Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 06/22/2005
SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers - City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue June 22, 2005 6:00 p.m. —9:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. OVERALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF David Crosby, Chair Marina Sukup, AICP John G. Carroll—Vice Chair Greg McCormick, AICP Fred Beaulac Scott Kuhta, AICP Robert Blum Mike Basinger, Assoc. Planner Gail Kogle William Gothmann Deanna Griffith Ian Robertson www.sookanevalley.ora (Note: no original agendas were saved;this was re-created based on June 22, 2005 minutes) North Greenacres Neighborhood Revised Recommendations For Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan Draft Submitted June 22, 2005 and Jane:23, 2005 4 $ f '," ' __ y f^6"'3.y $x s f kA z: e.,.GM ,�?r ,,•:.-., . { i. .t y:t�b :1,:s':, -..;),..4. t�. t- ,}a. .� � u 7^s�A e r s•. 7' � '� v .. -;--'"k . �^`�+... ' s •-�, ,. ':a ,��. ,---'4'rt5,`i K' +l t{ ;a'-+ r•t'--,'''t s .y r -y.ry V,I.,,I.,i114'r '� "` p ` I r :.' 5 i t % _ -- ,ay ..;;Ni S✓t� a,_ '4--'4�y/�sT.,{�x€ti+w 'fi�.��1'•��'- F* 3V�.-f? '�+ __ C��4 t'$��—t �4 7 •r � `����✓� t.+YW1 Stti-'i`2srry C'Sw'7i t� North Greenacres Neighborhood has worked hard researching , ,,.� - :P} r4&0- policies,rt what are best planning practices, read Spokane Valley's 5 'oi -. , Comprehensive Plan Draft,'and organized a representative f.,-._-,,.... Y '' �' t. 9� ;$0-,;;., a - i„ ,t 5 r substantial compilation of comments and recommendations. ,4-*1,4-4-44,1; � y- , We have concluded that Spokane Valley needs a dedicated chapter V I.-:;-;g1: 2';`'.. , - for Sub-Area/Neighborhoods in order to most effectively plan for s z;. T. 0, �� �.-� .�� ��,�._, these areas. A simplified process that guides all citizenry lays a Ale, foundation for more participation and better representation of . w: 1, ,. -, community expectations and needs. egiA:-. atc.4'' Ft : The Chamber of Commerce has also made recommendations on . t � f:` , Sub-Area Planning that demonstrates how Economic Development ti 4 . `� '„ can be improved incorporating these concepts. We strongly encourage a draft chapter or section for Sub- f• "' Area/Neighborhood Planning be recommended for inclusion in Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. Sample language and policies are a starting point for discussion. Impact Fees are an effective tool for economic development and to provide infrastructure. Fear and assumptions, by some groups, that this is economic disaster are shown to be misguided in a very respected, well researched study. We have included this study in g< ` -;-A the addendum to help provide a more complete understanding of ��y(7 ..- ��y; c4 impact fees. , wLpf-.-5,�,art-_'...,.....;•:4-",,,,,t.,:1-;:-41 -- 3 W,`u".,-; 3y .:,: 'ei`a;G^y ..Y-.yam, — . Your careful deliberation and recommendations will shape our future. Sincerely, 4 t `� Mary Pol.rd f':- 1 ii ' ' North Greenacres Neighborhood Chair Ts+s rr t 4 1. Opening Remarks 2. Letter "Quality of Life" 3. Index of Outlined Major Recommendations for Inclusion in SVCP A. Present SVCP Draft Needs a Dedicated Neighborhood Chapter and integration of these goals through all chapters. i. Sub-Area/Neighborhood as a Dedicated Chapter or Section Submission of Policies, Goals and Ideas as Discussion Points. (pages 6-13) B. Agricultural/Livestock Uses need to be legally protected by goals and policies that recognize these uses throughout Spokane Valley as legitimate uses protected through adoption of Zoning Codes and Development Regulations. (These are notably absent in SVCP draft) C. Transportation policies that permit flexibility in street design. D. Street Lighting - Goals and Policies to preserve our night skies within our Comprehensive Plan. E. Zoning Classifications- Development Regulations create predictable and stable sub-area/neighborhoods. F. Impact Fees - Change Actual Cost of Development Impacts for Parks and Schools and Transportation Improvements. G. Parks-Obtain Park land for future park development- utilize collaborative partnerships—such as school/parks. H. Preserve and Add Trees with Mitigation Policies and Plantings 4. Draft Chapter Comments Chapter 2 Comments - Land Use- Livestock and Agriculture,Zoning, Development Regulation Policies,Cultural and Historical Preservation Chapter 3 Comments-Transportation Chapter 4—Comments - Capital Facilities,Concurrency Chapter 5—Comments - Housing &Neighborhoods Chapter 7 Comments - Economic Development Chapter 8 Comments - Natural Environment,Critical Areas Addendum North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 1 North Greenacres Neighborhood Official Comments Comments on Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan Draft June 22, 2005 and June 23, 2005 Our neighborhood has been made aware that the Planning Department had misconstrued the comments that were hand delivered in April 2005. This was thought to be either an entire Neighborhood Chapter or even worse a poorly constructive Neighborhood Plan. It is our pleasure to assure the Planning Department, City Council, and Planning Commission that we have done what we were asked. We read the Draft Plan and as directed by staff, noted what was not present in the Comprehensive plan draft and made recommendations and comments on what was in the Comprehensive Plan Draft. We made an attempt to organize the information. Most likely this was simply a human error of skimming through and missing the information in the cover letter that led to this misunderstanding. We must note that we were assured at GMA community meetings by staff, "We're going to write what we think you told us, and if we didn't get it right, tell us and we'll go back and do it again." We took them at their word. Another interesting rumor regarded the formation of a Spokane Valley Neighborhood Council. We are not interested in setting up a pseudo-governmental organization that weighs in on everything. Our goal has been to have neighborhood associations, business and other recognized agencies and staff coordinates and work together when it directly benefits or effects an area. With that said, and having clarified any misunderstanding, hopefully now, we are all on the same page. The City staff has done an extraordinary job of compiling and writing a technical and important tome of work in record time. In light of all their other duties and the enormous workload that is entailed in public meetings as well as the routine work of the city, we would like to extend our sincere thanks for their efforts. The short period of time between the announcement of the new draft, received on May15, 2005 via email and the time allotted for public North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 2 hearings, June 1, June 16, June 22, and June 23, constitute a cautionary concern for the legitimacy of public participation. Time is not adequate to read the new document, and coordinate our comments. Despite poor attendance, it should not preclude more opportunities for those who desire to have meaningful participation that provides thoughtful response. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 3 Preserve Quality of Life The final product of our first comprehensive plan will have far reaching ramifications. Quality of life can easily be lost in the pursuit of what is deemed efficient or useful. Our legislature as well as many other areas of the country, believe quality of life is of prime importance. (...uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and wise use of our lands,pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of this state,)RCW 36.704 010 Lake Oswego, spent a year studying the impacts of anticipated growth, in order to write a detailed growth policy to protect the community from likely impacts. Quality-of-life indicators were created to measure quality of life, and are incorporated into development regulations as criteria for determining impacts of future development on the community. The benefits gained by growth may only enrich a few while the real cost in terms of higher taxes, congestion, and quality of life will be felt across the entire community. The cumulative cost of each action exponentially increases over time. Change does not just alter the environment but has the power to change our quality of life. This poses a challenge and the ability to utilize the many talents across our community to bring the needed wisdom to balance change. The true measure of whether we have achieved "growth"or merely density lies in quality of life. Our legislature in writing, The Growth Management Act, recognized there was not consensus of what entails wise use of our land. They passed this Act to promote wisdom and quality of life, utilizing a bottom up process so the citizenry would shape this plan. Neighborhoods have become a fundamental building block of wise planning. Once growth in one area is filled, it looks to another area. The quality of what is left determines the future, not growth. Looking at an individual home without ever looking inside would not make one adept at planning the rooms. You could make general assumptions but choice of colors, furniture, and carpeting without getting this family's desires would be a recipe for disaster. This is what a comprehensive plan without a detailed Sub- area/Neighborhood section comprises. Management is the other side of this Act. Practices that ignored the existing land uses by designating them as non-conforming uses would seem to ignore the legislative mandate to preserve our high quality of life. Preserving existing large parcel uses may well provide future needs for parkland as the city becomes more fiscally solvent, while providing green and open space for both aesthetic and environmental protection. The following comprises our recommendations. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 4 Outline of Major Recommendations for Inclusion in SVCP Draft A. Present SVCP Draft Needs a Dedicated Neighborhood Chapter and integration of these goals through all chapters. There is a lack of a Dedicated Chapter or even Sub-Section to Guide Sub-Area/Neighborhood Planning. Neighborhoods and Sub-Areas (Including planning of City Center, Hospital District, etc.) are most effectively planned utilizing a Sub- Area Neighborhood Chapter. Economic Development is more effectively supported utilizing the expert information of those most acquainted with area trends and needs. Strengthening communication between development interest, city staff and neighborhoods avoids the cost of hearings and delays in projects. A more Equitable process - citizens less familiar with legal process and government need an easy to understand guide for participation. *The following pages (6 — 13) begin our detailed submission of Sub-area/Neighborhood Plan as a dedicated chapter. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 5 Sub-Area/Neighborhood as a Dedicated Chapter or Section Submission of Policies, Goals and Ideas as Discussion Points What a Sub-Area/Neighborhood Chapter Section Accomplishes Introduction: The Sub-Area/Neighborhood Chapter Section seeks to carry out Spokane Valley's vision for the future while planning a more detailed vision for the future of each Sub-Area/Neighborhood. A Sub-Area/Neighborhood Section gives recognition to the planning elements of individual Sub-Area/Neighborhoods while assisting the general public in understanding and an organized approach to implementing Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans. While all elements of a Sub- Area/Neighborhood plan may not be applicable to each Sub-Area/Neighborhood, it provides a framework for individual crafting of specific Sub-Area/Neighborhood goals. Citizens unfamiliar with the general principles of planning and the comprehensive plan can find in this section the guidance that enables their elements to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In order to maintain continuous and ongoing citizen participation, as mandated by the Growth Management Act (GMA), it is important to simplify and synthesize what is needed for recognition of Sub- Area/Neighborhood planning and implementation. GMA provides for optional elements such as Sub-Area/Neighborhood Planning (RCW 36.70A.080). The Sub-Area/Neighborhood chapter addresses a range of priorities for Sub-Area/Neighborhoods. GMA Goal 11 Citizen Participation and Coordination is to insure an opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Sub-Area/Neighborhood Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Neighborhoods, the places where we live, learn and play, and increasingly work, constitute the largest use of land in the city. Collectively, we appreciate them as places of security. Homes are often the largest single investment residents will ever make. Consequently, protecting the value of this investment is imperative for protecting neighborhoods, a core value in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley is the second largest city in Washington State. Profiting from the sixteen other Washington Cities who utilize a dedicated Neighborhood Planning Chapter, we have the advantage to build on the best planning practices and ideas. Inclusion of Neighborhood and Sub-Area Planning results from the need to clearly describe what we want most. Citizens desire to participate in the decisions that affect them. Implicit in this involvement is the concept that a deliberative process can produce lasting quality and character for neighborhoods. The increased density within the Urban Growth Boundary will contribute to increased congestion of our roadways, schools, and a proactive approach to planning for open space and parkland is needed. Spokane Valley recognizes that future land acquisition for North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 6 public use will become limited. This necessitates identification of the city's future needs for parks and open space. Preservation of neighborhood character and quality was expressed as an important value by the Growth Management Act. Protecting neighborhoods from adverse consequences of growth, reversing effects of deterioration, and nurturing the identity of emerging neighborhoods is one of Spokane Valley's core goals. There are distinctions in approach, perspective and scope between a comprehensive plan and a Sub-Area/Neighborhood plan. A Sub-Area/Neighborhood plan deals with an area that has detailed and specific needs within the overarching policies of a comprehensive plan. Since a Sub-Area/Neighborhood plan focuses on a much smaller geographic area, more groups including property and business owners, civic organizations, schools and residents can be directly involved in the planning process. The Comprehensive Plan represents the interests of all the citizens of Spokane Valley. The City is fortunate to have an active citizenry which cares about the community enough to be involved in all aspects of the planning process. As our first comprehensive plan, the City recognizes the importance of preserving the character and vitality of our Sub-Area/ /Neighborhoods. Sub-Area/Sub-Area/Neighborhood Planning is an exciting collaborative effort that gives a better vantage point for planning by providing: • A comprehensive look to identify Sub-Area /Neighborhood issues and concerns. • Better Sub-Area/Sub-Area/Neighborhoods result from addressing their problems and capitalizing on Sub-Area/Neighborhood opportunities. • Sub-Area/Neighborhood specific policies gives an opportunity for all the elements that bring color and life and to actually become part of their landscape; that is, a combination of character, setting, uses and environment that makes the Sub-Area/Neighborhood unique. • Planning and creation of Sub-Areas such as educational institutions or medical districts. (The Industrial Park is an important sub-area of Spokane Valley and the city-center concept would also fall under sub-area planning. These areas would have cross-over for inclusion under Economic Development.) • Sub-Area/Neighborhood planning efforts can bring together those who live or work in the Sub-Area/Neighborhood to address Sub-Area/Neighborhood concerns and help achieve Sub-Area/Neighborhood goals. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 7 • • Sub-Area/Neighborhood planning brings together community residents and the City, helping to forge a City wide identity. • Policies developed on a Sub-Area/Neighborhood level may be applicable to the entire City, improving planning and implementation Citywide. • Sub-Area/Neighborhood Plans help guide decisions about establishing businesses, purchasing homes or other investments in our community. • A conduit for gathering information to assist municipalities to evaluate present strategies and in tailoring programs to eliminate waste or duplication. Sub-Area/Neighborhood Planning is a proactive approach to avoid or minimize land use conflicts and adverse impacts on neighboring uses, by recognizing non- conforming uses and balancing their needs with good development practices. It promotes quality of life by promoting planning by those who have intimate knowledge of the characteristics of an area. Sub-Area/Neighborhood Planning finds out what impacts the community is alarmed about and simultaneously proposes regulations and ordinances to make changes better fit with the community. Purpose of this section is to establish goals and policies that shall: • Develop Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans that reflect and recognize the unique interests, knowledge, history, local conditions, boundaries, and goals of specific Sub-Area/Neighborhoods. • Provide a process for recognition of a Sub-Area/Neighborhood, setting boundaries and writing Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans. • Provide an easy-to-understand guidebook for neighborhood/sub-area planning. • Ensure regular and ongoing two-way communication between citizens and City elected and appointed officials. • Designate a staff position that will respond to and assist the public. • Clearly state the mechanism through which citizens will receive a response from City policy-makers, at the outset of the citizen involvement process. • Ensure that technical information necessary to make policy decisions is readily available in a simplified, understandable form. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 8 • Provide resource commitment for citizen involvement in Sub- Area/Neighborhood planning through provision of adequate human, financial and informational resources. • Provide resource commitment for adoption and use of neighborhood/ sub- area plans and establish a reasonable time period for adoption. • Create a bridge between the varying interests in a community and their Sub- Area/Neighborhood. • Prepare plans that recognize and address specific neighborhood quality of life issues. Sub-Area/Neighborhood Planning is referred to conceptually in the draft, but, would require that it be woven, integrated, throughout the entire Comprehensive plan by referencing and mentioning the Sub-Area/ Neighborhood element. Where more detail about housing types, road design, or public parks and trails are concerned, neighborhood planning is always in step with the need for more detail. Sub-Area/Neighborhood Policies are divided into the following areas: A. Sub-Area/Neighborhood Goals and policies to guide the preparation and updating of Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans. B. Policies on implementing the Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans. C. Policies for each Sub-Area/Neighborhood include the results of the Sub- Area/Neighborhood planning process. Each Sub-area/ Neighborhood plan adopted will be incorporated into this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Sub-Area/Neighborhoods are listed alphabetically at the end of this chapter. Sub-Area/Neighborhoods The term Sub-Area is used to describe geographical divisions or areas of the city. The following section describes different sub-areas where detailed planning may be appropriate. Neighborhood: A geographic sub-area within the city that contains residential land uses. The extent of a neighborhood is variable and may be defined by tradition, common interests and uses, period of building and development, elementary school attendance boundaries, or subdivision patterns. Neighborhood boundaries may include such features as major streets, a river, railroad tracks or other physical features. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 9 A Neighborhood Map has been developed by Spokane Valley, which depicts organized neighborhoods. Planning staff uses this map to notify neighborhood organizations of development projects that may affect their neighborhoods. Neighborhood groups and citizens are encouraged to make suggestions for improving the map. The map will be used as one tool for delineating areas for neighborhood planning in the future. Goal 1: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Goal 2: Spokane Valley shall ensure that the rate, amount, type, location, and cost of population growth and development within or outside of the Urban Growth Boundary will not diminish the quality of life the City has presently attained. Policies (SNP — Sub-Area/Neighborhood Policy) SNP-1- A Sub-Area/Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission and City Council to initiate Sub-Area/Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan SNP-2-Create a Sub-Area/Neighborhood liaison to bring forward and inform planning commission and city council of identified Sub-Area/Neighborhood concerns. SNP-3-A City Hosted Neighborhood Web-page will be made available to create opportunities for broad based public participation that is inclusive of all geographic areas and diverse interests. SNP-4-Provide a single document (or kit) that clearly explains the Sub- area/Neighborhood planning purpose, scope, and process. This document will provide all guidance, guidelines, examples, tools, templates, forms, references, etc. required for stakeholders to initiate and complete their portion of the sub- area process. SNP-5 A Sub-area/Neighborhood planning group may assess, annually, sub- area planning needs and make recommendations during the city budget process. SNP-6- Develop Sub-area/Neighborhood plans which reflect the knowledge of the people of each sub-area about local conditions, history, neighborhood character, needs and values. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 10 SNP-7- Spokane Valley, special purpose districts and Spokane Valley citizens shall collaboratively establish level of service standards and costs for providing services. SNP-8- Spokane Valley will adopt Sub-Area/Neighborhood Plans at time of approval regardless of inclusion for funding, they will be adopted in preparation for implementation by any future development or city project. SNP-9- Clearly state the mechanism through which citizens will receive a response from City policy-makers, at the outset of the citizen involvement process. SNP-10- Actively Implement these Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and the Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans through the provision of adequate human, financial and informational services. SNP-11- Evaluate the progress of Sub-area/Neighborhood plans 1. The sub-area plan and process shall meet all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. 