Bay Area's three biggest that made it into the top 10. It is in second place, with a total score of 69%. San Jose has taken a consistent approach to growth, adopting key policies though not always making them as strong as they could be. For instance, the city requires that parks be within a lh-mile of all residents, but not within a lA-mile. It also allows a mix of land uses (e.g., homes, shops, and jobs) in the downtown with no permit, but requires a permit for mixing uses near transit. San Jose does get a perfect score for its voter-adopted urban growth boundary. It also earns the top score, 73 %, for parking standards. Low parking requirements enable developers to build more homes on a given amount of land, and help make places better for pedestrians. San Jose requires only one parking space per apartment downtown. Its parking requirements are automatically reduced for low-income housing, senior housing, and developments near transit. Many cities could enliven their downtowns by match- ing San Jose's parking requirements. San Jose illustrates the success a city can have through consistent effort across policy areas. The good policies in place are already transforming San Jose from an epicenter of sprawl to a more livable, walkable community. San Francisco San Francisco ranks 19th overalI with a score of 49%. In light of San Francisco's compact, walkable neigh- borhoods, this may be a surprise, but the scores are based on policies, not on existing development. San Francisco lacks some important policies, although citizen commit- _ ment and local leadership have compensated to create good results in city neighborhoods. Policies the city needs include a parks radius require- ment (saying parks must be within a certain distance from every resident), a required minimum density for development, and good development standards. San Francisco ranks near the top in the other relevant policy areas, including parking and mixed-use development. .~ ...."- ",:~<'~,-:~:,~,:' J~," ':~~.'~~~ : . '/ It:g~;t}~~:.:,~ ~ . ;. If! ~ :i~:~!>,t . 11!-d' '. .. rr.m' ,'. .. '~!:\;";';;:~j;~;~:~:i;~:"' . "::_~:~; ~~.-:;..~]~:t\.:'~~~:., "_::. . . ",-,~'_~~:~.~':;~L'/:"'_:_<' .. ";"'1' San Francisco is a good example of a city with compact, walkable development near transit, but its policies are not as strong as they could be. I DtF2,t4- BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 , City Results By Policy Area Cities' performance in each of the seven policy areas evaluated reveals what is and isn't working about how Bay Area cities are planning for growth. o Preventing Sprawl with Urban Growth Boundaries TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: 40 Has the city established a boundary beyond which it will not grow or permit development, to contain urban growth and prevent it from sprawling into the countryside? Is this boundary geographically specific, codified in ordinances, controlled by voters, and long-lasting? Table 3: Top Citles-Growth Boundary Policies CITY SCORE LIvermore 100% Napa 100% Novato 100% Petaluma 100% San Jose 100% Sonoma 100% Windsor 100% Cotati 98% . Dublin 98% Milpitas 98% Pleasanton 98% San Ramon 98% Santa Rosa 98% Regional Average 29% Received no points: 53 (norHlxemptl cities Exempt: 23 cities surrounded by water and/or other cities are exempt from this question and not shown on this list. What are the results? Cities in the Bay Area are generally either doing very well or very poorly at controlling development with urban growth boundaries. There are 78 cities in the Bay Area that should have urban growth boundaries; of these cities, only 25, or about one-third, have them. Six exemplary cities score 100% (Table 3) for having urban growth boundaries that completely encircle SAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 the cities, last at least 20 years, are part of the municipal code, and can only be changed by a vote of the people. Another six cities score 98 % because their policies are part of a general plan but are not codified in a I zoning ordinance. At the other end of the scale, two. thirds of eligible cities (53 of 78) IS E .. (5 -" I;; "- jij c: .. 'Q .. 0:: ,., .. '" ~ .. .. w 9 .. .c: "- score 0%. Some of these cities do have some measures in place to preserve open space, such as zoning ordinances, hillside protection ordinances, or a statement that they accept county-based urban limit lines. However, these methods may not stop sprawl development and may leave cities vulnerable to changes in county government. None protects open space from shifting political and economic pressures as securely as a long-lasting, city-established urban growth boundary. Why do the results matter? Adopting an urban growth boundary, to define where growth should and should not occur, is one of the most important decisions a city can make. Urban growth boundaries prevent sprawl and protect the scenic land- scapes essential to the Bay Area's quality of life. Urban growth boundaries also encourage the compact and efficient development of lands inside the city. By redirecting growth into areas already served by roads and schools, urban growth boundaries reduce the costs of new construction for taxpay- ers. They help focus growth, and the economic vitality it brings, in the center of existing communities. What policies count toward the' score? To earn most of the points in this policy area, cities must have estab- lished urban growth boundaries that are specific boundaries encircling the city (value: 28 points). Twenty-three cities are exempt because they are already completely surrounded by water or neighboring cities. Two cit- ies-Antioch and Pitts burg-adopted boundaries in 2005 through developer-sponsored initiatives; these boundaries include so much vacant land they score no points. The Scorecard awards more points to longer-lasting growth management policies (value: 20+ years: 4 points; 15-19 years: 2 points). These are less vulnerable to changing political conditions and growth pressures, providing certainty to landowners. DIll -, 5 11 To be strong, specific, and enforce- able, the boundary should also be voter-controlled (value: 6 points) and should be a city ordinance (value: 2 points) rather than a general plan policy (value: 1 point). EJ Making Sure Parks Are Neal'by TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: 40 Does the city have a policy that ensures every resident can walk to a park or green space? How close to residents must green spaces be? What are the results? As with urban growth boundaries, Bay Area cities are either doing very well or very poorly at ensuring their residents live near parks. Of 101 cities, only 31, about one-third, have park proximity policies. Six cities require Nrks to be within a l,4-lI!ile radius of every resident, scoring 98 % (Table 4), and 23 cities require a lh-mile radius. No cities get a perfect score, as no city codifies the policy in its zoning code. More than two-thirds of Bay Area cities do not have park radius standards. Many of these cities do, of course, have parks. Some cities identify possible park locations in their general plans or aim to provide a certain number of park acres per Table 4: Top Cities-Park Proxlrnlty Policies CITY SCORE Milpitas Oakley Petaluma Rio Vista San Mateo Suisun City Regional Average 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 27% 2nd place: 22 cities lied, scoling 88% Received no points: 70 cities 1,000 residents. However, without a radius standard, open space may be inequitably distributed throughout the city, leaving many residents unable to walk to a park. Some cities claim that their city's small size means people always have green space ne;:trhy, outside the city or, in existing city parks. However, only a policy can ensure that this will continue to be true as the city grows. Other cities claim they lack this policy because they are "built out" and have no large vacant areas. But even small lots can make "pocket parks" and playgrounds. More importantly, cities are constantly being built and rebuilt; a park proximity policy ensures that new parks will be created as the city changes over time. -. . . - .. ~" ,... ' .. ,. ~. .~, :,~ " -: ': '~.r'.:: ~~~~,.;.;.., . 12 Why do the results matter? Green space within walking distance improves a neighborhood's quality of life. It also reduces pressure to build out in the greenbelt, because families with abundant, accessible parkland are less likely to move out of urban areas in search of the bigger yards found in new edge developments. What policies count toward the score? The Scorecard awards most of the points in this area based on whether cities have a policy specifying that a park shall exist within a certain radius of all city residents (value: 25 points). The bulk of the remain- ing points depends on the policy's requiring a specific radius (value: 1,4 mile: 13 points; "walking distance" or 1h mile: 9 points; 3,4 mile: 7 points; one mile: 4 points). The radius should be a city orqinance (value: 2 points) rather than a general plan policy statement (value: 1 point). iJ Creating Homes Pea-pole Can Affard TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: 40 Does the city require that some por- tion of every housing development be affordable to lower-income residents? What percentage of the housing development must be affordable, and to which income levels? Do cities have other important policies to ensure affordable housing? What are the results? On average, Bay Area cities' policies on affordable housing are better than they are on anything but mixed-use development. But the average regional score on af~ordable housing policies is only 36% (Table 5). Corte Madera has the highest score, 88%, for its strong inclusionary f . ordinance, its housing trust fund, and '5 <( OJ U -= Requiring parks to be within walking OJ .., ~ distance of all residents helps ensure that t. people have nearby green space to enjoy. BAY AREA SMART GROWTH scoRBli-;rI/e; Table 5: Top Cities-Affordable Housing Policies CITY SCORE Corte Madera 88% Novato 80% San Rafael 80% St. Helena 80% Cotat! 