Growth Issues

By Pia C. Jensen

Responses to questionnaire form Realtor's group - a hodge podge of issues.

Planning for a city, or jurisdiction, utilizing information and data of the community to enhance, protect and evolve the community's resources and qualities, taking into consideration current and future visions.

For example, in Cotati, as a smart growth proponent, I choose to ask for information on projects that includes:

Impacts upon our businesses, road infrastructure, water, sewer, police, maintenance, schools, as well as cultural and historical resources. Without this information gathered for our review, as councilmembers, I don't believe we can make well informed decisions, nor can we implement the visions we have delineated in our General Plan, (GP.)

Specific examples of the types of conditions I call for when development proposals come forward are:

Shared space for community activities, as outlined in our GP regards park space. Use of non-potable water for dust mitigation considering restrictions on, and costs of water. Hi density housing and mixed use development to help us meet the State's Housing numbers and cut down on sprawl potentials.

2. Measure I (RHI):

I have chosen to take no position on this measure because:

a. The development of the document was not inclusive - neither I, nor my City Council was approached for our views and input.

b. I believe in local control.

c. The manner in which this measure is promoted has caused divisiveness in Sonoma County, just as the campaign to widen HWY 101 did.

d. Though, I do believe in regional planning, I do not believe that this measure is as good as it can be without the input of more organizations and the public.

3. Association of Bay Area Governments housing numbers (actually predefined by Dept of Finance and Housing and Community Development):

a. Agencies are bound by law to show good faith in attempting to meet the numbers allocated to their jurisdiction. In working with ABAG on the Housing Methodology Committee, I discovered several issues that I believe are the downfall in the creation of those numbers:

1. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Department of Finance (DOF) have rigid and binding formula requirements that make the outcome an impossible set of goals for communities to achieve in this social and economic paradigm that we live with.

2. Concerns of those on the committee were not taken seriously by HCD and DOF. This reality has caused legislation to correct some, not all, of the flaws in the process of allocating numbers to jurisdictions.

I believe it is incumbent upon jurisdictions and interested parties, to work together to try and meet the portions of the requirements that are realistically possible, hence my work with the Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Working Group on housing issues.

b. I believe that all jurisdictions need to work together in trying to resolve long standing issues between communities. It is unfortunate that some communities have glaring imbalances in their housing/industry make-up.

Some of the outcomes I believe can be achieved in working together are valuable project visions for our futures, such as:

• Mapping jobs with housing resources.

• Creating viable second story housing over retail and commercial businesses.

• Greater access to state and federal resources in resolving transportation issues.

• Stronger working relationships with neighboring jurisdictions leading to healthy and creative planning.

I believe that all development proposals need to be examined as to how they will impact housing stock and prices. Taking into consideration such factors as:

a. Shortages of labor in construction causing excessive construction costs.

b. Impacts upon roads and highways to handle commute traffic.

c. Availability of space for housing and job production, as well as water costs/sewer capacity.

Taking these types of factors into consideration are necessary to weigh the value of requiring housing of job producing projects, and vice-versa.

In the end, I believe all communities should strive to achieve a healthy balance of jobs and housing.

5. Business impact fees to assist in low-mod income housing development:

In working on the housing issue, I have come to agree with others in the community who have expressed interest in achieving housing goals, that we need to assess the impacts of all development and spread out the costs as appropriate. To me, this means:

a, Lobbying the state and federal governments to assist jurisdictions in meeting the very low and low income requirements.

b. Assessing existing and new business for their participation in developing housing for work forces.

c. Tapping all resources available for labor to create housing where shortfalls exist, e.g.:

1. Student labor in exchange for student loan debt payoff.
2. Prison labor.
3. Sweat equity programs.
4. Development agreements that include creative projects to meet the housing needs of students with shared facilities and for agency employees to encourage employee residency in their employer's jurisdiction.

6. My view on 1% growth policy in Sonoma County as proposed by some:

I believe that before we begin advocating legislation regards growth percents, we first need to examine the causes of growth with an eye to reducing those outcomes wherever possible. It is time that we all begin discussing population growth as it is the cause of our problems.

Through this method we can best evaluate our options. For example, by taking up the discussion of growth we can begin truly weighing impacts on resources, including water, timber, costs of living, cost of electricity, use of carcinogenic fuels...

I think that setting a growth restriction first is perhaps a stop gap measure, that could allow for a respite in growth, but it may well be that 1% is too much growth for some areas and would not be an effective tool in achieving a sustainable community. It seems a dangerous way to control impacts of growth.

Were I to conceive of a planning document to achieve the goal I presume the activist community is trying to achieve, I would first advocate regional planning measures be implemented utilizing state resources and the incredible resource of intelligence we have in our Universities.

7. Water conservation policies:

Yes, I do support more effective water conservation policies. Desertification (continued drought conditions and loss of water resources around the world,) is an issue we need to meet head on. I don't see that we have any choice but to implement such policies as:

a. Double plumbing in all new development, as San Jose requires.

b. Re-plumbing utilizing state and federal conservation resources to assist existing business and property owners.

c. The promotion of gray water use in all communities for landscapes and where acceptable, edible gardens.

d. Ground water recharge where feasible.

e. use of treated waste water for all agricultural, (not just vineyards,) and high demand water users in industries, e.g. car washes, restaurants (dishes only,) and manufacturer's using water in production.

8. Who should provide for Infrastructure:

a. My philosophy is that it is the agency's responsibility to provide services/community amenities and maintenance of those services and amenities. It is also incumbent upon the agency to find the resources to fund and implement those services and amenities. Whether through grants for community activities, funding from the state or federal government for road and utility infrastructures, as well police services, and to include imposing fees on development that brings growth.

I also believe, though, that cities need to work within their means - if a city can not fund services, or provide public spaces, for example, then the city needs to re-evaluate its growth potentials and the services it can provide without negatively impacting its general and enterprise funds. Cities need to be creative and realistic in their funding mechanisms.

b. The community, if it wishes to have certain types of development, or public amenities, needs to share in the cost of implementation and ongoing maintenance, along with the development community and the city.

It used to be, prior to Proposition 13 and subsequent state take-aways and unfunded mandates, that cities could afford to provide for the public's desires. Those days are past and, as you know, the burden shifted to the development community. I believe, the community itself, needs to now step forward and help support those projects they deem to be beneficial to the community. Cities alone can not pay for development and the mitigations needed to lessen the impacts of development.