2. A sub-area inventory will be prepared that may include some or all of the following areas, based on the goals of each sub-area/neighborhood. The inventory may include existing land uses, housing, capital facilities plans, natural resource lands, parks and open spaces, natural environmental features, zoning, circulation patterns, trails, utilities, community facilities and services, urban design features, general physical conditions, history, demography, social analysis, economic base and other appropriate data. A preliminary sub-area boundary will be mapped for public review. 3. All sub-area residents, businesses and interested parties will be notified of the planning effort. An informational meeting will take place, with opportunity for public interaction and comment. 4. A Neighborhood/Sub-area Advisory Committee (NSAC) will be formed. The NSAC should be a representative cross-section of the sub-area community, and appropriate stakeholders. It will not be limited in size. 5. Utilizing the Sub-area Neighborhood Guidebook an analysis and assessment of the needs of the sub-area/neighborhoods will be determined. The needs assessment will identify issues around which the remainder of the planning work will revolve. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 11 6. The Sub-area/Neighborhood Advisory Committee should strive to achieve consensus on the priority of the identified planning issues. 7. A preliminary sub-area/neighborhood plan will be developed. The plan will state goals and describe policies, strategies, and specific actions, developed through the citizen participation process, to affect the prioritized issues. The preliminary plan should include alternative goals and policies. The plan will be made available for public review and comment. 8. Planning staff will analyze the preliminary plan and its alternatives to ensure consistency with Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act, and SEPA. 9. Formal public meetings will be conducted to gather comments on the draft plan alternatives. The Sub-area Neighborhood Advisory Committee will make recommendations for a final document. Minority opinions within the Committee may be included in the final recommendation. 10. Planning staff will incorporate final recommendations into the plan. The final plan will not only include the Committee recommendation but also may include minority opinions and a staff analysis and recommendation. The final plan will be made available for public review. 11. Any development regulation amendments necessary to implement a neighborhood plan shall be prepared concurrently with the plan so the Planning Commission and City Council can review both the plan and development regulations at the same time 12. The Sub-Area/Neighborhood Advisory Committee will then, present the final plan document to the Planning Commission. Upon review of the final plan, the Commission will hold a hearing and accept public comment on the plan. The Commission will: a) Forward the plan to City Council with recommendation for approval b) Send the plan back to Sub-Area/Neighborhood Advisory Committee to incorporate recommended changes or c) Develop a recommendation of its own to forward, along with the Committee recommendation, to the City Council for their consideration. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 12 12. Sub-area/Neighborhood plans approved by the City Council will be adopted by formal resolution as an amendment to the Generalized Comprehensive Plan. Plan Implementation Implementation is the key to making the goals and polices of the sub- area/neighborhood plan a reality. The combination of regulations, incentives and other implementation techniques will determine the success of a land use plan. Implementation tools and techniques shall be consistent between sub-areas, but will allow unique community visions to be implemented as desired. The process should allow for implementation measures, such as ordinances or regulations, to be developed and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for simultaneous adoption with the sub-area/neighborhood plan. The Division of Planning will develop land use regulations and other implementation techniques that will address the goals and policies of the sub-area/neighborhood plan. Public comment will be sought by notifying identified neighborhoods or by email or letter, for all proposed regulatory changes. General Policy: Neighborhood plans and Planning should address a wide range of issues, but should be tailored to meet their specific needs. (Every element would not be included in every sub-area/neighborhood plan.) North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 13 B. Agricultural/Livestock Uses need to be legally protected by goals and policies that recognize these uses throughout Spokane Valley as legitimate uses protected through adoption of Zoning Codes and Development Regulations. (These are notably absent in SVCP draft) Municipalities can provide legal protection while the city is in the transitional phase of becoming more urban in character. This is a city-wide problem between uses. The city desires to be sensitive to the cost of citizen investment. The investment in our way of life should not be deemed, "non- conforming" by the stroke of a pen without mitigation. This transition can be accomplished by: 1. Goals and Policies as outlined in our livestock/agricultural recommendations be included in Spokane Valley's Comprehensive plan. (See Land Use comments) 2. Expanding low density designations to permit livestock/agricultural on appropriately sized parcels. 3. Adoption of livestock regulations and agricultural regulations within the municipal code. 4. Adoption of Zoning Codes and Development Regulations within the Municipal Code to protect these uses. Supreme Court 14th Amendment Legal Opinion on what constitutes Property. Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty, and property. These are fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law, and which can only be interfered with, or the enjoyment of which can only be modified, by lawful regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good of all. . . . This right to choose one's calling is an essential part of that liberty which it is the object of government to protect; and a calling, when chosen, is a man's property right. . . . A law which prohibits a large class of citizens from adopting a lawful employment, or from following a lawful employment previously adopted, does deprive them of liberty as well as property, without due process of law." Slaughter- North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 14 House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 116, 122 (1873) (Justice Bradley dissenting). Agricultural lifestyle - animal keeping - this is lawful employment - it is what we employ our time doing. We researched our zone and came to live here based on that zoning. Non-conforming use should not render our lives useless nor be discarded like a piece of paper. We live and breathe and there is a loss of liberty. In order to continue the diverse interests that enrich the lives of the citizens of the Spokane Valley, there should be equal protection under the law. We recognize that we are in transition. This transition should not include financial and emotional and upheaval that can be prevented by policy and regulation. C. Transportation policies that permit flexibility in street design. • Local residents should define the existing country lane character for roads and alternative transportation means (Bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian) as the basis for transportation system decisions rather than the considerations for cut-through and commuter traffic. • Design the construction of road improvements to be protective of environmentally sensitive areas. Any anticipated road improvements or construction in fragile areas should receive careful scrutiny and provide protection. • Provide practical pedestrian, transit and bicycling opportunities. Consider opportunities that do not follow existing roads and could potentially connect new residential developments throughout the neighborhood; (cf. Land Use pg. 23,) • Maintain the aesthetic quality, privacy and quiet of residential areas by; a. Retaining neighborhood character. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 15 b. Preserve natural tree canopies that may be in right of way. c. Adopt Smart Growth Strategies in Road Design by; i. Reduce Width of Roads. ii. Traffic Calming iii. Reduce cost of road improvements for developers and the community. iv. Adapt road widths to preserve set-backs for pre- existing property line frontage. (See pg. SVPC 23, Land Use —"...solution is not necessarily to construct wider streets.") 1. The starting point for the design of local residential streets shall be two vehicular travel lanes, each 3 meters (10 feet) in width with a graveled shoulder 1 meter (3 feet) in width on each side. Increases in pavement width may be recommended by the City Engineer where justified. (This is an Oregon Standard as an example. D. Street Lighting Goals and Policies to preserve our night skies within our Comprehensive Plan. Preserving our natural heritage to enjoy starry skies is a worthwhile investment for generations to come. There are decorative street lights available. A national movement with ordinances that connect existing use and gradually helps transitioning to better lighting of our streets and private residences are available making municipal changes easy to achieve. We have a responsibility and an opportunity to make better choices. This is an important issue that was raised at our neighborhood meetings and is a value that is shared throughout the city. There are historical and contemporary lighting designs to give a sense of place as we light our streets. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 16 Yviii}Y::!'.'YYry ii::Y:'.:i::Y: ••1 . eY tio ::::: 'rii :i:{:itiv,.�\C•:v:�i:±�{:iii.:tti:} ."��. ...e�:;•:!•YY;.iiiii: hiiY:i::!•Y ': :.,•::!:!i•:iiii;YYi:Y::Y�:.;}i:!!.i::':.Y:Y::. ..::+..-:.:.>::�.:::•.:^•,;: International Dark-Sky Association 3225 N. First Ave. Tucson AZ 85719 USA Phone: (520) 293-3198 Fax: (520) 293-3192 ivar ;idadarksky.org Outdoor Lighting Codes in the Northwest - List compiled by Dark Skies Northwest References - Seattle Municipal Codes Roslyn - Cle Elum, Washington Shoreline, Washington Island County, Washington Bothell, Washington Lighting Codes for Kent Washington. Douglas County, Washington Pullman, Washington City of Redmond ORDINANCE NO. 2109 also (PDF) Winthrop, Washington North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 17 E. Zoning Classifications - Development Regulations create a predictable and stable sub-area/neighborhoods Zoning within low-density categories of R-1 to R-3 should not be changed simply because they fulfill the city's goal for infill development. (The more the merrier philosophy for development.) Neighborhoods do not want to see signs appearing within neighborhood to rezone a particular parcel for development and ensuing conflict. A singular designation, R- 1, or R-2 or R-3 and depicted as such on the zoning map should govern the area unless there is a comprehensive plan amendment application and support from the sub-area/neighborhood. Reliable zoning Subcategories expedite development from challenges from community based on density. This saves money on hearings and stress on all citizenry. F. Impact Fees Charge Full Cost of Developers share of Impact Fees for Parks, Schools and Transportation Improvements. (Support Capital Facilities 4.2.10 Impact Fees) Rationale: Private developments currently provide recreational space and the cost of providing this common space is built into the price of these homes. These homes sell very well. Private developments also come with built-in annual costs of several hundred dollars a year in dues to maintain roads and common space. Impact Fees provide more buildable land because more infrastructure is provided. Impact Fees support economic Development. (See Addendum 1 and 2) North C;rcPnarrpc NPinhhnrhnnd RPrnmmPndatinnc [Inflated limp 77. 7flfl.5 18 G. Parks -Obtain Park Land for Future Park Development. 1. Actively collaborate with schools to build Park/Schools when there is excess school property — saving duplication of tax dollars with shared site development. 2. Tree Preservation and Planting program through development policies. H. Preserve and Add Trees with Mitigation Policies and Plantings Goal: Mitigate Tree Removal Due to Development by Replanting on or near site of development, or by contributing to City's Tree Fund. (Trees contribute to better air quality and beautify city.) Suggestions for Implementation of Policy Tree Preservation: With the exception of dead trees, hazard trees and trees that are 10 inch or less in diameter removed from developed single family lots, an applicant shall provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied as follows: 1. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 2-inch caliper deciduous tree or a 6-8 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The tree shall be planted according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. 2. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available space on the subject property, the replanting required in subsection (1) shall occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an open space tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or dedicated open space or park. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property owners. If planting on City owned or dedicated North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 19 property, the City may specify the species and size of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an obligation of the City to allow trees to be planted on City owned or dedicated property. 3. Payment in lieu Of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree fund an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 20 Land Use Chapter 2- Chapter -Chapter 2 Land Use pg. 18 Neighborhood business centers may be designated through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or through sub-Area/neighborhood plans. Notification and participation by citizens within the area of change will be utilized early and continuously from the beginning of the process. Chapter 2 Land Use pg. 22, Section 2.6 Development Review Process and Section 2.7 Through the following implementation strategies, the city continues to strive to provide an efficient and timely review system. Section 2.7 Some Policies for Consideration Include: • Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood characteristics. • Require developers, prior to application for permits, to discuss development proposals with neighborhood groups, residents and City Staff. • Multiple developments proposed in one neighborhood shall affect an area-wide impact study that will consider the cumulative effects of all changes resulting from these projects and adjacent uses and charge a proportionate impact fee for all areas needing improvement. • Hold informational meetings in advance of public hearings. • Comments regarding land use should be collected at hearings and compiled in order to assist planning in meeting community concerns for future comprehensive plan amendments or creation of ordinances or regulations. (Present practice does not connect North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 21 the commonalities facing a particular area or issue — the record, unless appealed goes into storage and is forgotten and unused. ® Reassess land use plans if funding capabilities for public facilities or services is inadequate. (RCW 36.70A.070) • The effect on traffic patterns, road width, sidewalks, and parking on neighborhood character. Land Use — Livestock and Agriculture Goal 1: Expand Low Density Uses to Permit Livestock/Agricultural on appropriately sized parcels. Goal 2: Spokane Valley recognizes that many areas of the city have grandfathered animal and agricultural pursuits, therefore Spokane Valley shall create transitional policies to support and protect this investment in their land use. Goal 3: Protect private property owners against extraordinary cost occasioned by the application of county's and city's comprehensive plan. • Agricultural and Livestock keeping practices shall be allowed as permitted uses, without needing to be grandfathered-in within low density zoning designations • Protection shall be provided for land owners continuing agricultural and livestock keeping from frivolous complaints by adopting regulations that outline best practices. • Mitigation policies shall protect the financial investment of existing landowners and protect them from liability, noise, protect privacy, and from incompatible use complaints that are frequently created by new development sharing adjacent property lines • Density Changes shall be consistent with adjacent land use (recognizing non-conforming uses as legitimate uses that North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 22 need protection) or can be made compatible through the ability to buffer, screen or blend dissimilar land uses. • Additional fencing and significant(509 setbacks from livestock land uses will be required in development regulations. Zoning: Separation of sub-categories to provide predictable zoning categories. Present Zoning Categories do not provide enough clarity or predictability. There should be more categories. It goes from R1, R2 and R3 in low density. Medium density is considered R4 and R5. HDR is 12 units and up, etc. Further distinction of uses should be created in all categories. The caveat under the present zoning system is citizens come to a hearing about a land use and there isn't any way to be sure what the project will actually entail when development begins. It may be an apartment or it may be an office building. They can apply for one use and actual build another, all in one category. Citizens are not informed when there is a change in plans in order to provide comment. It may be very convenient for the developer but it doesn't provide a predictable outcome for the community. While in some cases it may make very little difference, many times there is a huge disparity between what is projected and what is actually implemented. It creates suspicion toward the developer and the city and could be avoided by creating more zoning categories with uses that are defined. Also, zoning should govern the area it is zoned for. Latitude for small percentages could be factored, without changing the zoning category. Present Draft Land Designations do not provide for a stable neighborhood or a predictable environment. Zoning Classifications is an area that needs attention. Resoundingly neighborhoods have asked for more clarification. ALL zoning needs to be separated into separate classifications. It has been done in other communities and it is not unrealistic to do so in ours. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 23 Zoning Policies & Goals Goal: Development Regulations shall reflect goal to create predictable and stable Sub-Area/Neighborhoods Policies: • • Structure Zoning to separate R1, R2, R3, etc. into more predictable categories rather than just combining a myriad of uses into broad based categories, i.e., low, medium, high, etc. • Zoning changes should only be annual and supported by the Sub-Area /Neighborhood • Applicant shall demonstrate a public need for the proposed plan/map density change and that the proposed change will best meet the need when compared to alternatives. It must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or can be made compatible pursuant to development review pursuant to criteria contained in Zoning and Development Codes and Development Standards. • Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed density is appropriate for the location given public facilities, natural resources and hazards, road or transit access and proximity to commercial areas and employment concentrations. POLICIES GUIDING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS • Developments should be consistent with adjacent land use patterns or be able to buffer, screen and blend dissimilar land uses. • Assurance of privacy and quiet for future residents and abutting properties. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 24 • Construction ordinance guaranteeing property owners' peaceful enjoyment. (Noise ordinance in not adequate) • Revise zoning and subdivision regulations to provide flexibility in code administration to recognize neighborhood character while respecting public safety concerns. • Ensure that land use regulations are flexible to allow developers and City to propose measures to avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties. • Require developers, prior to application for permits, to discuss development proposals with neighborhood groups, residents and City Staff. • Use of street lights in rural and large lot residential areas should be minimized in order to preserve the neighborhood's semi-rural character. Use of street lights should also be minimized in Low- Moderate Density residential areas provided that lighting level meet public safety needs. • New Residential Development shall include as part of design criteria — assurance of privacy and quiet for future residents and abutting properties. . • The City should work with private land owners and easement holders who have trails, or where trails can be developed to provide a connected multi-use trail or pathway. • Urban sprawl within the UGA shall be discouraged. Infill should happen where infrastructure is already in place. An equitable expectation of services should apply to all citizens. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 25 Cultural & Historical Resources Include in Chapter 2 section208.2 Cultural & Historic Resource Issues Goal: Spokane Valley places a high priority on preserving our heritage and shall adopt policies and regulations for implementation. Policies 1. Historical Preservation contract with County shall be adopted. 2. Development of a Historic Review Board and a Natural Resources Commission to advise the City Council 3. Identification of Historical Landscapes and Houses that should be preserved. 4. Foster creation of schools and opportunities for study, display, production, and performance of all the arts. 5. Host community events calendars on City Web Site of Valley events and opportunities. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 26 Transportation Chapter 3 Comments Chapter 3.2 Roadways Functional Classifications —Recommendation: Refer to design standards outside of Comprehensive plan to allow greatest flexibility. Pg. 3 Diagrams of four road types typifying how the city roads will be constructed. We object to this level of detail to be included in the comprehensive plan since it would mandate this level of improvement. This would be in conflict with many other goals of maintaining neighborhood characteristics, efforts at traffic calming and ability to mitigate and creative design features that may be warranted in one area but not in another. Comprehensive plans are general guidelines not intended to state the regulation or ordinance. This would also mean that any change in roads would have to be an amendment to the comprehensive plan. It would be better to reference a document that includes these diagrams but also provides language for adjusting to neighborhood-sub-area needs that could be greater, or less. Levels of Service should reflect a community's values and willingness to pay for public facilities. Mandating road width on the comprehensive plan violates the ability for the community to decide where roads should be wide, where they prefer to save money and allow more narrow roads, where they value the bike routes to be contiguous. A goal to preserve more pervious surface would allow for more narrow roads in residential neighborhoods Goal: Public Works shall reduce standard road width cross- sections in order to limit adverse impacts to neighborhood/sub- area character provided that insurmountable safety hazards do not result from reduction in standards. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 27 Transportation Policy Comments T4.6 Bring unimproved and rural cross-sections up to urban standards. If done by the book, on some existing streets this level of improvement would be inappropriate. This would seem to continue the practice that people would have to subordinate themselves to a standard losing the appearance and character of their neighborhood and possibly even at the risk of homes or trees unnecessarily sacrificed, if everything must be done by the book. T4.2 Street design should complement adjacent development..., possibly may address this problem but I couldn't find a policy that allowed Public Works to mitigate road width. It would seem these two policies would be in conflict with each other without some additional clarification. Lighting: Less Obstructive Lighting that Protects Night Sky Views. (Adoption of Local Ordinance with this objective — compare within state cities with these ordinances) Additional Transportation Policies ® All new local and Sub-Area/Neighborhood collector streets shall be built at the minimum allowable width in order to preserve the areas character, protect sensitive areas and reduce storm water runoff. Public Works shall consider reductions from standards in order to reduce adverse impacts to Sub-Area/Neighborhoods provided that hazards do not result from reduction in standards. City-wide curb and sidewalk standards shall be considered for modification in order to preserve Sub-Area/Neighborhood character and existing uses and to retain trees located along streets or highways with accommodating allowed development and buffering residential areas. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 28 • A Multi-purpose trail system should be developed which links residential areas with open spaces, parks, schools, stables and other recreational areas. • Flexibility to design roads to have a sidewalk on only one side of the street or a soft surface multi-use trail. • Decrease impervious surface throughout city of Spokane Valley using strategies such as trails and sidewalks only on one side in certain areas. • Roads that run along side the river should be concrete rather than asphalt to reduce seepage of hydrocarbons coming off the topcoat of the asphalt. (There is a special coating that is applied to asphalt to reduce pollution from hydrocarbon but they are released as the asphalt cracks. (See Critical Areas) • Sub-Area/Neighborhood roads shall be designed to fit with existing Sub-Area/Neighborhood character, reduce the amount of easement lost by reducing width of roads for traffic calming yet allowing safe passage through Sub-Area/Neighborhoods. • Sub-Area/Neighborhood roads shall be designed to fit with existing Sub-Area/Neighborhood character, reduce the amount of easement lost by reducing width of roads for traffic calming yet allowing safe passage through Sub-Area/Neighborhoods. • Sub-Area and Neighborhood plans should evaluate need and development of multi-use trails, (including equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian as appropriate). The plan should connect neighborhood trails with other neighborhood, city and regional trails. • Proposed road improvements should be considered as a conceptual diagram allowing for flexibility in street alignments. Property owners and developer's recommendations shall be considered by the Public Works. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 29 1. All new, local and neighborhood/sub-area streets shall be built to the minimum allowable width in order to appropriately serve the average daily travel (ADT) and parking needs expected from the homes and businesses they serve. Added benefits to the inevitable reduction in street widths using this method are the preservation of neighborhood character, the protection of sensitive areas, and the reduction of storm water runoff. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 30 Capital Facilities Chapter 4 Concurrency Goal Consider Transportation Concurrency to include more than major intersections. Broaden the definition of concurrency to include local neighborhood streets and those intersections. (While roads within a development are required improvements — necessary road improvements to access developments (they aren't airlifted to their homes) are not interpreted as needed to meet concurrency. Local Government can define better standards.) Note: Concurrency RCW 356.70A.020 Public Facilities and Services — ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.) Public Facilities include, ...streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreations facilities and schools. Public Services include — fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection and other governmental services. RCW 36.70A.030 The City must reassess land use plans if funding capabilities are inadequate. (RCW 36.70A.070) North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 31 Housing and Neighborhoods Chapter 5 Comments Spokane Valley Comp. Plan Draft Chapter 5.2.1 Population, paragraph 3 (Currently reads): The population of single mothers that live in rental housing is more than double of that of single mothers that own their own homes. Single parents of both sexes tend to be renters. This suggests that more rental housing should be placed near schools and day care facilities, or alternatively that such support facilities should be encouraged in close proximity to housing for these families. The potential impacts of this goal have not been fully considered and discussions with teachers, professionals and members of the neighborhood have evoked overwhelming concerns. Caveat: When suggesting more rental housing — this could easily be implemented as apartments — the stability of zoning would come into question since requesting a HDR Designation near a school would be consistent with the comprehensive plan in this scenario but inconsistent with neighborhood character and safety. It would seem more appropriate under Housing and Neighborhoods to address the need for safe and adequate play areas for children in all family apartment buildings that are being developed. Neither Parks nor the Capitol Facilities Chapter, addresses this problem. Chapter 2, Land Use Multi-Family Residential could include in LUI-11 or an additional goal that clarifies that a standard will be developed to define the size of common open space, or a play area, according to the number of units and projected children it could optimally be serving. The ability for neighborhoods to recognize the people who belong there are safer places to live and can more easily North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 32 identify dangers. Parks has already identified Spokane Valley as woefully underserved in Parks. It would be important to create space while there is still land available. The quality of these apartments is of greater importance than their location being closer to a school. CVSD allows a one mile radius area for children to walk to school. Children walking unattended will be safer in a stable single-family neighborhood, rather than one characterized by many tenant changes. Busing would be an advantage for children who are unsupervised since their parents are already at work. Daycare facilities near schools would seem to fit this objective of helping single-parents more than building apartments near schools. Policy Recommendation: Encourage daycares nearby schools to assist single parents. Goal: Strengthen safety and stability of neighborhoods by discouraging apartments in the radius that schools define as walking distance for children to attend school. This is supported by below: 3.11 Transportation — LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SECTION PG. 22 At every end — safety and accessibility are primary concerns in providing access to schools and providing for the elderly and disabled. Multi-Family Residential Planning Suggested Policy: • Provide safe and adequate play areas for children in all apartments that rent to families, by establishing development standards that define amount of open space based on number of units and potential children it would serve. This is an important feature since the comprehensive plan encourages walking communities. Many young families do not have the resources to drive their children to private recreation programs nor do they have the North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 33 ability to purchase their home with space for their children to play. Many newly built apartment complexes have only a strip sidewalk in front of each entrance and the road that serves access to these apartments becomes a dangerous play area for toddlers playing or on small bikes. Many young families must work multiple jobs to remain solvent and have little energy left to take their children to a park on a regular basis. The swales are often the only green or open space in these densely planned multi-family complexes. Recent PUD changes have clarified that open space cannot be a swale. Policies ® Encourage building and site designs that reduce opportunities for crimes to occur and reduce demand upon police services. • Minimize public cost of infrastructure to support new development. © Special Districts shall be allowed to form in order to accommodate the need for special taxes or levies for identified Sub- Area/Neighborhood projects. (For example: Balfour Park has been on the list to have a Sprinkler Play Area built — businesses and new development in this area could be have a special tax to collect the monies needed to provide for this need. ) • Sub-Area/Neighborhood roads shall be designed to fit with existing Sub-Area/Neighborhood character, reduce the amount of easement lost by reducing width of roads for traffic calming yet allowing safe passage through Sub-Area/Neighborhoods. • Sub-Area and Neighborhood plans should evaluate need and development of multi-use trails, (including equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian as appropriate). The plan shouldconnect neighborhood trails with other neighborhood, city and regional trails. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 34 • Proposed road improvements should be considered as a conceptual diagram allowing for flexibility in street alignments. Property owners and developer's recommendations shall be considered by the Public Works. • Existing Property Owners and their grandfather rights shall be protected from financial costs associated with protecting their properties from liability with mitigation policies when incompatible uses are built by their adjoining property lines. • Spokane Valley respects the investment of existing property owners and their property uses. Financial costs of protecting their properties from liability, noise, privacy, and incompatible uses that are built at their adjoining property lines should be protected with mitigation policies. (i.e. fencing, or a larger setback) • Initiate and encourage community involvement to foster a positive civic and Sub-Area/Neighborhood image by establishing programs to physically enhance Sub-Area/Neighborhoods. • City shall help the neighborhood keep informed by encouraging a community bulletin board or a large sign that city or community events, fliers, etc can be posted on. Responsibility for information on the sign will be that of the neighborhood. HI.1.6 Encourage the development of neighborhood associations and work with these groups to refine neighborhood plans. (This is a good goal but needs much more support) Additional Goal 11I.1.7 Adoption of Sub-Area/Neighborhood plans immediately at the time they are ready and approved to provide city development, area goals to take into consideration in planning, and to better anticipate needs and future funding opportunities. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 35 Economic Development — Chapter 7 Comments Economic Development provides an opportunity to expand on transitional policies to address current land use problems with grandfathered rights. ED1-1.8 Encourage creation and retention of home-based businesses that are consistent with neighborhood character. This would seem a good reference place for Sub-Area-Neighborhood Planning, with provision for making bee-keeping, produce stands, etc. as permitted uses if an area wants to retain this feature, recognizing different neighborhood goals. ED1.1.8 is in conflict with present practice of not permitting a business license for a non-conforming use in some situations. Question: How is this compatible with present practice that states you cannot have a business in a residential neighborhood? (i.e., denial of business license for bee keeping.) Policy Utilize Sub-Area Planning for formation of specified areas for attracting investment in our community. (i.e. Educational Institution Development, Medical Facilities and Support Institutions such as development of Valley Hospital area with medical training facilities, research facilities, etc.) Policy Topic 9 — Fiscal Policy 1: When new non-urban density development is to be included within the Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) jurisdictions shall charge the full cost of infrastructure. Question: When development does not meet density requirements, will this penalize an individual who is intending to build one home on a larger parcel, will he be penalized by full cost of infrastructure. Should this read proportional share of infrastructure. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 36 While this goal may be to discourage large lot developments it could make building your own home prohibitive. Impact Fees: We feel strongly that impact fees be charged proportional to the needs for parks, schools, roads, police, fire, and other public services to prevent the full cost of these improvements making a large tax increase. Policies • Charge developers full cost of Impact Fees needed to provide for parks, schools, roads, police, fire, and other public services created by their projects. • Collected Fees shall be categorized and placed in the appropriate fund for future use. Goal: The Level of Service should be determined by the people and how much they are willing to pay for these levels of service as a community as directed by the Growth Management Act. Policy • Level of street improvements should be determined by neighborhoods and sub-areas. • Ensure that the size of a neighborhood business is appropriate for the size of the neighborhood it serves so that trips generated by non-local traffic through the neighborhood are minimized. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 37 Natural Environment Chapter 8 Critical Areas Comments and Recommendations The Spokane River is the dominant natural feature within the City. It needs to be protected for the enjoyment of all. Natural attention to existing neighborhoods and other land uses adjacent to the river, beyond 200 ft. of Shoreline protection is warranted. While Spokane Valley is a critical area due to the aquifer, additional protection of areas along the river would suggest protecting these areas as you would a well head, since the river feeds the aquifer, such as between Sullivan and the Barker area. Ch 8, pg. 7 of SVCP states the Spokane River is included in the State's "303d" inventory as having impaired water quality. It also recognizes water quality degradation due to discharge of storm water, as well as increased impervious areas may also adversely impact groundwater recharge. Preservation of natural drainage ways need to be intensely studied case by case to avoid problems, using creative solutions. Discretion is needed in policy to utilize better materials, road widths, walkways utilizing pervious surfaces, and zoning to reduce residential impacts. These review comments focus on Stormwater Policies General Comments: • The Comprehensive Plan appears to be very pro-development, apparently in recognition of the UGA. • Chapter 8 presents an honest description of the impacts of development on the natural environment. • The area will see environmental degradation as it develops; this is documented as acceptable in the Draft Plan. • Plan seems to clearly document the planning intent of the City. • Page 59 Section 8.3 Surface Water 3rd para. Consider rewriting —the dominant use of the Spokane River is not waste assimilation. • Goal 1: The Spokane River is the dominant natural feature within the City. It needs to be protected for the enjoyment of all. The river corridor should be considered as being broader than the 200 foot Shoreline Management Area and include existing neighborhoods and other land uses adjacent and connected to the river (Section 8.6.6"Shorelines"). • Goal 2: Protection of the quality and quantity of the aquifer and the Spokane River is critically important. The Plans storm water goals (NEG- 13 — NEG-15) state this adequately. Policies should more strongly reflect this and be more specific. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 38 Stormwater Policies: • Section 4.3.16 — Need to provide a mechanism for maintenance of storm water facilities on private property. • Section 4.4.4 Storm water — Measures are stated as "could contribute to achieving this goal." Suggest developing more definitive measures that will meet the goals (CFG-6). • Protection of natural drainage ways (both major and minor) is important for recharge and to protect adjacent landowners from flooding. Implement and protect, by city development policies and regulations, natural drainage. The City needs to implement development policies that protect natural drainage ways. • Protect natural drainage ways (both major & minor) for recharge of aquifer and to protect adjacent landowners from flooding. • Implement development policies and regulations to protect natural drainage ways. • Studying and mapping natural drainage ways of existing properties and areas near the river. • Maintain existing aquifer recharge by design standards that create more open space and less impervious surface. • Decrease impervious surface throughout city of Spokane Valley using strategies such as trails and sidewalks only on one side in certain areas. Goal Protect air-quality by retaining and planting trees to offset pollution from higher density. (See pg. 19 and 20 of our comments on Tree Mitigation for City.) Policies • Trailheads to the Centennial Trail should be buffered with streets and paths that create a park like setting by preservation of existing trees and planting of trees and landscape material alongside the roads, when possible. • Tree planting and preservation of existing trees shall be a priority to enhance air quality to assist in offsetting the increased air pollution created with increased urbanization and recognizing the Valley's unique problem with air- inversion. Goal: Areas along the river should be treated with special sub- area planning. Encouraging preservation of natural areas, lower density and planning of river based recreation. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 39 Wildlife Preservation Goal: Encourage residents and businesses to create backyard sanctuaries for wildlife habitat. Policy ® Provide information or links on city website for these projects. Goal: Protection of River and Aquifer — Clean Water Clean Water requirements have been mandatory in the comprehensive plan since 1984-1985 by two legislative mandates: 'The land use element of a comprehensive plan shall also provide for the protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies. (Washington Law 1984, Chapter 253 —Amending RCW 35.63.090, 35A.63.061 and 36.70.330.) Protection of Clean water includes point and non-point discharge sources. Chapter 3 pg. 59 of Short Course on Planning —During project review, a county or city may determine that some or all of the environmental impacts of the project have been adequately addressed in the course of environmental review and making a threshold determination. "Adequately addressed" is defined as having identified the impacts and avoided, otherwise mitigated, or designated as acceptable the impacts associated with certain levels of service, and use designations, development standards, or other land use planning decisions required or allowed under the GMA. While the scenario below is an example — we should not discount application to Spokane Valley since the entire city is over a sole-source aquifer — this would indicate more prudence rather than treating all areas the same —more or less familiarity breeds contempt for the overall risk — relying on sewers and swales as the answer to everything. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 40 A city identifies a sole source aquifer that is their primary source of potable water. To mitigate the impacts of dense development and recharge of the aquifer, the city minimizes the amount of impervious surface over the aquifer by designating a lower density of residential development and limiting the width of the residential streets. When a subdivision is proposed that is consistent with the designated low density and narrow streets, the city can determine that the project's impacts on the aquifer's ability to recharge have been addressed with respect to building density. Goal: In order to protect recharge of the aquifer, flexible street design of smaller width for residential streets. Goal: Lower density of residential development to minimize pervious surface or use creative design to retain more grassy areas for recharge — Goal: Encourage Use of Natural Landscaping (Provide classes, links, and brochures and also protect homeowners who use these materials from being considered weed keepers.) Goal: Choose road surface materials that reduce pollution, promote recharge and reduce hydrocarbon runoff. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 41 Addendums 1. MRSC of Washington — Impact Fees 2. Study on Impact Fees - 3. Street Designs and Emergency Response 4. Narrow Streets Database (Note Kirkland, Washington is mentioned) 5. Smart Bylaws — Pg. 27 6. Smart Bylaws - Pg. 24 7. Policy Guide on Neighborhood Collaborative Planning Adopted April 6, 1998 by the Symposium on Neighborhood C Collaborative Planning. 