75% Newark 75% Pleasanton 75% Roh ner t Pa rk 75% Berke ley 73% Brentwood 73% Wainut Creek 73% Regional Average 36% Received no points: 28 cities its jobs-housing linkage program, though it does not require 25 % or more of tax increment redevelopment financing to be dedicated to afford- able housing. San Rafael, Novato, and St. Helena tie for second place, with scores of 80%. It is important to note that the highest-scoring cities may not be producing the most affordable housing. As it is in other policy areas, political will is important to ensure the implementation of good policies. Of 101 Bay Area cities, 59 have some form of inclusionary housing policy, requiring a percentage of new housing to be affordable. These cities differ in how much must be afford- able: 10 require 20% or more of new homes to be affordable; 26 require 11-19%; and 23 require only 5-10%. These cities also differ in the income levels they target: low-income (51-80% of Area Median Income, AMI) or very-law-income (:0;;50% of AMI). Most require development to be affordable to low-income renters (50 cities) and buyers (37 cities). Some go further, requiring that development be affordable to very-low-income renters (32 cities) and buyers (16 cities). A number of cities have adopted other smart affordable-housing BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 policies as well. Thirty-seven cities have housing trust funds. Nineteen have a jobs-housing linkage program, requiring that new commercial development fund housing. Sixteen cities devote 25% or more of their I redevelopment tax-increment financ- ing to an affordable housing fund. -' a consistent proportion of these are affordable to lower-income residents. What policies count toward the score? Housing is considered affordable if it costs one-third of a household's income. Cities receive points in this area if they have effective Including homes that are affordable to a range of incomes is an important part of making cities better places to Jive. Unfortunately, in spite of the many available policy options for providing affordable housing, 28 Bay Area cities received a score of 0%. Why do the results matter? Bay Area home prices are among the highest in the nation. With the . median price of a single-family home at $712,940 in December 2005, the average home is out of reach for 88% of the region's residents. The lack of homes that people can afford in existing cities pushes development pressure out onto greenbelt lands, lengthens commutes, and worsens traffic. Sound affordable housing policies can create more affordable homes in already-developed areas. lndusionary housing policies are especially valuable because they ensure that as new homes are created, indusionary housing policies (value: 10 points) that require a percentage of new housing to be affordable (value: up to 9 points). That housing should be targeted to both renters and buyers with incomes that are Jow (51-80% of AMI, value: 1 point each) or very low ($:50% of AMI, value: 2 points each). Cities should also have an affordable housing trust fund (value: 5 points). Housing trust funds create a dedi- cated revenue source (typically from real estate transfer taxes or develop- ment fees) for affordable housing. City grants from these funds can make projects eligible for state and federal financing and help jumpstart construction. The Scorecard awards additional points to cities with a jobs-housing linkage ordinance (value: 5 points). Jobs-housing linkage ordinances require new commercial or industrial development to provide housing for /)( t2 -/ '7 13 Table 6: Top Cltles-Mlxed Use Development Policies the businesses' future workers, either by directly building the housing or by donating to an affordable housing construction fund. This helps housing creation keep up with job creation. III Encourag!ng ~ Mix of Uses TOTAl. POSSIBLE POINTS: 40 33 CITIES SCORE 100%, Albany American Canyon Brentwood Campbell Clayton Dublin EI Cerrito Oakley Petaluma Plnole Plttsburg Richmond Rio Vista San Carlos Does the city allow residential, commercial, and, where appropriate, industrial activities to occur together in the same building or in adjacent buildings in the city's downtown and around its transit station? Is mixed-use development allowed automatically, or only after obtaining a special permit? Finally, for cities that have redevelop- ment agencies, they should direct 25% or more of their redevelopment tax-increment financing to an affordable housing fund (value: 5 points). As cities redevelop neighbor~ hoods, they receive increased prop- erty taxes from the improved neighborhoods; this increase can then pay back the funds used to construct these new neighborhoods. This is called tax-increment financing. Since redevelopment also raises housing prices, the state of California requires 20% of this tax increment to be set aside for affordable housing. Cities can go beyqnd this minimum requirement to set aside 25% or more. San Francisco Gilroy Hayward Hercules Larkspur Livermore San Maleo San Pablo San Rafael Sausalito What are the results? Bay Area cities are doing better at allowing mixed-use development than they are in any other smart growth policy area. An impressive 33 cities-about one out of three-allow mixed-use development in their downtowns and near transit stations without requiring a special permit, . earning a perfect scor~ of 100 % (Table 6). Another 46 cities-almost Sebastopol Vallejo Walnut Creek Windsor Morgan Hill Mountain View Napa Novato Oakland Regional Average: 79% Received no points, 9 cities half-allow mixed-use development ~ dow~town an~ ~ear transibt, bhut " reqUIre a permIt In one or ot areas, earning scores of 85-93%. Ten lower- scoring cities only allow mixed-use development downtown, not around a transit station. Only nine cities allow no mixed-use development, for a score of zero. Why do the results matter? Mixed-use development, which puts homes, shops, and offices next to one another or in the same building, is key to creating livable neighbor- hoods. Old-fashioned Main Streets have mixed-use development, with stores on the ground floor and homes or offices above. This mix of uses enables people to get to work, go This before-and-after computer visualiza- tion of Livermore's First Street illustrates how mixed-use development can oj ~ revitalize a neighborhood. Putting homes !l! above street-level stores provides needed ~ ;; housing and makes streets more lively .l and walkable. DIR-t6 BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 14 , shopping, and do errands without having to get in the car for every trip. Mixing uses around bus lines and train stations also makes it easy for more people to use transit; the fares they generate make the system more efficient and effective. The opposite of mixed-use zoning is exclusionary zoning, in which an entire area is devoted solely to one use, such as a large housing tract or strip-mall retail center. Exclusionary zoning requires driving to get from place to place, making walking and biking difficult and often dangerous. What policies count toward the score? The majority of the points in this policy area go to cities that allow adjacent residential and commercial uses in downtowns and around transit stops (value: 15 points in each area). Allowing mixed-use develop- ment automatically (value: 5 points in each area) gets more points, since it is more effective than requiring special zoning permits (value: 2 points in each area). II' Encouraging Density in the Right Places TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: 40 How many homes per acre do the city's development codes allow in the city's downtown and near transit stations? Does the city allow high-density development in these areas 'by setting high Qr no maximum densities? Does the city prevent extremely low-density development by establishing density minimums? What are the results? Bay Area cities are not doing well at encouraging density (with no or high density maximums) or requiring it (with density minimums), even in the most appropriate places: downtown and near transit. On average, cities score only 29%, the second-lowest regional average (Table 7). Only three cities earned scores of BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 . I. " " 1:: ... ~ - III (; - " .l: ... These before-and-after computer-generated images of San Jose's North First Street show how density can create a more lIibrant place. Dense dellelopment around transit makes riding transit easy for the people who lille and work around the station. 75% or higher for their development density policies-Albany, Fremont, and Concord. Sunnyvale also requires one of the region's highest minimum densities;450 homes or dwelling units per acre (dulacre) in part of its downtown. However, most cities have no density minimums, and only 21 cities have minimums of 15 dulacre or higher. Eight Bay Area cities set a high maximum at or above 70 dulacre; density maximums lower than this serve to discourage, rather than encourage, density. Thirteen cities have no maximum density (though they may limit it in other ways). Table 7: Top Citles-Development Density Policies The high-scoring cities are not the cities that are currendy the most dense on the ground; for example, San Francisco and Oakland do not rank in the top lOin adopting strorig density policies, but they are among the densest cities in the region. Density policies help set the growth pattern for the future and are an essential step in preventing sprawl. CITY SCORE Albany 78% Fremont 78% Concord 75% San Jose 73% Sunnyvale 70% Union City 70% Hayward 63% Los Altos 60% Vallejo 58% Foster City' 55% San Rafael 55% Regional Average 29% The region's cities do not all need to become as dense as San Francisco and Oakland, but adding additional stories to buildings in downtowns and near transit can accommodate growth while revitalizing these areas. Received no points: 3 cities , Exempt from Questions regarding transit stations. Plf.2 ~fq 15 Why do the results matter? The Bay Area will be home to an additional million people by 2020. Accommoda ting that growth, while keeping the region's quality of life high, protecting open space, and providing homes that local people can afford, will require high-density development in urban areas. High- density development is especially appropriate in downtowns and around transit stations, where it can revitalize city cores and make transit work for more people. What policies count toward the score? Cities scored the most points if, around downtowns and transit stops, they set high or no density maximums (value: 8 points in each area, sliding scale) and high density minimums (value.: 8 points in each area, sliding scale). To be as strong as possible, these maximums and minimums should be part of a zoning ordinance (value: 2 points) instead of only a plan or a policy document (value: 1 point). m Requiring Less land for Parking TOTAL POSSlBLE POINTS: 4.0 How much parking do cities require in the downtown and near transit stations? Are automatic parking reductions available for low-income or senior housing, or if developments share parking with neighboring buildings? Do cities encourage developers to "unb~ndle" the cost of parking from the cost of development? What are the results? Cities in the Bay Area are doing very little to encourage better land use by reducing parking requirements. The regionwide average score is 26% Cities often require large amounts of parking for new development. Reducing these requirements creates opportunities for more mixed-use development and walkable places. 16 Table 8: Top Cities-Policies to Reduce Parking Requirements CITY SCORE San Jose 73% Berkeley 70% South San Francisco 70% San Francisco 68% Oakland 65% Fairfield 60% Petaluma 58% Napa 55% Pittsburg 53% Martinez 50% Santa Rosa 50% Reglonal Average 26% Received no points: 8 cities (Table 8), the lowest of any policy area. Eight cities score 0%. . However, a few cities ~e doing well. San Jose scores the highest, 73 %, for its low parking require- ments, with automatic reductions for low-income housing, senior housing, and housing near transit. San Jose and 11 other cities require approximately one space per home downtown. Two cities-Berkeley and San Francisco-require less than one parking space per apartment for apartment buildings downtown and do not require additional parking for grocery stores added to these build- ings, but they do not have as many automatic reductions for parking as San Jose does. A surprisingly small number of cities join San Jose in providing automatic parking reductions. Fifteen cities automatically reduce requirements for low-income housing, 36 do so for senior housing, and 35 do so when buildings are arranged so they can share parking. Lowering parking requirements for these uses helps developers meet the region's serious need for low-income and senior housing. Only five cities-Berkeley, Petaluma, San Mateo, San Carlos, and Walnut Creek-encourage developers to separate parking from the cost of a lease or rental price, ensuring that the true. cost of parking is app&rent and is not subsidized. Why do the results matter? Parking takes up a tremendous amount of space in cities. Often, half of a developed parcel may be devoted to parking. Land used for parking could otherwise be used for homes or businesses. When developers are not held back by high parking require- ments, they can build more homes or larger commercial areas on the same amount of land. 15 ;;;: '" " Vi .. .. ~ ~ .<: D.. PI R. - c20 BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 Downtowns and transit areas should be walkable places where people can travel without cars. Low parking requirements bring buildings closer to one another and make streetscapes more pedestrian-friendly. What policies count toward the score? Cities earn points by requiring as few parking spaces as possible for buildings that are downtown or near transit (value: up to 6 points per development per location, awarded based on two hypothetical develop- ~ . ments: an apartment building with . 25 two-bedroom apartments, and the Ii same building with a 5,OOO-square 1 .e foot grocery on the ground floor). i Additional points go to cities that automatically reduce parking requirements for low-income or senior housing (value: 3 points each). Credit also goes to cities that automatically reduce requirements when parking lots are shared or when buildings are near transit (value: 3 points each). The Scorecard also rewards cities that encourage developers to separate the costs of parking from rent or lease costs, so that parking expenses are paid by car owners (value: 4 points). Ii Defining Standards for Good Development TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS: 40 Does the city have urban design standards in its downtown, around transit nodes, in neighborhood com- mercial centers, and throughout the city so that development contributes to attractive, pedestrian-friendly public spaces? What are the results? Once again, scores are low. On average, Bay Area cities score 32 % (Table 9); they are doing only one- third of what they could in using development standards to make streets and sidewalks inviting. Most cities earn at least some points, although five cities receive no points. BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 Ii tJ 1:. Q. .. '~ w . - <II . . .. . .. :.... S . .u. :' -','. o .~ f. ~-,,_.:~ .~- ..' .J" . OT, r , 1-;. f L- ':",_.--~ . . . , These before-and-after computer-generated images of San Jose's Eastridge Mall show how good development standm-ds, such as requiring buildings to extend to the sidewalk and requiring parking and garages to go behind buildings, make streets walkable and attractive. Five cities earn scores of over 75%: Windsor, Walnut Creek, Sonoma, Liver- more, and Oakland. These cities have good standards that address sidewalks and streetscapes in both commercial and residential areas, particularly in downtown and transit areas. These standards include requiring side- walks on both sides of the street, prohibiting cuI de sacs, and requiring commercial buildings to come all the way up to the sidewalk. Table 9: Top Cities-Development Standards Policies CITY SCORE Windsor 90% Walnut Creek 85% Sonoma1 82% Livermore 80% Oakland 80% YountvilleT 74% Sebastopof 73% Calistoga T 65% San Jose 63% Mountain View 60% Napa 60% RegIonal Average 32% Most cities, 73 of 101, have at least one visually illustrated design guide- line. Sixty-seven cities require that no building setback exist in the down- town area. This ensures that build- ings extend to the sidewalk, which encourages window-shopping and makes the street interesting for pedestrians. Fifty-three cities also require sidewalks on both sides of a new residential street; this makes it easier and more pleasant for people to walk. Received no points: 5 cities T Exempt from questions regarding transit stations. However, cities are not doing well at laying out streets in ways that help pedestrians get around. Only 16 cit- ies prohibit cuI de sacs in residential development, and few cities require a grid street layout in either residential or commercial development. DI t( -::V 17 Cities may already have an estab- lished street and sidewalk layout, but rebuilding could change that. Large redevelopment projects and recon- struction after earthquakes have created entirely new street grids in the Bay Area. Even major infrastruc- ture can change, and a long-range vision of a livable, pedestrian-friendly streetscape ensures that change is for the better. Why do the results matter? Urban design affects the quality of life within a city. Buildings shape public space the way that walls shape buildings. Together, details like the location of parking lots, the arrange- ment of streets, and the alignment of buildings define the shape of a city; they determine whether it is inviting and walkable, or an unwelcoming place for people. Good urban design standards bring many different developments together to create attractive places. What policies count toward the score? The Scorecard weighs whether cities include diagrams in zoning ordinances to communicate design guidelines effectively and shape development (value: 3 points). Cities' scores improve if, in the downtown, near transit, and in 18 ~ . -~~t~~~i"~:~,Y -ro.' ~il1.