8. City of Portland — Office of Transportation — Construction and Maintenance: Building New Street and Sidewalks 9. West Coast Environmental Law: Urban Growth and Development — Smart Bylaws Guide — Tailor Road Requirements to their Preferred Use North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 42 ADDENDUM 1: MSRC of Washington Impact Fees Impact Fees 1. What are impact fees? Impact fees are charges assessed against newly-developing property that attempt to recover the cost incurred by a local government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. 2. Who pays impact fees? The developer of a proposed development pays the impact fee, although the developer will, as a practical matter, pass the costs of these fees onto the purchases of the developed property. The local government examines the proposed development, determines what facilities will be required to sustain the desired level of service, and charges the developer a fee to cover a portion of the cost of the needed system improvements. 3. Must a city charge impact fees? No. Impact fees are strictly optional. The Growth Management Act requires that cities plan for future growth and provide the facilities necessary for accommodating that growth. Impact fees provide another way for cities and counties to pay for these facilities. 1. What means are available to Washington cities to insure that developers install and/or pay for public facilities necessitated by new development? Washington municipalities impose development fees and exactions upon developers as a means of insuring the provision of public facilities necessitated by new development. The Growth Management Act authorizes those cities and counties that are planning under the Act to charge impact fees (RCW 82.02.050 - .090). In addition, the following statutes provide authorization to impose development fees or to otherwise pay for the public facilities needed to accommodate growth: • Subdivision Exactions-Ch. 58.17 RCW • Water/Sewer Connection Fees-RCW 35.92.025 • Water/Sewer Latecomer Fees-RCW 35.91.020 North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 43 • Street Latecomer Fees-Ch. 35.72 RCW • Local Improvement Districts-Chs. 35.43 - 35.56 RCW and Ch. 35A.43 RCW • State Environmental Policy Act (Mitigation Measures)-Ch. 43.21C RCW 2. What options are available to Washington cities for imposing traffic impact fees on new development? Washington cities have a variety of options available for imposing traffic impact fees on new development. The following statutes provide the authorization to impose traffic impact fees: State Environmental Policy Act (Mitigation Measures)-Ch. 43.21C RCW Voluntary Agreements-RCW 82.02.020 Transportation Benefit District Act-RCW 35.21.225 and Ch. 36.73 RCW Local Transportation Act-Ch. 39.92 RCW Growth Management Act-Ch. 82.02 RCW 3. What can these different types of impact fees be used for? Subdivision Exactions -Under Chapter 58.17 RCW, the state subdivision law, cities may apply a requirement that developers install, at their expense, the improvements necessary for a full range of urban services in new subdivisions. Such improvements usually include streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water systems, fire hydrants, sewer and drainage lines, and in some instances, transit stops, parks and recreation facilities, and sites for schools. Installation of these improvements is usually required as a condition of subdivision approval. Also, a performance bond or similar obligation is required as assurance that improvements will be installed in accordance with city requirements. If a proposed plat does not make "appropriate provisions" for the public hea th, safety, and general welfare, including such needed improvements, the legislative body may deny the proposed plat. (See also the limitations under the Voluntary Agreement section.) Water and Sewer Connection Fees -RCW 35.92.025 allows a city to charge a connection fee in addition to the actual cost of the connection. The legislative body of the city or town is to determine what the additional charge shall be so that property owners connecting to the system bear their equitable share of the cost of the system. Case law has made clear that this equitable share of the cost of the system is to be based on historical costs and not on future costs. This was the specific holding in the case Boe v. Seattle, 66 Wn.2d 152 (1965). The state supreme court concluded in that case that the city of Seattle could charge the property owner a reasonable fee for sewer connection that represents an equitable share of the cost of the sewer system. The court included a limitation that this cost should be based upon the historical costs of the system and not upon a replacement cost standard of what the system would cost to construct in present dollars. Therefore, it appears that the historical cost may not be adjusted for inflation. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 44 Water and Sewer Latecomer Fees -RCW 35.91.020 authorizes contracts between a city and a developer for construction of water and sewer facilities, and it authorizes, for a 15-year period, reimbursement of a developer by other property owners who did not contribute to the original cost of the facilities and who subsequently tap into or use the facilities. Street Latecomer Fees - Chapter 35.72 RCW authorizes cities and counties to contract with a developer for the construction or improvement of street projects, and it authorizes, for a 15-year period, reimbursement of the developer by other property owners who subsequently develop their property and who meet certain criteria. Local Improvement Districts - Chapters 35.43 through 35.56 RCW and Chapter 35A.43 for code cities authorize and establish the mechanisms for cities to carry out a wide range of public improvements, including items such as streets, parking facilities, water and sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, underground utilities, and transportation facilities, and to assess benefitted property owners the costs of such improvements. SEPA- The Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW, grants wide-ranging authority to impose mitigating conditions relating to a project's environmental impacts. Many cities have interpreted SEPA's authority to mitigate environmental impacts to include authority to impose impact fees to pay for the mitigation of adverse traffic impacts. We note, however, that a municipality pursuing this course must establish a proper foundation. Local SEPA policies authorizing the exercise of SEPA substantive authority must be adopted and fees imposed must be rationally related to impacts identified in threshold determination documents (primarily environmental checklists) or environmental impact statements. Fees collected under SEPA may not duplicate fees collected under other sources of authority. Transportation Benefit District Act-Pursuant to RCW 35.21.225, cities are authorized to establish one or more transportation benefit districts to fund the capital improvement of city streets within the district. The improvements must be: (1) consistent with state, regional, and local transportation plans; (2) necessitated by congestion levels attributable to economic growth; and (3) partially funded by local government and/or private developer contributions. Transportation benefit districts are quasi-municipal corporations with independent taxing authority. RCW 36.73.040. Transportation benefit districts are given authority to levy a property tax(RCW 36.73.060), issue general obligation bonds (RCW 36.73.070), establish LIDs (RCW 36.73.080), and impose impact fees (RCW 36.73.120)to fund transportation improvements. Local Transportation Act - Chapter 39.92 RCW, enacted in 1988, uthorizes local governments to develop and adopt programs for the purpose of jointly funding, from public and private sources, transportation improvements necessitated in whole or in part by economic development and growth within their respective jurisdictions. Cities North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 45 operating under this chapter are authorized to impose transportation impact fees on development to pay for "reasonable and necessary off-site transportation improvements to solve the cumulative impacts of planned growth and development in the plan area." RCW 39.92.030(4). The Act specifies various requirements for transportation programs. The authorized programs must be based on an adopted transportation plan and the fee must be calculated from a specified list of capital projects. Traffic impact fees cannot exceed an amount that the city can demonstrate is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. Voluntary Agreements - This statute prohibits fees on development collected as part of a voluntary agreement between the developer and the permitting agency unless they are in lieu of a dedication of land or they mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development. The permitting agency must be able to establish that an impact fee collected pursuant to a voluntary agreement is "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat." Funds collected under voluntary agreements must be held in a reserve account and expended on agreed upon capital improvements. Fees must also be expended within five years or be refunded with interest. Growth Management Act -With the passage of the state Growth Management Act, cities have an additional source of authority for imposing impact fees. The Act authorizes cities choosing or required to plan under the Act to impose impact fees on development activity in order to finance certain public facility improvements which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan. Impact fees are specifically authorized only for: "(1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (3) school facilities; and (4) fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district." RCW 82.02.090(7). 4. May impact fees for water and sewer be imposed under the Growth Management Act? GMA-authorized impact fees do not provide for water and sewer facilities. (See above question.) 5. Is it possible to use impact fees to fund transit improvements? Reviewing RCW 82.02.060(3), 82.02.050(4), and 82.02.090, it is clear that public facilities must be included in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan before they can be paid for with the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act states that impact fees can be used for public facilities, including public streets and roads. Streets and roads can easily be interpreted to include HOV lanes and other physical improvements to the roadway which may facilitate public transit use. It may be more of a stretch to cover programs such as van pool, ride- share, other transit facilities and similar programs. Our attorneys feel that the case North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 46 could possibly be made, particularly since transportation planning is moving toward non-structural solutions. However, it remains a gray area which could be contested in court. 6. If, under RCW 82.02.060(4), a city adjusts impact fees downward in certain unusual circumstances, must it make up for the adjustment with public funds? The city is not required to make up for, with public funds, an adjustment from the standard impact fee for which the city must allow in order to ensure fairness in the imposition of such fees. Unlike RCW 82.02.060(2), in which the city provides an exemption for low-income housing or for "other development activity with broad public purposes," the city is not required by RCW 82.02.060(4)to use public funds to cover the fees that are "lost" by an adjustment. The same logic does not operate for adjustments as for exemptions. An adjustment to ensure fairness should be made where the impact for a project is, for some documented reason(see RCW 2.02.060(5)), less than it would be for other similar projects and, thus, application of the standard fee would be excessive. For instance, it may be possible to demonstrate that residents living near a rapid transit station will generate less vehicle traffic than the standard development. In theory, the lower impact would require fewer improvements. A city would allow an exemption for low- income housing for public policy reasons and not because the fee would be disproportionate to the impact. Thus, where an exemption is allowed, the impact would not be mitigated unless the fees are made up from some other source (other than the developer). 7. What is the effect of impact fees on affordable housing? Although impact fees do not alter total costs, they do affect the distribution of costs, or who pays for the facilities. Each community will need to make a policy decision about whether the cost of new infrastructure is charged directly to the new users or spread, via higher taxes, across the community. Infrastructure costs in areas where there is little current development can be substantial. The developer is likely to pass these costs on to the home buyer. Most local governments levying impact fees do not levy the full cost of new infrastructure. In fact, the Growth Management Act requires that part of the cost of financing infrastructure for new developments should come from other funds. 8. What is the effect of impact fees on general business activity? All things being equal, businesses may choose to locate in a community without impact fees in preference to one that has impact fees. However, there are many other factors in a location decision. For instance, some cities attribute their success in attracting major new employers to the quality of services and amenities which they offer, such as an open space system. Some companies choose to locate in an area with these extra amenities in spite of greater incentives, tax breaks, and lower fees offered by competing cities. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 47 9. May a city require impact fees for development in the urban growth area? The city does not have authority to require impact fees outside the city limits but within the urban growth area, as it does not have the necessary regulatory and governmental jurisdiction. The GMA, however, does contemplate that regulation within urban growth areas be exercised jointly by the city and county by agreement. In fact, the GMA mandates that the county and the cities within it enact county-wide planning policies which must provide for "policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas." RCW 36.70A.210(3)(f). Thus, any collection and use of impact fees within the urban growth area for city facilities to serve development within the urban growth area can only come about through agreement between the city and the county, unless the developer agrees to such fees as a condition of the city's provision of utilities. These impact fees must be spent for system improvements that "will reasonably benefit" this development within the urban growth area. Furthermore, public facilities addressed by a capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan should relate to development within the urban growth area, as impact fees may be collected and spent only for such public facilities. Vancouver/Clark County is an example of an area where the city and county have adopted an interlocal agreement for a coordinated impact fee program. 10. May a city reduce impact fees below the amount needed to cover projected transportation system needs for new development? Yes. First of all, a city may not require new development to pay for correction of existing deficiencies. A city may only charge new development for the portion of facilities that are needed as a result of new development. A cit is not required to impose impact fees and the council may choose to set impact fees below the level necessary to fully cover transportation system improvements for new development. A city may want to do so because of affordable housing concerns or a variety of other public purposes. A city must still show what other source of public funds will be used to cover the gap between the amount funded by impact fees and the total amount needed. A city may not, in fact, finance these public facilities solely with impact fees. RCW 82.02.050(a)(2) states that ". . . the financing for system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources and cannot rely solely on impact fees." If a city wishes to reduce projected costs of facilities to serve new development (making it easier to reduce impact fees) the city may want to reconsider plan assumptions and level of service standards. If projected costs are based on "Cadillac" level standards, lower standards may be an acceptable tradeoff for lower costs. 11. May transportation impact fees be used to fund pedestrian and bicycle facilities? North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 48 The Growth Management Act states that impact fees can be used for public facilities, including public streets and roads (RCW 82.02.050(4) and RCW 82.02.090(7)). MRSC has stated that it is likely that "streets and roads" could be interpreted to include wide shoulders, bicycle lanes, sidewalks and other physical improvements to the roadway that may facilitate pedestrian and bicycle circulation. It may be more of a stretch to use impact fees to fund bike paths or pedestrian ways that are not within the street right-of-way. We feel that the case could possibly be made, particularly since transportation planning is moving toward non-structural solutions. A local jurisdiction would certainly need to make a strong case that the facilities serve transportation rather than primarily recreational needs. Also, impact fees may only be imposed for "system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development" (RCW 82.02.050(4)). However, the use of transportation impact fees for pedestrian and bicycle facilities remains a gray area that could be contested in court. (Note that a GMA city or county is also authorized to adopt impact fees to fund publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities. Again, the improvements and impact fees charged must be reasonably related to the demand created by the new development). 12. May transportation impact fees be used to fund pedestrian and bicycle facilities? The Growth Management Act states that impact fees can be used for public facilities, including public streets and roads (RCW 82.02.050(4) and RCW 82.02.090(7)). MRSC has stated that it is likely that "streets and roads" could be interpreted to include wide shoulders, bicycle lanes, sidewalks and other physical improvements to the roadway that may facilitate pedestrian and bicycle circulation. It may be more of a stretch to use impact fees to fund bike paths or pedestrian ways that are not within the street right-of-way. We feel that the case could possibly be made, particularly since transportation planning is moving toward non-structural solutions. A local jurisdiction would certainly need to make a strong case that the facilities serve transportation rather than primarily recreational needs. Also, impact fees may only be imposed for "system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development" (RCW 82.02.050(4)). However, the use of transportation impact fees for pedestrian and bicycle facilities remains a gray area that could be contested in court. (Note that a GMA city or county is also authorized to adopt impact fees to fund publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities. Again, the improvements and impact fees charged must be reasonably related to the demand created by the new development). 13. May impact fees be used to fund a community center or a library? A community center would fall within the definition of"recreation facilities" in RCW 82.02.090(7) and would thus be a public facility for which impact fees could be collected and spent. Impact fees are collected only for new development that takes place following the adoption of the impact fee ordinance, and impact fees may be collected only for public facilities included in the jurisdiction's capital facilities element (RCW 82.02.050(4)). As a practical matter, it may.be difficult to collect a substantial amount of impact fees for the community center. This is because impact fees may only be imposed for North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 49 "system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development" (RCW 82.02.050(3)(a)). Further, the impact fees "shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development" (RCW 82.02.050(3)(b)), and "shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development" (RCW 82.02.050(3)(c)). Since a community center is for the benefit of the entire community, one development's impact fee contribution to that facility will be but a small part of the cost of the facility. GMA impact fees cannot be used to fund a new library, since library facilities are not authorized as a proper expenditure for impact fees under RCW 82.02.090(7). Impact fees are specifically authorized only for: "(1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (3) school facilities; and (4)fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district." For more information, see MRSC's Impact Fees Web page. North Greenacres Neighborhood Recommendations Updated June 22, 2005 50 PAYING FOR PROSPERITY: IMPACT FEES AND JOB GROWTH Arthur C. Nelson Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Polytechnic Institute Mitch Moody Georgia Institute of Technology A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy June 2003 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY SUMMARY OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS DISCUSSION PAPERS/RESEARCH BRIEFS 2003 Civic Infrastructure and the Financing of Community Development Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s The State Role in Urban Land Development City Fiscal Structures and Land Development What the IT Revolution Means for Regional Economic Development Is Home Rule the Answer? Clarifying the Influence of Dillon's Rule on Growth Management 2002 Growth in the Heartland: Challenges and Opportunities for Missouri Seizing City Assets: Ten Steps to Urban Land Reform Vacant-Property Policy and Practice:Baltimore and Philadelphia Calling 211: Enhancing the Washington Region's Safety Net After 9/11 Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States Beyond Merger:A Competitive Vision for the Regional City of Louisville The Importance of Place in Welfare Reform: Common Challenges for Central Cities and Remote Rural Areas Banking on Technology:Expanding Financial Markets and Economic Opportunity Transportation Oriented Development:Moving from Rhetoric to Reality Signs of Life: The Growth of the Biotechnology Centers in the U.S. Transitional Jobs:A Next Step in Welfare to Work Policy Valuing America's First Suburbs:A Policy Agenda for Older Suburbs in the Midwest Open Space Protection: Conservation Meets Growth Management Housing Strategies to Strengthen Welfare Policy and Support Working Families Creating a Scorecard for the CRA Service Test: Strengthening Banking Services Under the Community Reinvestment Act The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence ii What Cities Need from Welfare Reform Reauthorization Growth Without Growth:An Alternative Economic Development Goal for Metropolitan Areas The Potential Impacts of Recession and Terrorism on U.S.Cities TREND SURVEYS 2003 At Home in the Nation's Capital:Immigrant Trends in Metropolitan Washington Welfare, Working Families and Reauthorization:Mayor's Views Beyond Edge City: Office Sprawl in South Florida Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs:Aging Patterns in Census 2000 Rewarding Work Through the Tax Code: The Power and Potential of the Earned Income Tax Credit in 27 Cities and Rural Areas 2002 Modest Progress: The Narrowing Spatial Mismatch Between Blacks and Jobs in the 1990s Smart Growth: The Future of the American Metropolis Living on the Edge:Decentralization Within Cities in the 1990s Timing Out:Long-Term Welfare Caseloads in Large Cities and Counties A Decade of Mixed Blessings: Urban and Suburban Poverty in Census 2000 Latino Growth in Metropolitan America: Changing Patterns, New Locations Demographic Change in Medium-Sized Cities:Evidence from the 2000 Census The Price of Paying Taxes:How Tax Preparation and Refund Loan Fees Erode the Benefits of the EITC The Importance of Housing Benefits to Housing Success Left Behind in the Labor Market:Recent Employment Trends Among Young Black Men City Families and Suburban Singles:An Emerging Household Story from Census 2000 TRANSPORTATION REFORM SERIES Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance Fueling Transportation Finance:A Primer on the Gas Tax Slanted Pavement:How Ohio's Highway Spending Shortchanges Cities and Suburbs TEA-21 Reauthorization: Getting Transportation Right for Metropolitan America iii FORTHCOMING Changes in Real Estate Finance and Their Effect on Commercial Development in Urban Areas Reshaping America: The Opportunity to Build America's Future Upstate New York's Population Plateau: The Third-Slowest 'State' Copies of these and previous Brookings urban center publications are available on the web site, www.brookings.edu/urban,or by calling the center at(202)797-6270. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy thanks the Fannie Mae Foundation, the George Gund Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for their support of our work on metropolitan trends. The center's Metropolitan Initiative aims to better understand the mix of market, demographic and policy trends that contribute to the growth and development patterns we see in metropolitan areas nationwide and to identify where possible, options for reform. Also, a detailed review of this paper by Anthony Downs, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, proved invaluable. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Arthur C. Nelson is professor and director of graduate studies in urban affairs and planning at the Virginia Tech Alexandria Center where he is also senior fellow with the Metropolitan Institute. Mitch Moody is a doctoral student in city and regional planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA. The authors thank Andres Skaburskis for especially thoughtful guidance in theoretical formulation and modeling, and William Drummond and Michael Tietz for additional insights. Comments on this paper can be sent directly to Chris Nelson who may be reached at acn@vt.edu The views expressed in this discussion paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the trustees,officers,or staff members of The Brookings Institution. Copyright© 2003 The Brookings Institution v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Growth costs money. And increasingly many municipalities, confronted with tax-averse electorates, have turned to impact fees—one-time charges against new development—to pay the costs of growth. Traditionally, these costs have been financed by property taxes. However, those revenues have proven mostly inadequate to fund the roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and schools required by new residential and commercial development Impact fees, though, are not universally accepted. Conventional wisdom among some private interests and public officials is that impact fees constrain local economic development, serving as a de facto "tax" on capital, stifling investment, and driving job growth to other fee-free jurisdictions. Supporters argue impact fees act as an investment in the community, spurring economic growth through the timely provision of new infrastructure and the expansion of buildable land. Given that impact fees often pay for public infrastructure projects, understanding the relationship between impact fees and local economic development, defined here as local job growth, is key. This report addresses the controversy around impact fees by reviewing the academic literature concerning the effect of impact fees on employment and the economy generally. In addition, the report presents a new analysis of the relationship between impact fees and job creation by assessing impact fee and economic data, assembled for the period 1993 to 1999, for the 67 counties of Florida. Overall, the paper finds that: • Property tax revenues increasingly fail to cover the full costs of the infrastructure needed to serve new development. More and more, political resistance to property taxes compromises the conventional way to pay for infrastructure needs brought on by new development. Consequently, new property values would have to be very high or property tax rates raised across the board to pay for the full array of infrastructure needs For example, one study of a rapidly growing city in Georgia in the 1990s found that the city faced a 50 percent shortfall in funding the new infrastructure demanded by new development and would need to raise$90 million more than it projected in total revenues from all state and federal transfers and property taxes. • Impact fees, like user fees, offer a more efficient way to pay for infrastructure than general taxes, and ensure benefits to those who pay them. Academic literature suggests that the aggregate benefits of impact fees improve efficiency in the provision of infrastructure. While impact fees often do not reflect the full price of infrastructure improvements, fees do make the economic linkage between those paying for and those receiving benefits more direct, and so promote economic efficiency. The obvious direct economic benefits include the actual infrastructure investment, such as new roads, new schools, and new water and sewer extensions. Indirect benefits include improved predictability in the marketplace, knowing when and where infrastructure investment will occur, and that all developers are treated equitably. vi • Impact fees increase the supply of buildable land. In the absence of impact fees, local governments may not have the revenue necessary to accommodate growth. With impact fees, they gain necessary infrastructure—water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities—to open new parcels of land development. One study also found that impact fees may reduce uncertainty and risk for developers by giving them a reasonably predictable supply of buildable land. • Impact fees have complex effects on housing prices. One particularly thorough study of the effect of impact fees on housing prices found that fees reduced land prices by the amount of fees paid but also raised finished house prices by about half again the fee amount. One interpretation is that while impact fees lower raw land prices as predicted by conventional economic theory, the amount of the fee reflecting infrastructure value is recovered in the sales price. Additionally, the increment above the fee represents the value of the infrastructure as a whole and/or the certainty perceived by the market that facilities will be provided at a desired level and quality of service(i.e. no congestion) regardless of growth pressures. • Impact fees do not slow job growth. In this study, we find, at minimum, that impact fees are not a drag on local economies. At most, impact fees are the grease that helps sustain job growth in the local economy. While impact fees will continue to draw detractors, this paper shows that impact fees are a practical and valuable tool for financing local infrastructure needs. Without them, growing communities may not be able to sustain growth. In short, impact fees can directly fund vital infrastructure improvements, while increasing the supply of buildable land, improving predictability in the development process, and indirectly promoting local employment at the same time. Faced with the growing demand for investment and the public resistance to tax increases, localities in growing regions that institute impact fees may become more prosperous in the long run than communities in such regions that do not have them. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. A REVIEW OF THE IMPACT FEE LITERATURE 4 A WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPACT FEES? 4 B. ARE IMPACT FEES ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT? 5 C. WHO PAYS THE IMPACT FEE? 5 D. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF IMPACT FEES ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND SUPPLY? 7 E. ARE IMPACT FEES A TAX OR INVESTMENT? 7 III. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF IMPACT FEES ON JOB GROWTH 9 A THE THEORY 9 B. THE SETTING FOR ANALYSIS 9 C. THE DATA AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 10 D. THE GENERAL MODEL 13 E. RESULTS 15 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 16 APPENDIX 17 REFERENCES 23 CASES 27 viii PAYING FOR PROSPERITY: IMPACT FEES AND JOB GROWTH I. INTRODUCTION When it comes to paying for the costs of growth, local governments throughout the U.S. are by and large stuck with the tab.' In rapidly growing localities this responsibility is more acute,as demands for new infrastructure—i.e., roads, sidewalks and sewers, parks and recreation facilities, schools, and public safety—can outstrip politically feasible means. To attempt to pay for these facilities, local governments rely on some combination of property, sales, and/or income taxes. However, boosting these taxes to pay for the costs of new development has become increasingly difficult. During the 1970s, inflation boosted property values and, in turn, property taxes, creating substantial taxpayer resentment(Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez 1993). In such an environment, localities hesitated to raise taxes to pay for additional expenses associated with new development. Today, these conditions remain. In response to taxpayer antipathy, many municipalities are seeking to shift the burden of paying for public improvements to developers. These charges, known as"impact fees,"are one- time assessments by local governments on new development, or the owners of new development, to help pay for the existing, new, or expanded infrastructure needed to serve that development. In practice, impact fees bridge the gap between the cost of new municipal infrastructure and available funds. They also provide politicians some cover for financing the necessary costs of new development. Consider the historical lineage of impact fees. Antecedents to impact fees were in-kind exactions, land dedications or build/install requirements for the construction of specific facilities. Impact fees, paid as monetary instead of in-kind contributions, came into wide use beginning in the 1970s, providing a more efficient and flexible means of local infrastructure financing such negotiated or ad hoc exactions.2 The cities and counties of some states—such as California, Colorado, Florida, and Texas—have widely adopted impact fees as a means of financing not only on-site but off-site infrastructure development as well. The list of states enabling impact fees is impressive, as seen in the following table. 'All state governments distribute some resources to localities to help finance local public services. The extent to which this occurs varies from state to state and across services. But for the most part, local governments are"on their own." 3 For example,the America Society of Civil Engineers(2001)notes that America's infrastructure needs exceed $1.3 trillion. 1 State Impact Fee Enabling Acts State Year Texas 1987 Maine 1988 California 1989 Vermont 1989 Nevada 1989 New Jersey 1989 Illinois 1989 Virginia 1990 West Virginia 1990 Washington 1990 Georgia 1990 Pennsylvania 1991 Oregon 1991 Arizona 1991 New Hampshire 1991 Indiana 1991 Maryland 1992 Rhode Island 1992 Idaho 1992 New Mexico 1993 Wisconsin 1994 Colorado 2001 Note:Florida's Growth Management Act of 1985 does not specifically allow impact fees,but requires local governments to maintain adequate facilities and prohibits them from approving developments that cause a reduction in services for existing users. This"concurrency"law accomplishes essentially the same purpose as impact fees (Carrion 2001). Source:Nelson,Duncan(1995), and Meck(2002) The increasing popularity of impact fee owes to several factors. First, since the early 1980s the federal government has devolved certain powers and reduced subsidies to state and local governments for the construction of public infrastructure. Second, state and federal mandates on such infrastructure as erosion control, wastewater treatment, highway construction, and stormwater drainage—just to mention a few—have raised the price of public infrastructure. Third, in the 1970s and 1980s, stagnating incomes fueled popular resentment against new taxes. That sentiment was sustained through the 1990s even during times of relative prosperity, as evidenced by Virginia's rollback of its automobile tax, Georgia's expansion of homestead exemptions to the property tax, and Oregon's caps on local property tax rates. Today, new infrastructure development has lagged under these political and financial constraints, resulting in deteriorating infrastructure quality, congestion of existing facilities, and inadequate infrastructure to accommodate new development 3 The choices local governments have faced are bleak—continued popular resentment of higher property taxes or economic stagnation and a reduction in the quality of life. Given this realization, localities and developers have gradually warmed to the idea of impact fees as a practical means of addressing fiscal shortfalls. 2 Impact fees remain controversial, however. Developers often complain vociferously that impact fees detract from economic growth by driving up their costs, causing housing consumers to "vote with their feet"as a reaction to higher prices, abandoning jurisdictions with impact fees:4 Others say that impact fees are the only feasible means of financing new infrastructure development in a tax-averse political environment. The existence of impact fees shows that the initial homeowners in a community have more political power than newcomers (Beatley 1988; Fischel 2001). Impact fees are a reflection of the unwillingness of existing property owners to pay higher taxes to create addition infrastructure that largely, though not entirely, benefits newcomers. This report looks at the relationship between impact fees and economic development,which we define as job growth. The literature offers many ways to view the concept of"economic development." It can mean improving incomes, reducing unemployment, broadening opportunities, developing skills, creating new markets, revitalizing stagnating areas, and so forth (Blakely 2000). The conventional view of economic development, however, is simply job growth (Blair and Reese 1999)for the simple reason that nearly all forms of economic development are subsumed under this simple metric. Our purpose in this report is to observe the relationship between impact fee collections over time and new job growth, controlling for a variety of factors, as explained in Section III. To that end, the next section provides an overview of impact fees and its general role in economic development, as drawn from the best academic literature. Given the lack of academic research on the role of impact fees on job growth as a measure of economic development, Section III reports new analysis of this relationship, based on data from all 67 Florida counties. In short, the analysis finds that there are no discernible adverse effects of impact fees on job growth and appears to facilitate it. Conclusions and policy implications are offered in Section IV. Details of the analysis are presented in an appendix. 4 This theory was originally advanced by Tiebout, 1956. 3 II. A REVIEW OF THE IMPACT FEE LITERATURE This report focuses on the employment consequences of impact fee expenditures. The general literature on impact fees is substantial, ranging from historic, legal and, administrative aspects, to economic factors. However, the literature is sparse on the relationship between impact fees and employment impacts—in fact, virtually nonexistent. A literature review solely focused narrowly on the employment effects of impact fees would be very brief and uninformative. This literature review, therefore, is relatively comprehensive, touching on many aspects of impact fees not directly related to employment and economic growth, but which are essential to understanding the environment for impact fees. Five questions are examined: What is the justification for impact fees; are impact fees economically efficient; who pays the impact fee; what is the role of impact fees in infrastructure and land supply; and are impact fees a tax or investment? Each area provides important context for understanding the effects of impact fees on employment and the economy generally. A. What is the Justification for Impact Fees? Local jurisdictions have at their disposal many potential sources of revenue that can fund new infrastructure. They come in three basic forms: general, user, and shared. General funding involves the use of general (rather than dedicated) taxes, typically property taxes but also sales and income, to build and maintain non-utility infrastructure such as roads, parks, public safety, schools, and the like. The burden falls on the entire base of taxpayers. User funding involves the use of fees to finance infrastructure. This is common among utilities such as water, sewer, and drainage systems. The burden falls on all ratepayers. User funding includes all forms of exactions on new development, such as impact fees (Alterman 1988). Cost sharing occurs when user funds are leveraged against general funds such as when impact fees pay the local share of library facility costs with the rest coming from the state through its general fund. Public facilities have historically been financed from property taxes, a general revenue source. However, numerous studies show that property taxes usually do not cover the full cost of the new infrastructure needed to serve new development(Burchell and others 2000). Conceivably, property tax revenues from existing households could cover the cost of maintaining and rebuilding existing infrastructure, and revenues from new and more expensive properties could pay for the new infrastructure. However, it is unlikely that a uniform tax rate coupled with varying property values would produce the desired effect of exactly covering total infrastructure costs. New property values would have to be quite high in order to cover the full cost of new infrastructure development without increasing property tax rates for all. Finally, raising property taxes to finance new facilities benefiting new development is often politically untenable (Nicholas, Nelson, and Juergensmeyer 1991). Consider the case of Alpharetta, GA, in the 1990s based on the experience of one of the authors (Nelson). Local studies showed that to meet the infrastructure needs of new development, the city would need to raise $90 million more than projected total revenues from all sources, 4 including state and federal transfers, and property taxes. Options included raising property taxes on all development, deferring maintenance, diverting general funds from such activities as public safety, accepting congestion of facilities, or charging impact fees. The city chose impact fees. Fears that impact fees would dampen development demand never materialized. At the time, Alpharetta was one of the state's fastest growing cities. A decade later it still is. B. Are Impact Fees Economically Efficient? When impact fees are equivalent to market prices they are considered to be efficient (Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez 1993). Efficient development requires that the cost of infrastructure be included in the price of the development though full cost recovery is seldom achieved in practice (Snyder and Stegman 1986). A key advantage of impact fees (and user charges generally) is the possibility of improving economic efficiency in the provision of infrastructure. Resources are allocated efficiently when prices are equal to the marginal cost of a good—the price to produce one more of something (Downing and Frank 1983). Under perfect competition, marginal cost pricing follows automatically. Taxes are considered to be inefficient because they add to the market- determined price creating inefficiencies due to over-or underpricing. Thus, the question of whether impact fees act as a tax impairing economic efficiency or as an accurate and fair price paid for goods and services received by feepayers is central to the efficacy of impact fees as a source of funding new infrastructure. What would happen if user charges such as impact fees were efficiently priced? Brueckner (1997) modeled the growth paths of cities to assess the efficiency of different schemes of financing new infrastructure including cost-sharing arrangements and impact fees. The metric he maximized was the aggregate value of land in the city. He found that aggregate land value was greatest under an impact fee scheme. He noted that this result is consistent with the general economics literature which states that user charges should be set to equal the marginal congestion cost imposed by a user to achieve maximum efficiency. In practice, impact fees are often underpriced because they are set as average prices, rather than by the marginal price of serving a new development-which is usually higher. Nonetheless, Brueckner shows the aggregate benefits of the kind of pricing efficiencies impact fees may generate. C. Who Pays the Impact Fee? Incidence refers to who pays the tax or fee. In the case of impact fees, this could be the seller of raw land to the developer, the developer of finished lots, the builder of homes on those lots, the buyers of the homes, or the economy as a whole. Under a general property tax the incidence usually falls on all taxpayers. Impact fees instead target the development process. In an obvious sense, it is the developer that pays the impact fee, at least in the short-run. In the long run, however, the developer strives to shift the cost of the impact fee. This occurs as forward-shifting to higher purchase prices or rents paid by the consumers of development, or as 5 backward-shifting to the original owner as a lower price for undeveloped land (Watkins 1999,Yinger 1998, Delaney and Smith 1989, Fischel 1987). When the demand for buildable land is inelastic (relatively insensitive to changes in price)and the supply of raw land elastic(relatively sensitive to market change)forward-shifting is likely to occur and it will be the home buyer that pays much of the fee. When the demand for buildable land is elastic and the supply of raw land is inelastic, backward- shifting is likely to occur and it will be the seller of raw land that pays the fee in the form of lower prices. Despite general agreement in the literature on this pattern of incidence, Watkins (1999) observes that this process is not well understood. He surmises that the impact fee burden will always be split between all the players in the development process. In a 1998 paper, Yinger rigorously formalized much of the earlier work on the incidence of impact fees. Yinger's key result was that development fees led to a drop in the cost of land even when the development's benefits outweighed the costs. The mobility of housing consumers implied they would bear no burden in excess of the infrastructure benefits they received. Developers mobility ensured they would bear no burden in competitive housing markets. Yinger's results also confirmed that impact fees not only protect existing residents from the cost of new infrastructure but also effectively gave them a property tax cut due to the expansion of the property tax base. Yinger found that, "Even with mobile households, competitive housing markets, and infrastructure investments that meet a benefit-cost test, one-quarter or more of the burden of these fees could fall on the owners on undeveloped land." Recent empirical work by Ihlanfeldt and Shaughnessy (2002) adds to our understanding of the incidence effects. Using Dade County (Miami) Florida as their case study, where the supply of buildable land is relatively elastic but the supply of raw land is relatively inelastic(our interpretation of the market conditions they studied), they found that each dollar of impact fees assessed lowered land prices by a dollar but raised total sales prices by 60 cents. Why? Our interpretation is threefold.5 First, consistent with the theory of land economics, in relatively competitive markets the effect of the impact fee will be to drive raw land prices down by the cost of the fee plus the overhead factor facing developers, if any.6 Second, the amount of the fee is added to the finished price essentially recovering the discounted raw land price associated with it. Third, the 60 percent increment to the fee amount reflects either the"leveraged"value added associated with the fee—such as when the local government may leverage locally collected impact fees for state or federal matching grants, as in the case of transportation and school facilities in Florida—or that a specified level or quality of service is maintained because of the fee, thereby preventing congestion, regardless of growth pressures (Nicholas, Nelson, and Juergensmeyer 1991), or both.' 5 This is our interpretation only and not of lhlanfeldt and Shaughnessey,who offer none. 6 By"overhead factor"we mean the additional costs incurred by developers for handling the fee,such as the interest cost between the time the fee is paid and the development, such as a home,is sold. 