~.itl~'';:~r.; .. "'I~ :;;<:;1~~~f~~'!:"~ .J . . I I neighborhood centers, they require parking to go behind buildings (value: 1-2 points), require buildings to extend to the sidewalk with no setback (1-2 points), and make "build to" lines that building fronts must touch (value: 1-2 points). These policies help to create well-defined streets and walkways. In commercial or mixed-use areas outside of downtown, there are several ways to enhance the pedes- trian experience. Cities earn more points by encouraging sidewalks on both sides of the street (value: 2-3 points), and encourage new streets to follow a grid pattern (value: 1-2 points), since that makes areas easier to navigate and often creates the shortest line between two points. Encouraging that on-street parking be provided (value: 1-2 points) helps reduce the size of off-street parking lots. In residential areas, cities earn more points when they encourage side- walks on both sides of the street (value: 2-3 points) and encourage new streets to follow a grid pattern (value: 2-3 points). Cities score higher when they discourage cui de sacs, which can extend the distance pedestrians must walk (value: 1-2 points). Finally, cities should encour- age that garages go behind houses Cities can create more walkable neighbor- hoods, like this one in Petatuma, by adopting delJelopment standards that require sidewalks on both sides of the street. Cities can also require streets to be in a grid pattern without cui de sacs, which helps shorten distances for people on foot. (value: 1-2 points) and discourage "snout houses" with g-arages sticking out the front (value: 1-2 points). This heIps make the street a place for residents and pedestrians instead of cars. For maximum points in each area, these standards should be specified in a zoning ordinance rather than a . policy document. f I. DtJ2 -Da. BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 City Scorecard Analysis Why do some cities score high and others score low? There are a few demographic and geographic factors that help predict cities' performance: population growth rate, population size, household income, and distance from a major metropolitan area (Table 10). Though in some cases, these factors ':He correlated with. cities' performance, they do not determine performance. It is city leadership that matters. Population Growth Faster-growing cities pe~form better than their slower-growing counter- parts in certain policy areas. Faster- growing cities are more likely to have urban growth boundaries, standards I for park proximity, affordable housing policies, and urban design standards for development. These policies are all especially important when cities are first being developed. However, the region's fastest-growing cities are still not doing well overall, averaging only 39% over all policy areas. If fast-growing cities improve their policies to guide that growth, they will see rapid results and significant benefits. For instance, inclusionary housing policies, which ensure that some new homes in every new development are affordable, are most effective in fast-growing areas. Table 10: Factors Correlated With Cities' Polley Performance AVERAGE SCORES , Population AVERAGE OVERALL GROWTH PARK AFFORDABLE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PARKING DEVELOPMENT POPULATION BOUNDARIES PROXIMITY HOUSING DEVELOPM ENT DEN SITY REDUCTION STANDARDS (2003) Highest PDpulation 172,048 43% 33% 35% 43% 85% 44% 38% 39% Higher Population 44.645 40% 41% 43% 42% 83% 28% 28% 32% Lower Population 21,437 29% 13% 20% 25% 86% 25% 21% 31% Lowest Population 6,650 25% 29% 10% 34% 61% 18% 18% 27% PopUlation Growth '. , AVE RAGE OVERALL GROWTH PARK AffORDABLE MIXED-U SE DEVELOPMENT PARKI NG DEVELOPMENT GROWTH RATE BOUNDARIES PROXIMITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DENSITY REDUCTION STANDARDS (1999-2003) Fastest Growth 58% 39% 40% 43% 39% 79% 28% 26% 39% Faster Growth 18% 41% 43% 36% 48% 83% 33% 30% 36% Slower Growth 8% 30% 13% 17% 30% 73% 27% 29% 28% Slowest Growth 1% 28% 8% 14% 27% 81% 28% 20% 26% Distance From Major Metropolitan Area (Major metropolitan areas include San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) AVERAGE OVERALL GROWTH PARK AFFORDABLE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PARKING DEVELOPMENT MILES BOUNDARIES PROXIMITY HOUSING DEVelOPMENT DENSITY REDUCTION STANDARDS Closest 8 34% 24% 23% 30% 81% 33% 28% 27% Closer 17 30% 5% 22% 36% 76% 27% 24% 28% Farther 25 32% 28% 20% 33% 74% 30% 22% 25% Farthest 50 42% 47% 43% 45% 83% 25% 30% 47% Median Household Income AVERAGE. OVERALL GROWTH PARK AFFORDABLE MIXED-USE DEvELOPMENT PARKING DEVELOPMENT INCOME (1999 BOUNDARIES PROXIMITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DENSITY REDUCTION STANDARDS Highest Income $122,822 22% 18% 24% 22% 55% 19% 14% 18% Higher Income $74,340 39% 36% 28% 38% 90% 35% 23% 33% - Lower Income $61,511 36% 23% 29% 32% 88% 29% 31% 35% lowest Income $48,116 41% 40% 27% 51% 82% 32% 36% 41% BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 DttZ-Q.-3 19 Total Population Large cities are somewhat more likely to have growth boundaries, park proximity standards, affordable housing ordinances, and pedestrian- friendly development guidelines. The region's largest cities do relatively well at allowing high density develop- ment and lower parking requirements in their downtowns and near transit. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement, as even the largest cities receive, on average, less than half of the available points in density and parking standards. ,_. L- - ~ 'L ~, _ Distance From Major Metropolitan Area Cities farthest from their respective metropolitan center (San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose) tend to have somewhat stronger growth policies. This is especially true for growth boundaries, park proximity stan- dards, affordable housing policies, and strong development standards. These distant cities most likely devel- oped as discrete towns. Petaluma and Napa, the first- and third-place cities overall, were originally established as regional agricultural centers. In recent years, many of these towns ha ve intentionally strengthened their historical ch~racter, and in the ensuing planning processes, they have adopted smart growth policies. Cities closer to metro areas can adopt smart growth strategies to maintain their character, rather than becoming bedroom communities without a distinct identity. . Household Income In a striking trend, cities with the highest median household incomes have the weakest growth policies. In fact, cities with the highest median 20 incomes have the worst average score, 22 %, of any grouping of cities. Wealthy Bay Area towns are failing their residents and the region. They are not keeping development within growth boundaries. They are less likely to allow mixed-use develop- ment or have pedestrian-oriented development standards. They require, instead of discouraging, low-density development with high amounts of parking. And they do not require that new development include affordable homes. , All Bay Area towns have a respon- sibility to accommodate a growing population in a way that preserves the region's quality of life. At the very least, the region's wealthiest towns should be doing this as well as other towns are. But currently, towns with fewer resources are doing a better job at creating walkable,vibrant downtowns with good development standards. Wealthy towns are not doing their part; but they can, and they should. The Key Factor: A Commitment to Good Growth Ultimately, demographic and geo- graphic factors are not the strongest predictors of which cities have strong smart growth policies. Cities large and small, distant and central, and rich and poor received high smart growth scores. The key factor in a city's smart growth score is the work done by the city planning staff under the leadership provided by the City Council. That means that ultimately, it is up to residents and their elected leaders to commit to good growth. This is good news. It means that, no matter how big a city is, how well-off it is, or where it is, it can do smart planning for growth. Examples already exist right here in the Bay Area; local cities are making each of these policies work. It is simply a matter of learning from one another, and taking the steps to adopt a full set of smart growth policies. Bay Area cities need to do this now. The region is growing fast and there is no time to lose. The policies that guide growth in each city will deter- mine the future of the entire region. Ptr2 ~:J4 BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2006 Reduced Growth Park Affordable Mlxed-Use Devel. Parking Devel. Boundaries Proximity Housing Devel. Density Requirements Standards Overall CITY SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE RANK GROWTH TRANSIT EXEM PT? EXEMPT? Half Moon 73% 0% 63% 85% 10% 31% 18% 37% 45 Exernpt Bay Hillsborough N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 100 Exempt Menlo Park 0% 0% 35% 85% 10% 25% 8% 23% 75 Millbrae N/A 88% 13% 88% 38% 28% 43% 46% 28 Exempt Pacifica 0% 0% 0% 85% 15% 20% 38% 20% 80 Portola 0% 85% 45% 0% 15% 0% 0% 25% 70 Exempt Valley Redwood 0% 0% 13% 93% 28% 33% 23% 25% 71 City San Bruno 0% 0% 0% 93% 35% 33% 15% 24% 72 San Carlos 0% 0% 50% 100% 45% 43% 38% 38% 43 San Mateo 0% 98% 35% 100% 45% 48% 45% 49% 18 South San 0% 0% 53% 93% 50% 70% 40% 41% 36 Francisco Woodside 0% 0% 0% 50% 25% 8% 8% 13% 94 Average 5% :1.4% 23% 67% 28% 24% 20% 25% Score . , , ". Santa Clara County Campbell NjA 88% 0% 100% 15% 20% 23% 41% 38 Exempt Cupertino 73% 88% 60% 43% 13% 3% 23% 41% 37 Gilroy 73% 88% 25% 100% 10% 23% 3% 45% 29 Los Altos 0% 0% 0% 85% 60% 8% 44% 18% 82 Exempt Los Altos 0% 88% 0% 0% 8% 0% 8% 15% 88 Hills Los Gatos 0% 0% 45% 85% 5% 0% 18% 20% 81 Mil pitas ~8% 98% 0% 93% 53% 15% 25% 53% 13 Monte 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 95 Exempt Sereno Morgan Hill 83% 88% 0% 100% 43% 40% 58% 56% 10 Mountain NjA 88% 60% 100% 38% 23% 60% 57% 8 Exempt View Palo Alto 0% 88% 60% 93% 35% 33% 38% 48% 21 San Jose 100% 88% 25% 93% 73% 73% 63% 69% 2 Santa Clara N/A 0% 45% 85% 20% 10% 33% 29% 59 Exempt Saratoga 0% 0% 0% 85% 15% 27% 9% 14% 91 Exempt Sunnyvale 0% 0% 55% 85% 70% 25% 48% 39% 42 Average 4:1.% 53% 25% 76% 30% 20% 30% 37% Score Solano County Benlcia 93% 88% 48% 93% 8% 25% ~ 18% 53% 13 Dixon 0% 0% 0% 50% 10% 10% 5% 11% 97 Fairfield 93% 88% 13% . 43% 18% 60% 38% 46% 26 Rio Vista 0% 98% 38% 100% 20% 4% 53% 39% 41 Exempt Suisun City 0% 98% 0% 85% 10% 23% 48% 37% 46 Vacaville 0% 88% 0% 50% 18% 20% 35% 26% 67 , 3:& Die ~J:;, BAY AREA SMART GROWTH SCORECARD 2066 .::1,- ..,- '.- ':""'-- -- -:Ir.,~~. :- l .- , - . . .. .. ,: '~~~~';'......:,:<'-~~>_..~:T:~"...;:___.. '.;' -_ '."... .. ,.., , ,~ of _., ~ , ; ~: '!~?~ .~;:: :" -' '..,: ~ ':;~~: ~ I ~~'~.:-.".':'~ ::'-,~,,;,'.' ,. ~,'.,~::._,:,~;,,:.','-,._~.:~:.,~.,..'-~.;,':~.'.:~ ':',:.;.,i_:~:;i,;E:,,~~o:;.,',i_.;._.;. \.?,t-,(;:(:\.:,'_.,".~~,..:'~,;. ;";/3 :i:!i.-,},,':.~.I_,:,_;~~_.~,.~.~.,_:,:_:.',_:.;;_.:.;.:.',:~_...:_:~ti~~~,-",i':: :':,~..:.;::..:~?~~::t;;:_ }t\::~:~\,:,', ,1 u. -:-,--,. ,.-.. '.... ;-'." -',:, ... ~' f.~.:..:;:.:-: ,?- " .{ :t:'=- .-~ PHYLLIS MYERS CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, IS NO ordinary affluent suburban commu- nity. Perched atthe foothills of Sili- con Valley's Santa Cruz Mountains, the city is home to Hewlett-Packard, Apple (and one of its founders, Steve Jobs), Sun Microsystems. and a slew of high-tech finns. Since its incorporation in 1955, Cupertino, with its handsome suburbs, green vistas, beneficent climate, and exemplary education system, has seen its population soar to rnore than 50,000 and counting. Discord over growth came to a head recently over CUpertino's city Direct Democracy and Development A mixed-use development with 204 apartments, shops, and a nine-story hotel in downtown Cupertino, CaUfomia, stirred up some discord over growth In the suburban community. 130 ,t:.",' ",-.:, : ,~~ '-' lronically~ the success of the )miJrt. growtb movement in 21f1gag~n9 citilf:1iS HkElly [ti.iS stimulated de-vclopnl~ni referenda by raising expertatioos. among all players: about their ability to shape growth and by encouraging mtterSar1es in go to Ule- mat mther than negotiate. mum building setback of 35 feet in most parts ofthe city. Any changes to these restrictions were to have been approved by voters in another referendum. Another grass-roots group, Advo- cates for a Better Cupertino, argued that the rneasures would exacerbate sprawl and wasteful land use. "Overly restrictive limits on building heights and density would throw the baby out with the bathwater, handicapping our region's ability to accornmodate growth," they said. "Requiring large setbacks is espe- cially shortsighted. Buildings that <'~"_. ..-.,;-,:""-~,, council approval of a mixed-use development with 204 apartments, shops, and a nine-story hoteL While the project was consistent with the municipal's general plan favoring a vibrant, walkable downtown, a grass-roots group called the Con- cemed Citizens of Cupertino saw it as an assault on the city's subur- ban character and placed three ini- tiatives on the November 2005 ballot that called for increasing citi- zens' control over development of this type. The three meaSLlres proposed to amend the general plan to cap height at 36 feet and density at 15 units an acre and to require a mini- U R BAN LA N 0 J U N E 2 0 0 6 a re closer to the street are an inte- gral part of what makes older sub- urbs and shopping districts feel inviting and safe for pedestrians," they maintained. The Cupertino ballot measures triggered the first explicit collabora- tion between the building industry and the San Francisco, Califomia- based Siena Club on a ballot mea- sure. according to Tim Frank, a senior official in the latter's Healthy Commu- nities program. In a joint op-ed piece published in The Merrury News, Frank and Beverty Bryant, executive director of the region's Home Builders Association, explained their reasons for working together: These extreme measures . . . are totally contral)' to principles of smart growth, which promote development within existing cities rather than in open space . . . ' When the home builders and the Sierra Club can agree on the dev- astating impacts. . . it should be clear that they're not in our com- munity's best interest. This unusual alliance may be a harbinger of other opportunities for case-by-case convergence of usually opposing interests. ConselVation- sensitive planners and environmen- tal activists i ncreas(ngly are saying, "We can't always say no. What kind of development do we want to foster?" The development commu- nity is learning that negotiation can smooth the way to "yes" and to profitable projects. Land Decisions at the Ballot However, we are not there yet While the ballot is not a factor in most land decisions, it has become a signifi- cant arbiter in a number of places. Califom ia is the epicenter of this trend, thanks not only to rapid growth and a receptive political cul- ture, but also, as Califomia land use experts William Fulton and Paul Shigley write in their Guide to C11lifor- nia Planning, to initiative-friendly court rulings that "opened the flood- gates for ballot-box zoning." Though associated in the popular rnind with "stop growth" and "no new taxes," ballot rneasures are, in fact. more nuanced. At the statewide leve~ development-related measures include Califomia's Proposition 13, which in 1978 sparked a tidal wave of property tax. restrictions that arguably increased local reliance on fiscal zoning; Colorado voters' recent endorsement of a moratorium on mandated tax. refunds; the 1972 Cal- ifomia Coastallnitiatlve calling for PIf2~:Ji ,. ~..' ' . " '. . : -,' ~::. i more sensitive management of shoreland development; and the dismantling of Oregon's growth management systern in 2005- This November, state measures are likely to include a constitutional amendment to encourage orderly conselVation-sensitive development of Arizona's extensive trust lands and a rash of measures to restrict eminent domain. Local development-related ballot measures have played a catalytic role in sounding alarms over sprawling development around the country, beginning during the 1960s, that evolved into the smart growth move- ment. The measures demonstrated their potency in 1998 when a Wash- ington, D.C.-based Brookings Institu- tion survey "connected the dots" of . othelWise fragmented local meas- ures to reveal a pattern of grass-roots unease about prevailing develop- ment and a surprising wiUingn ess on the part of voters to pay for buying and protecting resource lands as a means of changing course. It is one thing to report poll results; it is another when people approve taxes and debt to back up their opinions. While buying land and financing transit systerns have proven quite popular at the polls, other land refer- enda involving new or modified plan- ning regimes and govemance- general plans, amendments and rezonings, growth caps, urban growth boundaries, and annexation, for example-have been rnore controver- sial, and often opposed by local developrnent and real estate groups. Sometimes statewide and national associations lend support, depending on the projecfs wider implications. "Referendum zoning has the surface appeal of democracy in action but, in the zoning context, it. . . is very destabilizing to orderly planning and social equity and undermines settled land use decisions," the D.C.-based National Association of Home Builders wrote in 2002. Although critics have called the ini- tiative and referendum process an ;-: :.. '-.' , ... ': . .::..;.-::,',- -:(j~?}fc~:''':"i~~t~,f-:-;,:,-);;tY'?'~t:';;;/;'. :'?