'The law of impact fees requires that in exchange for payment facilities are provided at a level of service reflecting the basis of the fee calculation. (See Nicholas, Nelson,and Juergensmeyer 1991.) 6 Impact fees on commercial and industrial development add a complexity to the incidence analysis that has yet to be addressed. Impact fees imposed on commercial development can potentially be passed on to customers and employees. If the products of an enterprise are price inelastic, then customers will bear a higher portion of the fee. Similarly, if local labor demand is weak and workers are immobile, then employees will bear some of the burden of the fee(Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez 1993). This is one argument supporting the view that impact fees may be adverse to economic development. D. What is the Role of Impact Fees on Infrastructure and Land Supply? Often overlooked in debates about impact fees is what they are actually intended to accomplish. The fundamental purpose of impact fees is to generate revenue to build infrastructure serving new development(Nelson 1988). In the absence of impact fees, local governments may have difficulty raising the revenue necessary to accommodate growth, in terms of paying for new and costly infrastructure. In such cases, growth either is stymied through lengthy planning processes that are preoccupied with the efficacy of development when facilities are congested (such as roads and schools), stopped through moratoria, or displaced to other communities. There is another purpose to impact fees that has been overlooked too long in the literature: their impact on land supply. Communities may have adequate facility capacity, such as in water and sewer treatment, but the distribution network may be insufficient to accommodate new development. From an economic development perspective, the availability of key infrastructure such as water, sewer, drainage, and roads to land to make it buildable is perhaps the important ingredient to increasing the supply of land commensurate with development pressures (see, e.g. Blair and Premus 1987). Finally, impact fees can reduce risk and uncertainty. Studies of Sarasota, Florida and Loveland, Colorado, found that impact fees appeared to reduce the uncertainty and risk of development and often are used to leverage the use of other non-impact fee funds to expand infrastructure (Nelson and others 1991, 1992). The effect is to provide developers with a reasonably predictable supply of buildable land. This relationship between impact fees and the supply of buildable land has been mostly ignored in the literature.8 E Are Impact Fees a Tax or Investment? The effect of impact fees on economic development is controversial. Impacts fees can be considered a kind of dedicated tax because revenues are required by law to be spent on the infrastructure for which they were collected. In this respect, impact fees are simultaneously both dedicated taxes and contributions to capital formation. But in the political debate some argue that the fees invariably act as a prohibitive tax on capital, stifling investment and job growth. Others 8 With the notable exception of Kaiser and Burby, 1988. 7 contend that growth can depend on the timely provision of new infrastructure that impact fees make possible. It is important to note that the legal justification for impact fees is fundamentally different from general taxes, falling under the rubric of municipal police powers, like zoning, which protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Though they may behave like a dedicated tax,we defer to custom using the term"impact fee" because their legal authority derives not from the power to tax but from the power to regulate. Those who suggest that impact fees are a drag on the local economy would formally argue that they behave like an inefficient deadweight tax. In a competitive market, a deadweight tax would result in the supply of buildable land falling and its price rising by an amount sufficient to offset it. This would delay new development(Downing and McCaleb 1987). Likewise, if impact fees act as a tax on capital without creating value in the development process, markets will adjust by shifting the location of development and/or by raising prices, thus cutting consumption and eroding economic efficiency. If, on the other hand, impact fees work on the supply side as a prospective investment to expand the supply of buildable land, the pace and quality of economic development could feasibly depend on imposition of the fees. Without impact fees the supply of buildable land could fall and the price of buildable land could rise thereby increasing the cost of development. So an important question is whether impact fees act as a deadweight tax, often considered to be a drag on growth, or as a practical means of investment in needed infrastructure, encouraging new development and economic growth. 8 III. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF IMPACT FEES ON JOB GROWTH We come now to the central question: Do impact fees foster or discourage local economic development, which we define as job growth? In this section we present first the theory, then the setting for analysis, followed by the data, the methodological approach and general model. The next section reviews results. The methodological and statistical details are reported in the appendix. A. The Theory If impact fees are perceived as a deadweight tax, communities with impact fees will tend to develop more slowly than communities that do not use them. However, if impact fees contribute to capital formation in the form of infrastructure development needs, then communities assessing fees should perform better than communities without them, all things considered. Before proceeding, a further review of how impact fees can be viewed as a contribution to capital formation is in order. First, the impact fee itself is a payment for which infrastructure is returned. Under rational nexus criteria, the fee cannot exceed the cost of infrastructure apportioned to the development net of other revenues used to finance the same infrastructure. For example, if federal or state funds are available to help finance infrastructure, the impact fee is based on the cost of infrastructure less those external revenue sources. In this way, as noted earlier, the impact fee can leverage more infrastructure investments than the development itself pays for through the fee. Second, the impact fee must be spent on infrastructure in ways that benefit new development (albeit not necessarily on-site) and are roughly concurrent with its anticipated impacts, if not before. Road improvements, water and sewer expansions, for example, are typical facilities for which impact fees are spent. Third, impact fees must be expended based on a plan (Nicholas, Nelson, and Juergensmeyer 1991). This means that developers can reasonably forecast when and where infrastructure will be built. The supply of land made available by such infrastructure investments is thus known in advance. The planning and capital improvements programming behind impact fees reduces risk and uncertainty while expanding the supply of buildable land reasonably predictably. Finally, recall Brueckner's (1997) conclusion that impact fees can elevate the aggregate value of the community more so than general taxation. The reason in part is because efficiencies are gained in matching revenues with impacts of new development. The higher value may make a community more attractive to new development, especially development associated with new jobs. B. The Setting for Analysis The central question guiding the analysis is: 9 Between communities that are identical in every respect except for impact fees, are those with impact fees associated with the generation of more jobs at the margin than those without, all things considered? The question is applied to an examination of the association between local economic development, defined here as change in jobs, and impact fees in the 67 counties of Florida during the period 1993 to 1999. Florida's counties vary considerably with respect to size(7,000 to 2.1 million residents), economic growth (strongly positive to stagnant or even negative), and demographic characteristics(rich, urban, rural). The time-series aspect of the panel data follows the counties from 1993 to 1999 through economic cycles and varying levels of impact fee assessment. For example, in 1997 only about half the counties (34) assessed impact fees, and, of those that did, the total revenue collected was$196.9 million, varying by county from $891 to$57.3 million. However, in 1993, total revenue collected from impact fees in those 34 counties was only $100.5 million. Reasons for growing revenue include a rebound from an economic recession affecting the state during the early 1990s, larger lists of facilities financed in part from impact fees, and higher assessments During the study period only about half the counties had jurisdictions collecting impact fees, and, of those where fees were collected, the variation in aggregate countywide collections was substantial. There thus exists among Florida's 67 counties sufficient variation in the data to evaluate the"boost-or-drag"effects of impact fees on job growth. Florida is also an appropriate state to examine since it has arguably the most extensive history of applying rational nexus-style development impact fees and therefore the most likely to reveal an observable cause-and-effect relationship between impact fees and tangible economic benefits (Nelson 1988; Nicholas, Nelson, and Juergensmeyer 1991). C. The Data and Methodological Approach The state of Florida collects data in a standardized format across all 67 counties, 405 municipalities and 1,178 special districts, including data on impact fees collected by one or more jurisdictions within the 34 counties where such fees are assessed. Beginning in fiscal year 1993, counties and municipalities in Florida were required by the state comptroller to include impact fee collections in their annual financial reports to the state. The great breadth (67 total counties with 34 having at least one jurisdiction collecting impact fees) and depth (7 years) of this dataset is conducive to both cross-sectional and longitudinal multivariate regression analyses, the details of which are reported in the appendix. Another unique feature of Florida's public finance accounting data is the disaggregation of accounts. Often, revenues from exactions, impact fee,s and special assessments are co-mingled in the accounting process, but Florida's impact fee dataset provides sufficient accounting and jurisdictional disaggregation to investigate the effects of local public finance policies. 10 For this analysis impact fee data for the Florida counties was assembled for the period 1993 to 1999(Table 1). Impact fee collections have been consistently rising for the state of Florida as a whole over the period 1993-99. Total impact fees collected over this period by the 34 counties are over a billion dollars ($1.22 billion). Within specific categories, transportation-related impact fees represent over half(54.0 percent) the total collected. At the other extreme, impact fee revenues for the human services, public safety, and environment(water, wastewater) categories together total only 12.2 percent of aggregate impact fee revenues. Thus, the revenues from impact fees are both substantial and diverse (Figure 1). 11 Table 1. Levels of Impact Fee Revenues in Florida, 1993-1999 Category of Impact Fee 1993 1994 `; . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total Public Safety $6,112,402 $12,072,141 $7,449,337 $6,426,496 $14,472,111 $15,427,787 $16,571,996 $78,532,270 Physical Environment $2,494,292 $29,021,186 $30,602,259 $30,039,081 $17,271,049 $36,525,036 $47,392,999 $193,345,902 Transportation $70,055,757 $80,729,035 $75,874,384 $79,793,997 $117,496,015 $105,197,693 $130,658,567 $659,805,448 Economic Environment $257,129 $324,943 $290,715 $242,268 $245,818 $279,427 $290,481 $1,930,781 Human Services $3,094,648 $5,886,280 $9,230,217 $8,673,835 $10,016,822 $11,344,714 $19,883,982 $68,130,498 Cultural/Recreation $13,981,835 $10,734,496 $8,139,400 $9,225,410 $24,886,370 $25,002,010 $26,275,616 $118,245,137 Other $4,499,409 $4,066,993 $24,284,121 $24,326,306 $12,505,293 $15,932,971 $16,679,695 $102,294,788 Total $100,495,472 $142,835,074 $155,870,433 $158,727,393 $196,893,478 $209,709,638 $257,753,336 $1,222,284,824 Source:Florida Figure 1. Percent Distribution of Impact Fee Revenues in Florida, 1993-1999, by Category Other Public Safety 8% ,. 6% Cultural/Recreation Physical Environment 10% ,. _, 16% Human Services ' ' 6% Economic Environment <1% • Transportation 54% 12 The Florida Statistical Abstract is published annually by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)and provides a wide array of data consistent across time on human resources, physical resources and industries, services, public resources and administration, and economic and social trends. The state comptroller's impact fee and BEBR datasets provide sufficient data to conduct cross-sectional multivariate analysis evaluating the association between development impact fees and key development indicators. There have been no published studies of the effects of impact fees on job growth. Granted that job growth is only one element of what constitutes economic development(job quality and stability, increased industrial diversity and integration, and higher wages are additional factors), but it is the most common metric and one that is both easily measured and socially and politically important. The approach here relies on an analysis of panel data with both cross-sectional and time- series dimensions. Independently pooled cross-sectional analysis effectively increases the sample size to produce more precise estimators and test statistics with more power. Economic growth is affected by numerous factors including past growth, new investment, shifting industrial patterns, and demographics. It is practically impossible to introduce suitable data for all the diverse contributors to employment growth, so the approach used here specifies a spatial fixed-effects model with dummy variables denoting particular region-sized geographic areas. These variables aggregately control for the idiosyncratic bundle of attributes present in the corresponding space. We offer qualifications to the approach, however. Our current research has been limited to investigating the association between impact fees and job growth, focusing on Florida. As will be seen, our findings suggest that impacts fees do not appear to be a drag on job growth, and may even help. Future research should attempt to establish causality—that is a direct link between impact fees and job growth, which is something this study does not do. A more sophisticated approach would improve on the straightforward application of the general least squares regression technique we report by using an instrumental variable two-stage least square regression method to handle the potential simultaneity in causation between job growth and the collection of impact fees. Additionally, the scope of independent variables should be increased to account for the diversity of causal agents which might explain job growth. Taken together, these two methodological extensions should more definitively answer the question of the effects of impact fees on employment growth. One of us(Moody, for his doctoral dissertation) is working on this presently. D. The General Model Because counties vary we need to employ regression analysis to separate the effects of numerous factors on local economic development from any impact fee relationships. The Appendix reviews the details of our model. The simple version of it is: NEW JOBS is associated with: 13 IMPACT FEES PER BUILDING PERMIT BASE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CHANGE PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA PRIOR DECADE(1980-1990) JOB GROWTH YEAR REGION New jobs are defined for our purposes as change in jobs from a base year, say 1993, and two years hence, 1995. This is our"dependent"variable; that is, its change is dependent on characteristics of the"independent"variables presented next. We calculate this change for every county for every two-year period from 1993 through 1997 (with the last year being 1999). In all, we have 335 observations (67 counties over five two-year periods). The reason we track job growth from a base year is that we are interested in knowing whether impact fees collected in a base year may influence job change in later years. The choice of two, three, or more years may be arbitrary and perhaps any lagged arrangement would be reasonable. We chose the two-year lag because it is probably the least amount of time needed to transpire between impact fee collections and the influence of fees on future employment. The dependent variable NEW JOBS is influenced by"experimental" and "control" variables. Our"experimental"factor is IMPACT FEES PER BUILDING PERMIT issued in the first year of each two-year period. The unit of analysis is all 67 counties including all cities in those counties. Although cities within counties vary in their impact fee practices, aggregation to the county level was needed to assure comparability among other control data that are available only at the county level. Moreover, like others, we consider that the smallest reasonable unit of a local economy to be the county (see Nelson, Drummond, and Sawicki 1995). Consistent with our theory, we hypothesize a positive association between impact fees collected per building permit and job change. The remaining dependent variables are called"controls" because they account for important differences between counties. BASE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CHANGE is the change in jobs within each county between the prior year and the base year of analysis. Growing counties tend to create an atmosphere that attracts more growth, so by controlling for growth inherent with growing counties we are better able to tease out influences of impact fees on sustaining growth. We expect a positive association between past job growth and future job growth (Nelson, Drummond, and Sawicki 1995). PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA is the property taxes collected in the previous year divided by population of the base year. It controls for any effects property taxes may have on job growth but the literature on the relationship between them is unclear(Nelson, Drummond, and Sawicki 1995). PRIOR DECADE GROWTH is the employment growth by county for the period 1980 to 1990. This variable serves as a baseline control for long-term economic growth in the decade preceding this analysis. YEAR is the base year of each two-year period. It helps to account for differences between counties that occur during any given year such as a momentary blip up, or down, in one county's economy relative to others. There is no expected direction of association expected a priori. REGION is a variable representing the eight relatively socially and economically homogeneous regions devised by the state Department of Banking and Finance, part of the comptroller's office, 14 within which each county is assigned. It controls for differences in social, economic, demographic, and growth dynamics among counties based on the region within which they are located. There is no expected direction of association expected a priori. A word on collinearity is needed before proceeding with results. It seems obvious that if impact fees are assessed on only new development, then the more development there is the more fees will be collected. Hence, we are initially worried that any measure of association between impact fees and job growth would be circular:jobs reflect growth, which reflects fees collected. We employed a number of tests to assure that our analysis teased out effects of impact fees reasonably and they are reported in the appendix. Keep in mind, however, that our dependent variable is impact fees collected per building permit issued. This creates a standardized way to compare differences in impact fees between counties. If high fees in one county burden economic development more than in another, then we should see job change lag behind those counties, all things considered. E Results Our statistical analysis (presented in detail in the Appendix)finds a significant positive association between impact fees collected per building permit in one year and job growth over the next two years. This finding holds even when controlling for base year employment growth, prior decade employment growth, property taxes per capita, the value of local building permit activity, regional, temporal, and other factors. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis that impact fees spent on infrastructure development are not a drag on local economies with respect to job growth but, instead, can be beneficial to them. A conservative interpretation would at least claim that no discernable adverse economic impacts from impact fees could be found. A liberal interpretation of these model results would argue that the imposition of impact fees typically results in positive effects on local employment, at least in Florida during the 1990s. 15 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS These analytical results provide a convincing argument that the imposition of impact fees represents an investment in the local economy, without boosting general taxation. The controversy over impact fees, already over two decades old, will likely continue.9 But for very practical, not theoretical, reasons, impact fees will remain an important mechanism for growing communities to finance local infrastructure needs. Impact fees are really nothing more than an invention by local officials to solve the problem of providing infrastructure to sustain development in rapidly growing areas. In essence, theoretical debate has followed pragmatism. To be sure, the positive association between impact fee revenues and job growth found in this study should not be misconstrued to mean that increasing impact fees will always result in job growth. That relationship may exist for many of the counties studied, but it might not hold for counties experiencing low or declining growth, or an oversupply of existing infrastructure. But for growing local economies, impact fees can directly fund infrastructure needs and indirectly boost job growth by expanding infrastructure and buildable land supply commensurate with demand. Indeed, impact fees may be needed to sustain growth, particularly if the alternative is an inability to expand infrastructure to meet the needs of new development. Impact fees may certainly be unpopular to influential interests, but our findings suggest that without them economic growth may be compromised. Given tax limitations and growing demand for infrastructure investment, communities in growing regions that have impact fees may become more prosperous in the long run than communities in such regions without them. 9 The first leading case on rational nexus style impact fees was City of Dunelin v.Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County, 358 So.2nd 846, litigated in 1976 and decided in 1978. 16 APPENDIX Here we present our detailed model and statistical analysis. Model: The model tests the association between impact fees and job formation: (1) NEW JOBS t(b)-t(a)=AO+Al IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITSt(a) +A2 BASE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CHANGE t(a) +Z A3 PRIOR DECADE CHANGE t(a),i + A4 PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA t(a))+E AiYEAR DUMMIES t(a),i + AREGIONAL DUMMIES t(a),i + U; where, NEW JOBSI(b)-t(a) is a vector of the change in employment in all counties between a given year, t(b), and a base year, t(a); IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS is a vector of impact fees collected by each county between a base year and the previous year divided by the value of building permits issued for the same period; BASE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CHANGE is a vector of the change in jobs in each county between a base year and the previous year. PRIOR DECADE EMPLOYMENT CHANGE is a vector of the change in jobs in each county during the period 1980-1990. PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA is a vector of county property taxes collected between a base year and the previous year divided by the population for the base year; EAYEAR DUMMIES; is a vector of year dummy variables (i=1-4); EA1REGIONAL DUMMIES) is a vector of regional dummy variables 0=1-7); and u is the stochastic disturbance term. (2) A second formulation of the model substitutes the dummy variable IMPACT FEE, set to unity if impact fees are collected by a county and otherwise set to zero, in place of the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS variable. If impact fees are a form of capital formation, (3) aNEW JOBS kw-kw/IMPACT FEES t(a) > 0; but if they are a tax on capital, (4) aNEW JOBS kw-kw/IMPACT FEES tea) < 0. The dependent variable, NEW JOBS, is the change in the number of jobs associated with the imposition of impact fees from the year in which the fees were collected, t(a), to a later year, t(b). The signs of the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS and IMPACT FEES explanatory variables are indicative of the"boost-or-drag" employment effects of the fees. A log-linear transformation of the data series will permit interpretation of the explanatory variable coefficients as semi-elasticities as well as detrending (with year dummy variables) the time-series data to account for price inflation. 17 An important consideration in the model specification is the time lag, t(a)—t(b), between the imposition of an impact fee in a given year and the measurable manifestation of the resultant economic effects, if any. The revenues collected from impact fees are disbursed through capital improvement programs (CIP)that typically operate for five or six years. It seems reasonable to expect that the economic effects such as job gains should be measurable mid-way the CIP cycle on any one project, here taken to be two years. Thus the time lag between collection of the fee and resultant employment effects will be two years. Dependent and Independent Variables. NEW JOBS—The dependent variable is the change in county-wide employment between a base year, t(a), and a later year, t(b). The quantity NEW JOBS reflects, in part, investment decisions made at t(a)which affect the subsequent level of employment growth at t(b). Experimental Variable IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS—Aggregate county-wide impact fee revenues for a given base year, t(a),divided by the aggregate value of all county building permits for the same year. This explanatory variable normalizes county impact fee revenues by the value of building permits issued in that county for that year, producing a relative measure of the importance of impact fees in the local economy. If NEW JOBS is positively related to the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS explanatory variable, then impact fees may be viewed as a beneficial form of capital investment. At a minimum, a positive sign on this variable implies that impact fees are not detrimental to local job growth and economic development. If negatively correlated with NEW JOBS, then impact fees can plausibly act as a tax on capital, stifling local job growth. IMPACT FEES—A binary variable which assumes the value of unity for counties collecting impact fee revenue for a given base year, t(a), and a value of zero otherwise. Use of a dummy variable eliminates the influence in the model of the nominal size of impact fees collected in a county. As with the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS variable, if NEW JOBS is positively correlated with the IMPACT FEES explanatory variable, then impact fees can be viewed as good for job growth. Control Variables BASE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CHANGE—The change in county-wide employment between the base year in which impact fees are collected, t(a), and the previous year, t(a-1). BASE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CHANGE controls for the effects of the economic environment in the base year on subsequent(2-year lagged) employment. PRIOR DECADE EMPLOYMENT CHANGE—The change in county-wide employment between 1980 and 1990. PRIOR DECADE EMPLOYMENT CHANGE controls for the long-term effects of the economic environment in the decade prior to the period of this analysis. 18 PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA—County-wide property taxes revenues for a given future year, t(a), divided by the population of that county for that year. The expected correlation to the dependent variable is ambiguous depending on the effects of the tax. The traditional view is that high property taxes can redirect investment capital from economic development. A contrasting and increasingly appreciated view is that high property taxes reflect high quality services and a high quality of life, both desirable characteristics of firms and households choosing a place to locate. Moreover, since many local governments give property tax concessions to lure targeted economic development opportunities, such firms benefit from higher taxes paid by everyone else. No direction of association can be predicted with much reliability (Nelson, Drummond, and Sawicki 1995). YEAR DUMMIES—The intercepts on the year dummy variables account for the likely possibility that the model's explanatory variables have different variance distributions in different time periods. Log-linear transformations of the model including the year dummy variables will effectively detrend the time-series data. Calendar year(CY) 1993 is taken to be the reference year. REGIONAL DUMMIES—The spatial fixed-effects model uses binary variables to allow for regional variation in the economic environment. These dummies aggregately control for the particular bundle of attributes present in a region including the demographic characteristics of the population(age, race, and education)and other sources of regional variation. The Florida Comptroller's Department of Banking and Finance has divided the 67 counties into eight economically homogenous groupings: Pensacola/Northwest, Jacksonville/Northeast, Orlando/Central, West Palm Beach/Southeast, Miami/South, Ft. Lauderdale/South Central, Ft. Myers/Southwest, Tampa/West Central. The Pensacola/Northwest region will provide a reference for the regions to the south.10 Statistical Analysis: The empirical results of the pooled cross-sectional regression analyses are presented in Table 2. Two models are presented, each with the dependent variable the natural logarithm of the lagged (two-year) change in employment. For the cross-sectional analysis the last year analyzed was 1997 because of the two-year lag in the dependent variable; the most recent employment data from BEBR was 1999. The coefficients of both models consistently reflect a significant positive effect of impact fees on job growth even when controlling for base year employment growth, property taxes per capita, the value of local building permit activity, regional, and other factors. 10 The Florida Comptroller's Department of Banking and Finance definitions of the eight economic regions can be found at http://www.dbf.state.fl.us/regions.html. 19 i TABLE 2 { Em I irical Modell!'! Results Variables Cross-sectional(1993-1999)Generalized Least Squares Regression Model Coefficients _- IModel 1:Log-Linear Functional Form I Model 2:Log-Linear Functional Form i Dependent Variable 1 Lagged(2-year)Change In Employment I 1 e. t Explanatory Variables[Std.Error/ Impact Fees/Value o Building Perrnitts 8.779(1.885] Impact Fee Dummy 1482[.085] (Control Variables[SttL Error/ 1 l.._ Baseline Year Change in Employment • 4.877E-06[3.25IE-06] t__________±.1§. 6 E (3.328E-061 Value of Building Permits ! 9.403E-10[3.017E-101 Property Tax Per Capita 9.320E-03(.0011 5.933E-03(.0011 Prior Decade Employment Growth ,.....j____ 2.053E-05 1.296E•06 1.623E-05 f 2.391 E-061 ' Regional Dummies fa) I F i FtLauder(SCer) J -.713 1.233) -1.2181.3321 I- F1Myers(SW) 1 .344(.1951 .206[.1691 Miami(S) I .447[.1561 .662[.1841 Orlando(Cen) I .962[.158] 330(.1721 WestPalm ay --- .249[.144] .253[.156] ---Tampr_r(WCen --_ - 1.196[.147] ------ � ------.893[172] ---- E Jar NE 1 -9.123E-02 .144 -.130 .157] Year Dununies(b) _ -- - i CY 94 ( -1.653E-02(.038] i -1.624E-02[A071 I- CY 95 -3.051E-02(.063] I 2.611E-03[.1081 CY 96 .-1 -8.331E-02 w -8.331E-02[.0421 - 7.682E-03[.1061.____ CY 97 -5.690E-02[.0541 8.223E-03(.1061 Constant 9.077[.130] - 9.086[.166] _ Statistics Adjusted R-Sguare - 0.919 _- 0.799 -_ Standard Error _-_------ ---1.507 _-------- L 1.602 V- N - - - ---- -- 334- - -r - 334. - - - fa)=reference rection Pensa(NCen116)=reference year CY 93. I 20 Initially Model 1, a log-linear functional form, produced a positive(+7.965) and significant coefficient(t=2.62)for the explanatory variable IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS. A Breusch- Pagan test indicated a possible problem with heteroskedasticity (p<0.001). A Generalized Least Squares estimation approach" was used to correct for heteroskedasticity. The results reflect a positive coefficient(+8.779)and higher significance (t=4.657)for the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS variable. This significant positive association endorses the hypothesis that impact fees spent on infrastructure development are not a drag on local economies with respect to job growth but, instead, may be beneficial to local economies. Of particular concern in a model with several potentially related predictors is collinearity. The variance inflation factor(VIE)for the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS coefficient was 2.588, substantially less than the rule of thumb of VIF> 10.0 (Kleinbaum 1988)for problematic collinearity characteristics. Similarly, computations of the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix show a minimum eigenvalues of 0.221 and a maximum condition index of 3.258. Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch (1980) recommend interpreting a condition index of 30 or more as reflecting moderate to severe collinearity so no significant problem with collinearity is indicated. Additionally, the variance proportions of the principal components do not reflect high loadings onto multiple components with large condition indices, again reflecting acceptable collinearity characteristics. The coefficient for the PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA variable is significant and greater than zero indicating a positive relationship between tax and resultant job growth as with the IMPACT FEES variables. As noted, the expected correlation to the dependent variable can be ambiguous depending on the effects of the tax in a particular setting. Given the positive sign and high significance of the PROPERTY TAX PER CAPITA variable, it is plausible to conclude that property taxes do not exert a chilling effect on job growth in the Florida case. The variable PRIOR DECADE EMPLOYMENT GROWTH is significant and greater than zero indicating a positive relationship between tax and resultant job growth as with the IMPACT FEES variables. In a sense, past performance is a good predictor of the future. The performance of this control variable combined with performance of our experimental variable suggests the"rich get richer" but when the"rich" also use impact fees to sustain infrastructure expansion to accommodate growth the rich get richer still. None of the year dummy control variables were statistically significant. Compared to the Pensacola/Northwest reference region, the Orlando, West Palm, Fort Myers, Jacksonville Tampa and Miami regions fared better with respect to employment increases during the period 1993-1997. The Fort Lauderdale region performed relatively less well than the Pensacola region. The aggregate nature of the regional dummy variables makes detailed interpretation of constituent causal factors impossible. "After Wooldridge(2000). 21 Model 2, also a log-linear functional form, uses the explanatory dummy variable IMPACT FEES in place of the IMPACT FEES/BUILDING PERMITS variable as potentially indicative of the effects of impact fees on job growth. The IMPACT FEE binary variable indicates the presence of an active impact fee policy in a specific county. Computations of the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix show a minimum eigenvalues of 0.39 and a condition number of 9.3, neither of which indicate a significant problem with collinearity. A Breusch-Pagan test indicated substantial heteroskedasticity (p<0.001). Again, GLS estimation of the model reduced heteroskedasticity and produced a positive coefficient(+0.482) and high significance(t=5.684)for the IMPACT FEES dummy variable. This highly significant positive association again confirms the hypothesis that impact fees can positively benefit local employment. In summary, results from GLS estimation of both models consistently indicate a positive association between impact fees and employment. The values for both IMPACT FEE coefficients seem higher than would be expected and will be the subject of further scrutiny. A liberal interpretation of these model results would argue that the imposition of impact fees typically results in substantial positive effects on local employment, at least in Florida during the 1990s. A more conservative interpretation would at least claim that no discernable adverse economic impacts from impact fees could be found. 22 REFERENCES Alterman, Rachelle. 1988. Private Provision of Public Services: Evaluation of Real Estate Exactions, Linkage, and Alternative Land Policy. New York: New York University Press. Altshuler, Alan, and Jose Gomez Ibanez. 1993. "Regulation for Revenue: The Political Economy of Land Use Exactions." Washington: Brookings and Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. American Society of Civil Engineers. 2001. Report Card for America's Infrastructure. (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=full [April 27, 2003]). Arnott, Richard, and Frank Lewis. 1979. "The Transition of Land to Urban Use." Journal of Political Economy 87: 161-169. Baumann, Gus, and William Ethier. 1987. "Development Exactions and Impact Fees: A Survey of American Practices." Law and Contemporary Problems 50 (1): 51-68. Beatley, Timothy. 1988. "Ethical Issues in the Use of Impact Fees to Finance Community Growth. In Arthur C. Nelson, ed. Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Theory, and Practice. Chicago: American Planning Association. Belsley, David A., Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Blair, John P., and Robert Premus. 1987. "Major Factors in Industrial Location." Economic Development Quarterly 11: 72-85. Blair, John P., and Laura A. Resse. 1999. Approaches to Economic Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Blakley, Edward J. 2000. "Economic Development." In Charles J. Hoch, Linda C. Dalton, and Frank S. So, eds. The Practice of Local Government Planning, third edition. Washington: International City-County Management Association and American Planning Association. Breukner, Jan K. 1997. "Infrastructure Financing and Urban Development: The Economics of Impact Fees." Journal of Public Economics 66: 383-407. Bureau of Economic and Business Research and Warrington College of Business Administration. Florida Statistical Abstracts: 1993-2000. Gainesville: University of Florida. Burchell, Robert W., and others. 2000. The Costs of Sprawl- Revisited. Washington: National Academy Press. 23 Carrion, Carmen, and Lawrence W. Libby. 2001. "Development Impact Fees: A Primer."Working Paper: AEDE-WP-0022-01. Ohio State University Extension, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics. Cory, D.C. 1985. "Development Taxation and Conversion of Low Intensity Land Uses on the Urban Fringe." Journal of Environmental Systems 15 (2): 159-169. Delaney, Charles J., and Marc Smith. 1989. "Impact Fees and the Price of New Housing: An Empirical Study."AREUA Journal 17: 41-54. Downing, Paul, and James E. Frank. 1983. "Recreational Impact Fees: Characteristics and Current Usage." National Tax Journal 37 (4): 477-490. Downing, Paul, and Thomas S. McCaleb. 1987. "The Economics of Development Exactions." In James Frank and C.H. Romesburg, eds., Development Exactions. Chicago: American Planning Association. Fischel, William A. 1987. "The Economics of Land Use Exactions: A Property Rights Analysis." Law and Contemporary Problems 50 (1): 101-113. . 2001. The Home Voter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. and Timothy M. Shaughnessy. 2002. An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Kaiser, Edward J., and Raymond J. Burby. 1988. "Exactions in Managing Growth: The Land Use Perspective." In Rachelle Alterman, ed., Private Provision of Public Services: Evaluation of Real Estate Exactions, Linkage, and Alternative Land Policy. New York University Press. Kleinbaum, David G. 1988. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company. Kolo, Jerry, and Todd Dicker. 1993. "Practical Issues in Adopting Local Impact Fees." State and Local Government Review 253: 197-206. Levine, Jonathan C. 1994. "Equity in Infrastructure Finance: When Are Impact Fees Justified?" Land Economics 70 (2): 210-222. Malizia, Emil, Richard Norton, and Craig Richardson. 1997. "Reading, Writing, and Impact Fees." Planning 63 (9): 17-20. 24 McMillen, Daniel P. 1990. "The Timing and Duration of Development Tax Rate Increases." Journal of Urban Economics 28: 1-18. Meck, Stuart, ed. 2002. Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. Chicago: American Planning Association. Nelson, Arthur C., ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees: Policy Rational, Practice, Theory, and Issues. Chicago: American Planning Association. Nelson,Arthur C., and others. 1991. "Price Effects of Road and Other Impact Fees."Transportation Research Record 1305: 36-41. . 1992."Impact Fees As a Positive Factor in Urban Planning and Development." Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 118(2): 45-58. Nelson, Arthur C., William J. Drummond and David S. Sawicki. 1994. "Economic Development Policy Implications of Exurban Industrialization." Economic Development Quarterly 9(2): 91- 100. Nicholas, James, C. 1987. "Impact Exactions: Economic Theory, Practice, and Incidence." Law and Contemporary Problems 50 (1). Nicholas, James C., Arthur C. Nelson, and Julian C. Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioners' Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: American Planning Association. Shoup, Donald C. 1970. "The Optimal Timing of Urban Land Development." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association 25: 33-44. SingeIl, Larry D., and Jane H. Lillydahl. 1990. "An Empirical Examination of the Effect of Impact Fees on the Housing Market." Land Economics 66 (1): 82-92. Skaburskis,Andrejs and M. Qadeer. 1992. "An Empirical Estimation of the Price Effects of Development Impact Fees." Urban Studies 29 (5): 653-667. Skidmore, Mark, and Michael Peddle. 1998. "Do Development Impact Fees Reduce the Rate of Residential Development?" Growth and Change 29(4): 383-400. Snyder, Thomas P., and Michael A. Stegman. 1986. Paying for Growth: Using Development Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington: Urban Land Institute. State of Florida Comptroller's Office, Department of Banking and Finance. Impact Fee Datasets: 1993-1999.Tallahassee. 25 Tiebout, Charles. 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." Journal of Political Economy 64: 416-424. Townsend, Bradford. 