\f~;::';,?:' . _. FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF STATEWIDE INITIATIVES BY DECADE 400 :3 350 > -300 !;{ 1=250 z ;;::200- o 0; 150~ w ~ 100- ~ 50- o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m m ~ ~ m m gN ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ f. ~ Nole: Tbe IUIlber of In/IlaIIveS In the west coast slates 01 {afjlomla, Oregon, and WashIngton is shown willi dart shading. SOlrte: John 6. MaIsusaka, Died: Democracy Works, JOIIIIlII of Emnomic PerspecIlves, Vol. 19, No.. 2, SpriIg 2005. exotic or even un-American too~ it actually predates women'!! suffiage, Social Security, and the direct election of u.s. senators in this country, John Matsusaka, director of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern Califomia, points out Rooted in the Populist and Progres- sive movements of the late 19th and early 20th century, it empowered citi- zens to bypass or restructure legisla- tures that seemed beholden to spe- cial interests and impervious to meaningful election turnover. Today, this authority exists in 24 states, mostly but certainly not entirely in the West, and in many cities and commu- nities around the country. Supporters contend that refer- enda call attention to emerging pri- orities to which "the system" was not responding. The process moves programs and policies closer to the wishes of the majority, according to Matsusaka, while Elisabeth R. Gerber. professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. believes that it makes "the politics of devel- opment more transparent" Critics counter that the ballots reduce corn pi ex options to simplistic "yes" or "no" votes, permitting narrow or not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) inter- ests to win out over the larger public interest and closi ng out needed nego- tiation and compromise. If voters are dissatisfied with the system, they argue, they sJ:lould vote for new repre- sentatives in regular elections. Recent Development Referenda: Topics, Strategies, Results A sampling of state and local devel- opment-related measures, recently placed before voters or on track for the November ballots, provides fur- ther insights into the complex land issues these ballots address, the reasons for their inclusion on the ballot, the lineup of supporters and opponents, and the implications of these trends for a future that will see substantial growth in the very communities where the initiative and referendum process is most prevalent Urban Growth Boundaries, About 85 California municipalities have adopted some type of growth boundary to contain urban expan- sion, protect farmland, and encour- age denser development Some 48 were adopted between 1990 and 2002, according to a study con- ducted by Gerber. Boundaries adopted by ballot initiative tend to be more extreme than those adopted by elected officials, typi- cally providing that voters must approve any changes, she finds. The real estate industry, builders, and ~~f.~~~+:~~jlt}:}~.'::~~t~ ~~~~t~\ -~;- : " ..: - ,:,,' -'..'., ." ..~ -..", ~~ ..~C).":_,..._ .'. "_L'.;, .;." ~ -' business groups have campaigned vigorously against citizen-driven boundaries on grounds that they reduce the supply of buildable land, raise housing prices, and create inequity. Local elections in 2005 in California's East Bay included four developer-backed modifications to growth boundaries. Of these, two were adopted-despite the opposi tion of environmental groups. Public Lands. In November, Ari. zona voters will decide whether to approve far-reaching changes in the rnanagement ofthe state's 9.3 mil- lion acres of trust lands. The consti. tutional amendment would set aside 694,000 acres in a conserva- tion reserve and create a dedicated i . '::~. ~ ... . . . . ,., '. ~; , . ';{' r- ""... ~'1 ~.'. .r ~ ~ . ";~r: .,- . , -, l ~'. . ~., ~--i~;'.-. '.i' .:,. ," . ". ~ ":;: :-';' r~. revenue stream to pay for stronger oversight ofthe entire trust land estate. "Philosophically, I don't favor use of the initiative on land devel- opment issues," says Luther Propst, director of the Tucson, Arizona- based Sonoran Institute. "But thank goodness Progressives put these measures in place." With three fruit- less legislative campaigns behind him. Propst concludes, ''The legisla- ture isn't providing leadership for development with environmental sensitivity." Supporters of the Arizona mea- sure include, In addition to conser- vationists, major developers of new communities, education groups (trust land revenues finance educa. tion), and many big businesses. While supportive of many of its goals, Tom Farley, vice president for govemm'ent affairs of the Arizona Association of Realtors, says the JUNE 2006 U R BAN LA N 0 131 DII:1.-a '7 --' - - -. -- tl~~f,~~:0r;~1~2t~.::~~i~~r~I~,~~,~.t1ii,~.0~;~t._4i,at.~r organization will consider its official position after the legislative session is over. Opponents, including cattle farmers, have filed a bill in the legis- lature to place a competing meas- ure on the November ballot Annexation. Last November, voters in Prescott, Arizona, a scenic city nestled in a valley near the Bradshaw Mountains, handily approved the Reasonable Growth Initiative, a charter amendment that requires the approval of a superma- jority of the city council for sizable annexations and extends the public cornment period to 60 days before council action on the proposal. Sup- porters say the measure will make annexation more transparent and allow moderate growth, while real estate agen~ and homebuilder groups, who put a tidy sum into a campaign to defeat the measure, contend that it is a "restrictive growth measure" that allows two council mernbers to derail an annexation. Last December, voters in Durango. Colorado, narrowly defeated a stricter annexation measure that called for a referen- dum on most annexation proposals. Planning and Zoning Refonn. Restricting, expanding, or clarifying citizen initiative authority on land issues is a hot topic in quite a few state legislatures and courts. Last July, for'exarnple, Utah's supreme court unanirnously cleared the way for a citizen-initiated referendum on a council-approved pro-develop- ment zoning change in the city of Sandy. Although voters upheld the city's action in the referendum, developers and lawmakers from Sandy sponsored a legislative attack on citizen challenges to adopted land decisions and munici- pal planning authority that. they say. are unreasonably stretching out development decisions in the fast- growing Salt Lake Valley. The bills were derailed, but observers say the issues are not settled. In addition, a state-appointed working group on land use reform in Massachusetts hopes to modify the requirernent that zoning changes must be approved by a two-thirds vote of legislative offi- cials. This is an especially high bar in the 41 towns where the town meeting is the legislative body, crit- ics say. Towns could be given the option of adopting majority rule for zoning changes and holding refer- enda on general plan approvals so that plans will cany more weight when zoning decisions are made. Growth Caps. In 2002. Douglas County, Nevada, voters approved the Sustainable Growth Initiative that capped growth.at 280 units a year in the county outside of the area man- aged by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The cap was premised on a . level of growth consistent ~th the water supply. A group of developers, builders, and construction compa- nies joined with Douglas County to sue for surnmary judgment, arguing that the cap was inconsistent with master plan provisions for orderly growth and restricted the housing supply. The district court agreed, but the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the decision on appeal, holding that the Smart Growth Initiative was "not so inconsistent as to require us to strike down the will of the people by holding it invalid." Further legal action is possible. Transit/Transportation. In 2005, voters approved 21 of 25 measures to finance the local share of trans- portation investments, including transit, in their comrnunities. The DoC-based Center for Transportation Excellence, which tracks these measures, says the business com- munity has been critical to success, providing major financial support for campaigns and rallying support among business leaders. Given the success of transit-oriented develop- ment, development interests are increasingly active players in efforts to pass these measures. the center reports. Big-Box Development. Diverse ballot measures around the country 132 U R BAN LA N 0 J UN E 2006 FIGURE 2: STATES WITH INITIATIVE IN 2004 (ADOPTION YEAR IN PARENTHESES) co (910) AK (1956) NO (1914) SD (1893) NE (1912) OK (1907) Solfie: Jom Go Matsusaka. "Direct Demoaacv Works," JownaI 01 Emnomlc Pmpedlves, VoL 19, No.2. Spring 2005. in 2005 challenged decisions by elected officials to accommodate or reject big-box development While citizen groups have been prime rnovers of these referenda, develop- ers increasingly are sponsors, too. "Wal-Mart is not shy about present- ing its case directly to voters," Shigley observes. The results are mixed: in November 20CJ4, Hudson, Ohio, rejected a developer's request to rezone land for a 350,000-square- foot shopping center that would be exempt from local zoning as well as from architectural and environrnen- tal review, while Talbot County, Ma1)lland, voters upheld a cap on retail stores of more than 65,000 square feet after lowe's challenged the county decision. Wal-Marfs bid for citizen blessings for a proposed supercenter in Ingleside, California, was rejected in an April 2004 refer- endum in that city. Belfast, Maine, voters relaxed a voter-approved ban on big-box stores in a limited sec- tion of the historic town, and lodi, Califomia, rejected a citizen initiative that would have required voter approval for stores larger than 125,000 square feet Eminent Domain, Two statewide referenda on the Colorado ballot in November are among a series pro- posing to tighten the rules under ~hich private property can b~ taken by lecal governments for economic development projects. Builders are divided on the issue, says Lany Morandi of the Denver, Colorado- based National Conference of State Legislatures. "Redevelopers do not want to see eminent domain cur- tailed and new developers raise issues of property rights." While the f1uny of legislative activity would suggest that ballot measures are redundant. proponents know that successful referenda can help move legislation forward. Why Is This Happening? "My impression is that ballot-box zoning comes into play when local planning processes have failed," observes David Goldberg, communi- cations director of D.C.-based Smart Growth America. "Citizens are react- ing to rapid growth, to their percep- tion that they don't know the process. and they want to control it," explains Debbie Basser!, assis- tant staff vice president for land use policy of the D.c.-based National Association of Home Builders. The ballot measures "fly in the face of intelligent growth," says Colorado developer Paul Banu, who never- theless recognizes that people are acting "out of frustration." OIl< -~~ :~f~{~~jj~_ir;;f',':~i'_:~".. . . ...., - .. . . !;::~ :':/ ~:: ~:t:;"~'.:~:.;~:~:~-';\';~~~~~~:~ 2~-:'-< .~. ':.....:..~:~.~.- p ~ .c[(:,.; ". ~~~ .;...J _,.. ::::. ,,:;':,,:, n ...... :~"r__ Ironically, the success of the . smart growth movement in engag- ing citizens has probably stimulated development referenda by raising expectations among all players about their ability to shape growth and encouraging adversaries to go to the mat instead of patiently negotiating. As the players get more sophisti- cated about each other's priorities as well as their respective power, and weigh on-the-ground outcomes and the costs of campaigns and liti- gation, a new trend is emerging, says Tom Steinbach, president of Greenbelt Alliance, based in the San Francisco Bay Area. "This is very early," he cautions. ''We are still seeing many of the old-type measures. But we're. also starting to see developers who are interested in compact growth and infil~ and environmentalists, including Green- belt Alliance, who are putting our actions where our talk has been." Greenbelt Alliance has worked quietly with developers and land- owners in several large projects in the Bay Area involving transit--ori- ented infill and new development inside urban growth boundaries. While the controversial scale of the projects could put them on track for a ballot measure, the parties decided to try to achieve the best possible result and avoid pro- tracted referenda and litigation. uAt the end of the day, we stood with the developers and landown- ers, and it was a good result," says Steinbach. All sides are aware of the pitfalls of this ~pproach and guard the legitimacy their support gives to a project Gerber's research lends cre. "We are sWt seeing many of the old-type measures, But we're atso starting to see devefopers who are interested !rl comport Qrowth ~md [11m/, I.' . ilEl elWirOiti i'ielniWSC ArilU c' i !,~ putting our actions where our talk has been,!! dence to this new pragmatisrn. She found that interest group endorse- ments and public sweeteners, including sorne directed to neigh- borhoods most affecte~ by the pro- posed development, gamered needed voter support for developer- sponsored measures in San Diego. "By fOlTTling coalitions with local interest groups and involving them in the local process, governments and developers can build support for new development" This is not a panacea forthe con- flicts over development that are evi- dent in many American communi- ties, but it is an emerging trend worth noting. U. PHYLLIS MYERS lsaWishington,D.t-oosed plaMklg mnsullinl and member of lhe boIJrd 1If iIdvIseIS of lhe InIlIaIlve & Referelllllm IlISIIIute wllo iIIIVIses gowmments, nOfllJOlll: organlzilllons, and buslnesses on sIaIe and loCill deVl!lopment and finance ballot measures. .' Cap Cana. Dominican RepubliC WWN.frederiksledlodFlf_Com Marina Villages Mega-Yacht Facilities Development Planning MarketJFeaslblllty Studies Design-Build-Develop ~@ ~ c""OT...LnsT....c1IITIIu.n.".... DEVI!:LO..MIIi....T JUNE 2006 URBAN LAND 133 J){ 12- ..-:.y.f 530 homes planned for Mayfield site Page 1 of2 ~"~,~",~''''''","''~<>>.,......n,~.,.~~:~'':'''e''''''''''''~'''''''''''''~''''''''~..._;:;.:;;;:i'F..:,.,:u..,_.......'.,_"""""',,:,~_M<.,.~..,:..:-;.:::.~:e~"""~"'.,,~,,-=:"""_''''''''';:~''''-.;,,;..~,,.~:;--~,;c-.::.:.......,,'.......",..,..~'''',..."...,''''_''''_'''_,~,._:...,,:,,:_.'~,,~,,:~'''u,~_,,:;''''''''I''''''~9<_"~,;;''',,::.:,,::::;::;''''''';''';~;,-;--_~,,., Posted on Mon, Jul. 03, 2006 530 homes planned for Mayfield site BV Renee Koury Mercury News The Mountain View City Council's unanimous approval last week of plans for 530 homes at the site of the former Mayfield Mall opens the way for the city's biggest single housing development of the past decade -- and possibly the largest for years to come. Still, even though neighbors worry about the onslaught of cars, crowds and condos, city leaders say the big development doesn't come close to meeting the high demand for more housing in the valley. . 'There are 200,000 people who commute into Santa Clara County each day, and this is just 530 more homes," said Mountain View Councilman Greg Perry. "It's a very nice, small step in the right direction. Very nice, but very small." The Association of Bay Area Governments projects more than 1 million people will move into the nine-county area in the next 20 years. Under state mandate, Santa Clara County must make room for about 7,700 new housing units each year. The Mayfield development is even larger than Whisman Station, with 515 units adjacent to the 'ITA light-rail line along Central Expressway, built in the mid-199Ds, city planners said. Councilman Matt Pear said increasing supply can lead to more moderate housing prices. , . Since the mid-90s, there's been a big push by housing advocates to allow more high-density housing," he said. . 'We've made a commitment to look at areas that can support more housing" near public transit. That doesn't quell the concerns of people in the neighborhoods of Monta Lorna, Greenmeadow, Rosewalk and San Alma. that surround the Mayfield development. The mall site, which later became a Hewlett-Packard campus, sits on 26 acres straddling Palo Alto and Mountain View, at San Antonio Road and Central Expressway. Opponents se.e potentially devastating impacts in developer Toll Brothers' plans to plunk three- and five-story condos, town houses and retail space on 21 of those acres in Mountain View. Up to 48 more homes could be built on the five acres that fall within Palo Alto. Neighbors, many of whorn have conducted their own surveys on noise and traffic, say the city is cramming too rnuch into what has been a pleasant suburban enclave. Hundreds of people flooded City Hall with letters In the weeks before Tuesday's vote that approved the project's concept. Hundreds more submitted written objections over the past two years. Officials counter that the region could benefit by putting more homes near public transit; the site is near Caltrain's San Antonio train station. But neighbors say few people use that rail station because trains stop there so infrequently. They worry that residents of the new development wfll join the commuter cars along clogged San Antonio Road, or worse, cut through their neighborhoods to get out of the jams, , 'We are not opposed to development per se," said Elna Tymes, president of the Monta Lorna Neighborhood Association. . . We know something wfll go in there, and housing makes a lot of sense. The question is how much." After two years of filing objections to the plan, neighbors won a few concessions. Those included a new stoplight on Thompson Avenue, about a half-acre of extra parkland and a promise to try to keep as many mature trees as possible on the site. The city council also added a requirement for a pedestrian tunnel under busy Central Expressway, in part to help riders get to Caltrain. http://www.mercurynews.comlmldlmercurynews/newsllocal/14956905.htm ?template=conte... 7/312006 Df R -30 530 homes planned for Mayfield site Page 2 of2 . 'The fight isn't over yet/" said Tymes, the Monta Loma resident. "There's still plenty oftime for us to get some of what we demanded," such as wider traffic lanes, fewer housing units and especially more parking. , . I wish we could have gotten more mitigations, more traffic improvements/" Councilman Perry conceded. "But this is a good opportunity. It won't solve the housing problem. but it's a start." -..""""..~ ,"',"' ,.. _~~>,... I '''' ,.~,'.'''''''M-';-'--..r,--'~-'"'~' .._~,...,'''''''~____.....___. "..",--....."..,..,...-~_,"""......................-.-......,.~."+""',.,.""""" ~ ,. ,',,"w;._""'''''MC~~;-_~'''''''~-~-''''''_~''''_~~''__'''''''''. -. ,,~c~..--~,~~,.._~,...-_~~__............................."".. Contact Renee Koury at rkoury@mercurynews.com or (650) 688-7598. ,. 'i/!lh ~'.~\~h:nn,.N,~\',; I_:l~~;; ;~ild ,.:\,ja~ .~('l'dC..' :>t~iHC~:.-: /\n g;pl'l\ H:'<:t:ll...:cd hiq! ;,'\-'w\\'\\: m~n;liJ\lh:.:\)"-']._t..i.)lH http://www.mercurynews.com/mldJmercurynews/news/local/14956905.htm?template=conte. .. 7/3/2006 f)tIJ. "31 .. .AIIE 13 JulIE 30, 2001I SIUCON VAllEY I SAIl JOSE BUSINESS JOURNAL aanjDle,bIljo.umlls,cum I:nterpnslng IrJeas I Family business Secrets of three brothers' success with father's business II ...... 11 l~ 'L-."" '.-~,,1 High-density ADVOCATE )')~\:":.'.~::.: . ,~:. .;'--" . .. .,. ~ ~ _. , : .~ .. 'c- '", . . ),", 'J':':":ii~~iY!~:/'*~!~~~~i~Ji~1&~~1~iit.~~1f~\i:;,: , .. .., ....~. ."",.-".~~,.,\.,,..j'<-'-l"'~:!-' \'/"-......; . .. ..":: .;i<.; 1;?1S.~;'.~~;!~~~j!';:):T:~"">" .. :":".. ;,- ....".4. . ,\r,' .: ";" ~ lPlllClll_,S,lIIF__;SJIIII' IIEHRlG ON DOWIIT1IWN: Ckls MllnJ Df WnSOh MIIIIJ Sulllv.n, a. "JOcale I.t mlled-lIIl, hlgh-dlhslly denllplllnl, II _ndlnllhlllnmll-lltJ, InII1 pIlIjlcll are Ihl WlIl' I. 11'. Developer Chris Meany looks for the legacy projects D'r' 1.1l. DINEEN AND SMARDN SIMONSON jkdIn_@bbjMnBls.CIIII 5IlIllDlllDII@bIzjNJoIILCGfII density housing,'" he says. "But we think there is also another group of people, YOlmll'er people, who do, who want high- rise living with a pool and fitness center versus a lawn. ~ The demand that developer Federal Re- alty Investment Trust saw when U de. cided to sell the condoll at Santana Row - "8 manufactured downtown" _ proves his point, he adds. "You see holl' well people reo sponded to that. Won't they also want to live in the real verslon~ of downtown San Jose, he asks. Besides that, he says, all that Wllson Meany and ClM need to make downtown San Jose's Cen. Chrts Mean, tralPlace development a success Wilson Meany Sullivari are 4DD buyers, not the entire city of San Jose. . But while transit-oriented in- fin housing is trendy public poliCY. it's not always popullU' with real people who don't work at City Hall. In San Mateo, downtown's time is now that it has agreed to pal'lner with Hollywood developer CIM Group to bund what, when It is done, wUl be the largest high.rlse resldentiai com- plex yet in the valley'sllU'gest urban core. The project's pricetag is $230 mUlion.. Behind Mr. Meany's optimism are what he sees as South Bay success stories in. The vh.tues of mixed-use, high-denslty development are commonly quoted In the South Bay's myriad city planning dep8l'l- ments today, . But for developer CJu:is Meany and his firm, Wilson Meany Sul- llvan, such words are backed bY' deeds, In projects from San Mateo's Bay Meadows' remake,to a two- tower high-rille condo develop- ment in downtown San Jose, the . company is betting big on the success of inner-c1ty, 1nfill pro} eels. Along the way,. It Is tak- Ing substantial financial risk and some con:uiaunity heat. Mr. Meany, however, appears undaunted. Lots oC folks have discussed downtown San Jose's potential "Cor a very long Ume," he concedes, and thus far, success "has been elusive," . But Wilson Meany Is so conndent that 'We think there Is also another group of paople...who want high-rise livIng with a pool and a fitness center versus a lawn: ., volving at least two mixed.use develop- ments, coupled with "a periodIc change in taste" within some sectors of the local populace, "When we go to speak to some groups, they tell us, 'We don't want your hlEb- $Ie PIlIIFI.E, PIp 14 f)j Ie .-8A Enterprise 14 THEBUS1NESsJOURNAl. sanjose.blzjoumale.com JUNE 30, 2008 . pROFILE: Pruneyard developer tackles turbulence with mixed-use plan for Bay' Meadows project .. Mr. Meany and his partners factl stawlch opposition to the Bay Meadows project, which includes 1,250 homes, 1.2 mllHon square feet of offices, 15 8C!"'S of parkland and 150,000 square feet of stores and 1...5. taurtmts. Opponents of the plan to demolish the historic Bay Meadows racetrack falled to get enougb signatures to place the issue before volers In the June election. But they are not glvillg up. Donna Bischoff of the group Save Bay Meadows says the developers lack an understanding of San Maleo's culture and histOl'Y. "Meany .., Is trying to Impose his own lifestyle preference on people who moved to the suburbs be. cause they wanted to distance themselves from the urban envirolUnenl," she Sllys. . Mr. Meany, who grew up In Ihe suburban com. munlty of Pasadena but now lives In San Francisco, says he understands whY the rhetoric of so-called new urbanism is threatening to older suburbanites. "If you raised your family In a suburban world In which everybody had a single-famlly home and you made those lifestyle choices and suddenly somebody is cpmlng along saying 'there Is a better wa'J to live,' you could get very defensive about thaI," he says. But with housing costs among the most ellpensive 111 the coWltry and traffic cboklng even far.flung suburbs, many young Bay Area families long for a different kind of housing and lifestyle than they grew up with, he believes. uYounger peuple recognize that their only road to home ownership and security lies in adopting a new development model," Mr. Meany says. Mr. Meany said he Is not trying to I-am allY thing down the community's throat. "A long time ago we got over the notion that you just go into a back office and draw a land plan that makes you the most amount of money and go Iry to sell it to people:' he says. Mr. Meany, 46, came to land development the Ion. gel' way around. Aner graduating from Georgetown Unlversit)' with a degree in economics, Mr. Meany went to worlt for a medtcal technology company. When the Food and Dl'ug Administration rejected the project he was working on, he lost bis job. He concluded he didn't have the technical expertise to make it In medical products. So he started looking [or other options. "1 WM looking for a product thai a simple guy liIle me can understand," he says. "Well. people have been building buildings for a few thousand years. I tbought. 'I ought to be able to figure that out.''' He landed a summer job overseeing a l...tail proj. ect in Florida with a small British company, Aston Development, whose owner, Art Kean, was Investing Saudi money bl historic luanslon8. Eventually As. ton Development sent Mr. Meany to San Fi:ancisco, where he was put in charge of the redevelopment of 48 Stockton St., tbe fanner 1. Magnin headquarters where FAO Schwartz eventually moved. Mr. Kean also sent the young Mr, Meany to Paris and umdon to "walk the slreets and get Ideas." Mr. Kean instilled in him the twin virtues of good 'Younger people recognim that their only road to home ownership and security lies in adopting a new development model.' Chris Meany Wilson Meany Sullivan real estate; "He was fairly rigorous about the need to develop pro formas and to be (financially) analytlc, on the one hand, and, on the other, encouraged me to understand the more artful side of the business." In 1989, at 29, Mr. Meany struck out on his own. He wall hired to l...develop the Flood Building at Powell and Markl!t streets In San Francisco, where Jim Flood paid him a developer's fee to carve up and find lIew tenants for the 100,Ooo.squa1....foot build. ing. He landed the Gap as an anchor tenant, and the restoration caught the eye of Peninsula l...al estate tycoon William WIlson, who hired him to l...develop the PruneYard, a struggling shopping, office. and hotel complex In Campbell now owned by ChIcago's. Equity Office Pt'opel'tles Trust. . While not a true lnix.ed.use development In todllY'S sense of the phrase, the PruneYard, buUt some 411 CIIIIS MEANY P..... ...... ....111 SlIIlhran '. AU':.\8 Pnlllllllal rJqIerllIIl.l; U'" ~ofWlan UIlIlll',IIInn llUliell 1IIIIll. 'NIna .189&; Prilr IIlho~ bad I1ls om ....... prlcUce, $ptIl!o~ llilllllo hIgIHalu.. mhod-u....nd ,oloa dievelopmen.sj beullO t'3reef in Ihe New Yorl( office.r Asloo O...lop_1 CDlp. wlIIro lie..... tile ro~ or. IIIIIIH of pn;eoIIlIIdudI1g Iho VlIIIiZJlIr ill PaIni IIIodi FIoride lIlld 48 StoctI8n ill S. fnnd1cI. E-.u.; IladMr of Arts ill 0CIIIlIII0cs /rOIII1lMIJIlIMl UMer~I,. FIJIIIr; lIlfrIed with I"" children H_: s.. FnnI:lm HRIIM: SIIIfIIIIIlIIlllh. F"'1 P1w't IIf\lIlfI mocbt. FAST TRACK: Chris Maony hIS pr..,IS" 1,2511 ~Olllet ..d 1.2 11111II1 oquan rill 01 .metls. Ind \50,llIO slplI(Iloot of slIoI .... rlllIurlnb al BIY MIMlnn. mll'lR UOWI ( SNI rLlilftlSr.tr _IS lUll years ago, In some ways foreshadowed the approach. Today, the PruneYard's nearly 600,000 square feet of shops and offices are almost completely full, lInd the project, which Includes a 17H'oom hotel, "pel-' forms very well, year after ye 8l" after year," says Mark Gelsreitel', EOP's sentor vice president for the San Francisco regIon. That success is the fruit of EOP's continued investment In the project, but also Is attributable to MI'. Meany's additions and th", original concept, Mr. Geisreiter says. In 1996, Mr. Meany and Mr. Wilson formall:.ed their relatlonshlp, formIng Wilson Meany to do high-end infill p1'Ojects in the $20 lnilllon to $40 million range. After a ZOOO partnership wtth EOP dissolved within three years. the two went back out on their own in partnership with Tom Sullivan. The firm employs 35 people now. While many developers test the capital markets each time they have a new project, Wilson Meany Sulllvan Is luckY to have Terry Fancher's Stock. bridge Partners. a private real estate fund, as a consistent financial backer. "Tbe relationship allows us to be both stronger and more nimble," Mr. Meany says. Karen Alschuler, a principal with the architecture and urban planning finn SMWM, who worked with Mr. Meany on redeveloping San Francisco's Ferry Building and on a 5;500-home v1l1age for Treasure Island, says Mr. Meany brings "a fresh !lye." "Chris Is definitely one of a kind,"'she says. On the Ferry Building development. Ms. Alschul- er says it was Mr. Meany who pushed to limit the retail portion to regional food producers, even dur- ing the poor economic times, when It was difficult to find tenants. Now the bulldin g Is fullY occupied and the food hall alone generated more than $50 million In revenue last year. Michael Cohen, San Francisco's director of base reuse deveiopment, says Mr. Meany Is an unusual combination of "creative and pragmatic." "Too often the pragmatists give yoU projects that are boring, and the creative ones give you projects that don't pencil," says Mr. Cohen, who Is working closely wIth Mr. Meany on the Ti'easure Island proj- ect. "Chris has the ability to rind the place whel~ they overlap." J.1. DlIlESl.mrs m!ealllt lor Ibe 81111 Frondlco 8~mess Times, III .lllillBd ,WIIPlIIfI. snMllfl SIMONSON cl'ltf' no! 1S1...lor 1111 BIIllnocS JIIIJTlIl Rnell horr It (4001 ZBlI-1B53. Plr2.. -33