1996. "Development Impact Fees: A Fair Share Formula for Success." Public Management 78 (4): 10-16. Watkins, A. 1999. "Impacts of Land Development Charges." Land Economics. 75 (3): 415-424. Wicksell, Knut. 1934. Lectures on Political Economy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2000. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Cincinnati: South- • Western College Publishing. Yinger, John. 1998. "The Incidence of Impact Fees and Special Assessments." National Tax Journal 51 (1): 23-41. Zorn, Peter, Seymour Schwartz, and David E. Hansen. 1986. "Mitigating the Price Effects of Growth Controls: A Case Study of Davis, California." Land Economics 62 (1): 46-57. 26 CASES Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal. 3d 633, 638, 484 P.2d 606, 610, 94 Cal. Rptr. 630 (1971), appeal dismissed, 404 U.S. 878 (1971). Banberry Devl. Corp. v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899 904 (Utah 1981). Broward County v. Janis Development Corp., 311 So.2d 371 (Fla. 4th Dist. 1975). Call v. City of West Jordan, 606 Pa.2d 217 (Utah 1979). City of Arvida v. City and County of Denver, 663 P.2d 611 (Colo. 1983). City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802 (Texas 1984). City of Dunedin v. Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County, 358 So. 2d 846 [Fla. 2d DCA 1978]). City of Fayetteville v. IBI Inc., 659 S.W.2d 505 (Ark. 1983). Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (FL 1976), cert denied 444 U.S. 867 (1979). Dolan v, City of Tigard, Oregon, S.Ct. 2309 (1994). Hollywood Inc. v Broward County, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla.4th DCA 1983), cert. denied 440 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1983). Home Builders and Contractors Association v. Palm Beach County, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), cert. denied 451 So.2d 848 (Ha. 1983). Homebuilders Ass'n v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899 (Utah 1981). Lafferty v. Payson City, 642 P.2d 376 (Utah 1982). Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 314 (1987). Russ Building Partnership v. San Francisco, 234 Cal.Rptr. 1 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1987). 27 r,_> _,;-:,-,'--- - -f-z.--7..-• ' •--- -: - . ___...,,,,,:„.„, _, . . ,4,, r �:� Street Design and .., ,_ .„. . .., _, „.;:.,....„,, ..„.._ _ , ,,,......., Emergency Response ' '..,. ' ',j;1, ,'. . sT f •7,:!..4t:7,....!,.t. 44,zr . iam-.. a:".•,_:'''.4-.'e';'4:5'.......'.7 " � LS ' zS k ¢, 4.Y ,a 7x r F"s.. .`.. . frt.:- - - ,- -r47-:- 1 t, - .*4 * r k ; $ y -- hen your community considers the use of traffic calming F1 • s . measures to add safety and pedestrian features to existing streets,smart-growth street design approaches should be structured to get things right in the first place. This fact sheet, `x', ti -- 'tF-ir ,- which summarizes good street design strategies and tools is S, - ue,,-.4-,.--1,23-- Et,* f intended for emergency response officials involved in reviewing - . - new developments that are different from conventional,post-war , "` �' k asap► suburban designs. r - This is not uncharted territory. In a sense,smart growth is about going back to street designs that were once the norm, Typical °;m"' street designs from colonial times to World War II featured short i k, The good: A marked pedestrian crossing with bulbous. -, # + blocks,few dead-end or cul-de-sac streets,pavement as narrow as 20 feet,vertical curbs,small curb radii at corners,sidewalks �`ra everywhere,planting strips and often alleys. .I _Yr,a ilg^ !ffltge ' Beginning in the late 1940's,and accelerating through the post- - -- , -i. �- ,. - war suburban boom,streets took on a radically different character . . , ,y t ; The emphasis was on moving cars efficiently,and less about ' t - - - _ - designing a public environment that met many needs,including 4p 44 - _ ;.x, those of pedestrians and bicyclists. ,-g ,� �. �, � Compared with pre-war designs,conventional suburban streets .,,, a .- •4 have the following characteristics: ` `•;4`'- "rte n ' ® Wider pavement widths. - • ..,--:4-" The bad:Too many lanes,no protection for people. '� ■ Longer blocks. • � of -, : e A"super-grid"pattern with local streets - , :` -- - ,� ,, - -,:� within the superblocks. '" f.' I t -.-4 g Gently curving streets. -- _. ® Numerous cul-de-sacs, 1. t `� --' , A� - - ® Rolled curbs with a much wider radius at corners. ,_ �=-__ ® Infrequent orinadequate sidewalks: ,.- ""; 7" /-----, �, s -k-. ® Little attention to non-motorized-travel " s„ � ,` 1 This`street pattern fit well with land use patterns where single r.felE at° ------1"--:--------.--"1-1,:--- -family residential,apartments,employment and shopping uses 61W.2..;,,';. - The ugly: No trees,no sidewalks,one helpless pedestrian. were all segregated from each other in:large,single use districts 3connected with a near-expressway supergrid. jf However,as car ownership,vehicle trips,and miles traveled have all �,� IlILincreased,this development pattern has caused serious problems �� � � II[[III�II�(,,,I� Local z, �, + 1111 ;; ■.■■. Government • -1414 K St: Suite 600■ Sa'eramento,CA 95814-3966 ' Y �� ���� Commission T(916) 448-1198■ F (916) 448-8246 www.igc.org -Igi'z`.` 1' • f • :, 2T ar i t+#•te ,--:-3.';,..,:, •.,.._-.7,-.. - 4 ti Ki!`&4 i f r` } Yc ;-"'s . • • y � LC. r 'rE [c 1.,>4� r(sYt r : r .?�. t' sg1 � -9 �+ ',Oir egrc ,4 2 R 7 a 4as � l u` r4� � du`k + :‘ :y 1 v . 1rJe * '.s yy £i0.n.) g 'utg? r 4 / @ T4 , : - :.--, -..,‘ ,,.,,,,,,,„,,,_:,,,,.,. ,:.,_..„ ,: . , . ...... ., . ,. . .. ,,,, . . ..: ,:, . . . . . } &rn ? r• ¢^ f xF 'am;_ '•ii yJisc v g,43'� 'rt � f : . . J. .. :,, v u I t . �ra y5� � ,� :1W..i ♦ t4��i1.. �. s.S . "• 4; ' f ,.a , � unneling large volumes of cars through a limited :.:57:4-4--.. - , number of intersections is less efficient than _ `s ' `' - aa. F, a:,-.7,•.,,,::, 7��i r = dispersing those vehicles over a larger network 104 ,1 �} 41si v ftp _ "1'ft..' • with numerous intersections. The result can be seen '° 7:417t°I ' '� x+� ;' '4,,,--',":“4:,'. .in many post-World War II communities today- long Y " ' : ' delays and congestion on collector and arterial roadways. .. ; �-� _ - t {t ,: � ' >. . yp( tom: Longer travel distances and few connections between -. V -destinations also mean that routine trips,like going to . •••" V - r q ` 1 4 1, school or picking up•a loaf of bread,require a vehicle , , x• .•�; i }•y4 • n , ; .., ;:_ 7 ' tri thus further compounding the problem. t'..-V4 ' - -' ' r �1 p, - __.. This street pattern has a'direct impact on emergency R r -.- response. Congested streets and limited connections ever higher levels of traffic in a hierarchy that eventually and access points can significantly increase response .,dumps vehicles onto the regional suprgrid of arterial times. Wide,high-speed streets- particularly those in :rk residential neighborhoods:or near schools and shopping streets. Any trip between destinationsofdifferent land uses-no matter how close they are to each other : areas-also increase the risk of accidents with other must use these arterials. •, vehicles and pedestrians. . By comparison,the traditional neighborhood designed. • ',••• ;•.::._,,,14,...,...i.,:.1::4,, t- with smart growth principles(on the right) contains a .. _ r ' .-,.,,,,,,Ar.-n1 r balanced mix of uses,so that many day-to-day travel '" ' '.: •`;-. ._`r needs of area residents can be met locally. These trips f.) ., � � ,� t., r. can be made on foot,but if a car is use•d requ•ire •only a -...... .,14:1!,,..,.,(:_.,,.1,,u Iiii -:• short drive inside the neighborhood,without impacting ; 'r . `- ` t `w , ' the arterial network. ��� �+a , 1 , �f�? ,* +; "'„.'•'::--•IM C® "e (3,r it;4 P4 ' atit- 3 =ai"a l �, . Forcing all vehicle travel out onto the regional arterial a ai .� �1� ..r .; network snakes traffic congestion'inevitable.This con- _ r ,. I - .. ...371:::,,,..424".i: *-.,14':!...7:-.I.:;- gestion -unnecessary in a smart growth community- .; ' 'j{••-.;)`;4..';--- 41'r� 44.---;.? ,..'Z':•45‘‘ -r•` means delays for all travel and:a navigation.nightmare �' ' - ' } ' for emergency responders. '" aap`. al l vy _ 4 , Two'development and travel patterns Traffic calming measures can restore some balance ,f , to non-motorized travel,but it can be dirricult to do . < The left side of the illustration shows a conventional so without affecting emergency response times. • neighborhood,with each type of use-single-family, If designed properly,streets can meet the multiple `i � multi-family,.offce,commercial and public-segregated needs of residents and cars,while also providing the 4 r„K' i' into single-use:tracts- The street connections collect environment that emergency responders require. r a„``=, CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENT How Uses Separated by type Mixed throughout with short blocks Streets Branched hierarchy feeding arterials Interconnected grid . Conventional Wide,with many dead ends Narrow,with multiple access routes R • and Alleys None,except loading dock access Almost everywhere,even residential '? • Smart Growth Curbs Rolled curbs in all residential areas Vertical curbs everywhere ; i Sidewalks Attached to curb,if any at all Universal,detached or very wide .g Development People Isolated in homes and cars Interact on porches and sidewalks Approaches Children Must be chauffeured by parents Safe to move independently in area i Co npare . Walking Between cars and buildings To many daily destinations --- —.-- Vehicles All trips must use regional network Daily needs met with short internal trips ,.- , e Fire Trucks Must navigate through congestion Quicker response in less traffic ,. ,,;:.. . rocs, .,.. 2; ChangingApproach to jtsweeping change in approach is required when for cars pulling to the right to clear the through lane smart streets are designed. At the outset,it for emergency vehicles. With curb-to-curb vehicle must be understood that the"street"is the lanes,it is more difficult for cars to pull out of the way. entire space between buildings on opposing sides of Slowing fr .; -� the street,not just the curb-to-curb pavement section. .-'41,14 ; . � vehicle r- : 4,;� �z nx � ; a,xR This larger space must be designed to meet parallel speeds is I G v'.4h '�� nz,rjik ,, e, objectives that place safety and convenience for important, .e g� '1e�t .•. pedestrians and bicyclists on a par with motorized since the N — vehicle travel. The street must also provide parking, higher den- -h:- =-- and be visually appealing. sities typical The primary factor that determines the character of a with smart particular street is its function in the neighborhood, growth 4- not the volume of car traffic that a computer model mean there predicts it must accommodate. This is a philosophical is so much more non vehicular activity on the streets. A driver in shift away from what has been standard practice in a conventional street environment owns the road, traffic engineering for the last few decades. except for a few crosswalks at selected corners.The driver's attention is focused only on his own actions C13.7 and those of other drivers. ' ^`• On a smart-growth street,the driver must slow down a.. and be alert for: l —, -,1417... 0- Pedestrians in crosswalks. k ' It J,,__ _wf x , , 1 Pedestrians crossing away from crosswalks. • ', 1 iS Bicyclists entering,crossing,and riding along ••,•-.--- ,z ,,.. r i s ,.. the street. ra Cars entering and leaving curbside parking spaces. L More frequent intersections and crosswalks. F isl Curb bulbs,pedestrian refuges,and other safety features not in conventional streets. The kinds of smart-growth design concepts described For example,if you want to create a"main street"type in this fact sheet will let the street engineer get it right neighborhood commercial center,do not design the initially,so that expensive,controversial and time- street for high volumes of traffic—no matter what the consuming traffic calming projects are not needed computer simulation says. Six lanes of fast,noisy cars later to correct poor design. will be hazardous to pedestrians,and destroy the quiet environment that encourages people to stroll around a neighborhood center. FOR MORE INFORMATION A well-designed street in a neighborhood center "Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods," should be two lanes—and never more than four— Dan Burden,Local Government Commission. with curbside parking,generous sidewalks and design "Emergency Response,Traffic Calming and Traditional features that strictly limit vehicle speed. Simply put, Neighborhood Streets,"Dan Burden and Paul it is a small-scale boulevard,not an expressway. Zykofsky. Providing bicycle lanes along all arterial streets is an "Traffic Calming and Emergency Response"fact important consideration,and can greatly benefit sheet,Local Government Commission. emergency response. The bike lane becomes available _iliVill , . . a Signs of smart growth streets . `= ° , 4 r • 4, �;° he simplest way to learn what smart-growth streets are like is to look at pre World War II neighborhoods in any city in •li 1 - - America: There" you will see most of these Characteristics- __ ` "` Distinction`between streets for regional travel and local access. Reduced pavement widths,as narrow as 26 feet for two-way ..- -,....,,,;,,,,A, =orix. ,residential streets • r ta -,---r-y. 7-7-77q..4.'".7------ rr t -0 `nd_ Y f `= Rectangular blocks,no longer than 500 or 600 feetwith rAV4fi if)1 e �n ��•c- pedestrian passages if longer • a, y 's',. C _i;gn y�1,�" • Alleys it most settings;:residential and neighborhood commercial.: y � "Tz 4 ;;;` "� � 3 Streets that favorstraight lines,curving only when topography ',� ere c °es v 'dera ;, '-- dictates. ( sf� ',- ° .i o �Sro�,ed Termination points at prominent landmarks,such as a park, t,k �� F "°' e e �r � -:',;,--2'_''.?." church,city hall or clock tower. ie$ide (3igpvr zedo �k a Bike lanes or bike paths connecting key destinations and districts. :."''';'''':-.4-9'.2'%*;- _, r e e ,,a rnoi �, .;amu; -Medians,'generally raised and landscaped,on main streets" h+'� ..�- ,''• �'4d ' � ,a te 1arlv.',..`}.--t, :' ,. and arterials. .�„• , 1ore,Qwnet o s Sidewalks everywhere,with planting strips in residential �r?`( rtir eQe k d : $,e,e rate®q > .. ,. areas,,concrete to the.curb in-commercial-areas: • r m� , 4 d;e`e as Heavy use of pedestrian-friendly devices like curb bulbs r ` "4and refuges.es: Pr-o erty 0 is wig) fl ,: , pedestriang 4 :• �5e r�(yf} n uses rr � 6 to 8-inch vertical curbs n cc7 VrA a'' fYA.-A T �"�,` ,, Curbside• parking virtually.everywhere � •6 116 • '-t ngiOers�. �-t dr- au�`'a`:`.14-.:e4• '.d'n d :{�' ' Why emergency=:responders should care < �,� TF {, ..f y <"▪ P .._, F . y Regional benefits: x( +` "°�ec es3 QI T- 1.4,,,,,,,.:"..,:,64-0. -,-_--4,44m • fz'4K' :i r • 4 : a. c _1 �;z# � • x 4' ,,-, K :. Employed on a regional �,(���.� _�� l.,? i., i,� ,,t���eti.� �v � 4. basis,smart growth land ' y f 'Cj'lt e' :Ike-s x ;} ''-c;'� i b1 ; ! .` { - use patterns and street ;Dri"ers� o°se fw�2©s, f i;1,o.4.,',E,,,,,,-.2,_..;.,,,- --4.,....,-.',f ' a = design will reduce arterial . +' , T.-„ `amid - ,,-' ligk ,4�"' ri l :.,,r ^ : sa e c str' ssl �� r":4:: �� congestion'because more re. 3� � •`` `�' s '� ;�`� �. - i 'daily trips will be made z;, Pe`esEra•ns} a: ��11'® A y I internally in nei•ghborhoods ; " y' ^Sri4• -4, a Ja, :` -Ya. ("h P_, "Vi: .t51-14k,.. - 5+cc+ f� f ry ( � rr�r •without venturing out 1:,:,4 ; °'mayO .F1 "}n el r��0 rV �S..,.. `'y J { '.r.`3$ :...� -,,ronto the regional arterial S♦nay rk ' :'r '� �� ( �g g �yE! Biry_c St o ` ,;j "`� �� network This reduced ' og � • eS�k' �° congestion benefits emergency responders because fire,police _ ;it 4: '`' '' ^; `-'e 'r_` and ambulance vehicles:will encounter`fewer cars on primary ms= ,� 4 response routes;and,private vehicles will be able to use bike lanes to move out of the way. 1 Local advantages: Employed in select districts,smart growth -- r• '' land use patterns and street design will improve five,police and . - '''-''''''''''''''''''''''''''• ,'" ambulance access-because they are provided many different. .-e--;' '`''''''''''''''': ''.." .';'' --:" ' 1 - routes to an emergency.:scene. This reduces the need for excess ` pavement width to allow emergency vehicles to pass by vehicles 55 -d that are:already deployed ata,scene Those later arrivals can;- , -- f A� �. x --.' -'4"-'-':'''"'-_ _ _ come down the-street.fromahe,other direction or go to the_rear �r( a' + of.the scene via the alleyBoth of theseapproachstrategies ae4 ;_ -j ;,� • ``` impossible with conventional development that favors dead-end :7-.,-::;•--:J.-,.... r`Sx :}t�' 'i 5 -mss✓ .} rt .-� 7 �� f ' streets and lacks alleys. - ;. - w j, printed on recycled piper editinyi-design: dave davis Alan B. Cohen,Architect MA Page 1 of 6 NARROW STREETS DATABASE NARROW STREETS DATABASE This survey was assembled in 1997 by Alan B. Cohen under the auspices of the Trans Force of the Congress for the New Urbanism. There are no plans at this time to keep tl information current. For those desiring additional information it is recommended that the cities/ counties directly. This database includes communities that have recently adopted reduced width street standards. Prior to WWII,the traditional neighborhood street was in the range of 28'-30' VY , wide with corner radius of 5'-10'. Since that time, the typical local street has grown to a width of 36' with a corner radius of 1 .:1 25'. The wider street was intended to move traffic more et ,/ quickly ;; f quickly and efficiently. It has. Unfortunately,faster traffic and s increased amounts of asphalt have diminished the quality of _ our neighborhoods. C i Over the past ten years a grassroots effort has occurred across the country. Citizens are insisting on having a voice in ;: ,1 z the decision makingprocess along with public works officials, f ` '' traffic engineers and fire officials. They are demanding morer F livable street design that account for all constituents of the < < x -` road system, not just cars and emergency vehicles. In many r cases, this is resulting in new narrow street standards. ; Below you will find a list of communities that have adopted narrow street standards wii description of the standard(s) and a contact person. Keep in mind the contact were made in 1997 and may no longer be valid, however a fevn should put you in touch with someone that can provide local details. State Jurisdiction Contact Phone# Stanch Arizona Phoenix,City of Jim Slayer 602-262-6284 28'-prkg both sides Transit Planner California Santa Rosa,City of Anthony Cabrera 707-543-3209 30'-prkg both sides,<10 City Engineer. 26'-28'-prkg one side http://www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm 4/8/2005 Alan B. Cohen,Architect AIA Page 2 of 6 20'-no prkg 20'neck downs @ interse Palmdale,City of Tom Horne 805-267-5300 28'-prgk both sides Traf/Trans.Eng. San Jose,City of David Tymn 408-277-4576 30'-prkg both sides,<21 34'-prkg both sides,<12 Novato,City of 24'-prkg both sides,2-4 28'-prkg both sides,5-1: Colorado Boulder,City of John Hinkelman 303-441-3240 32'-prkg both sides, 100 Transportation Plnr, 30'-prkg both sides,500 Pub.Works and others Ft.Collins,City of Mike Herzig 970-221-6605 30'-prkg both sides Spec.Proj.Eng. 24'Alley Delaware Delaware DOT David DuPlessis 302-760-2266 Mobility friendly design; 200'-500'blocks Rqd.network connectivit 21'-prkg on side,one tra subdiv. 22'-29'-prkg one side, 12'alley in 20'row Florida Orlando,City of Dan Gallagher 407-246-2775 28'-prkg both sides,res.. Transportation 22'-prkg both sides,res.. Planner many standards with bike Maine Portland,City of Sarah Hopkins 207-874-8719 24'with prkg one side Planner Maryland Howard County Mike Mitchell 410-313-2420 24'-prkg unreg,<1000 P Charles County Ham Mathur 301-645-0623 24'-prkg unregulated Michigan Birmingham,City of Paul O'meara 248-644-3869 26'-prkg both sides ext.241 20'-prkg 1 side Montana Helena,City of Paul Cartwright 406-444-6761 33'-prkg both sides Dpt.of Env Quality &traffic calming Missoula,City of Steve King 406-523-4623 26'-prkg both sides,3-8( City Eng. 32'-prkg both sides,81-: 12'Alley Others Albuquerque Tony Loyd 505-924-3994 28'-prkg 1 side http://www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm 4/8/2005 Alan B. Cohen, Architect AIA Page 3 of 6 New Mexico Engineering 27'-prkg 1 side,roll curl Santa Fe,City of Mark Books 505-984-6571 34'-prkg unregulated Oregon Eugene,City of Jan Childs 541-682-5208 verify adoption Planning Director 12'-one way alley 16'-two way alley 20'-no parking 21'(7'/14')-prkg one side 28'(7'/14'/7')-prkg both 27'(7'/10'/10')-prkg one 34'(7'/10'/10'/7')-prkg b. Forest Grove, James Reitz 503-359-3227 32'-prkg both sides-urn City of Associate Planner 28'-prkg both sides if no multifam.if 2 access pnts 24'-prkg one side Gresham,City of Sandra Doubleday 503-618-2816 20'-no prkg,<150'or<1 Transportation 26'-no prkg,<30'from d Planner <400'long,queuing 14'-alley,residential 20'-alley,commercial McMinnville Doug Montgomery 503-434-7311 26'w/prkg both sides Asst.Ping.Dir. Portland,City of Terry Bray 503-823-7058 26'w/prkg both sides Transportation 20'w/prkg one side Planner Washington County Click for Website Beaverton,City of Daryl Steffen 503-526-2426 28'-prkg both sides,<60 Dpt.of Trans. Tigard Brian Rager 503-684-7297 28'-prkg 1 side,<500 Al Dev.Review Eng. 32'-Prkg both sides,<15 Tualatin Engineering 503-692-2000 32'-prkg both sides Hillsboro,City of Tina Baily 503-681-6146 28-30'prkg both sides Engineering Tennessee Johnson City, Eric Thomas Iversen 423-434-6075 22'prkg not regulated,<2 City of City Planner 24'-28',prkg not regular 28',prkg not regulated,> Vermont DOT Rural-22'w/3'shldrs http://www.sonic.net/abcaialnarrow.htm 4/8/2005 Alan B. Cohen, Architect AIA Page 4 of 6 Burlington,City of Steve Goodkind 802-863-9094 30'prkg both sides City Eng. Washington Kirland,City of Katy Coleman 425-828-1241 12'Alley 20'-prkg 1 side 24'-prkg both sides-lov 28'-prkg both sides W. Virginia Morgantown William Bechtel 304-284-7413 22'prkg 1 side Dir.of Ping&Dev Wisconsin Madison,City of 27'-prkg both sides,<3I 28'-prkg both sides,3-1( Resources The center for Livable Communities, a group within the Local Government Commission, based advisory group prepares excellent publications. Three are of specific relevance as: " Street_Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods",will help communities impleme streets that are safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing for both cars and pedestrians. " Emergency Response, Traffic Calming_and Traditional Neighborhood Streets", address concerns that fire departments and other emergency responders have about traffic calmir " Walkable Streets and the Fire Department", (a video) includes interviews and demonst fire departments from Portland, Oregon and Chico and Mountain View, California. This help you work with your fire department and find out what they really do, and don't ne€ All of these publications and more are available from the Local Government Commissior http://www.lgc.org/community design/street.html . "Traditional Neighborhood Development Design Guildlines:Recommended Practice", In Transportation Engineers (ITE), 1999,44 pg. guide that explores the premises behind var neighborhood &street design, includes sections on street space,connectivity, emergency parking, safety & geometric design. Available from ITE, 202-554-8050, ext. 130, http://w' "Suburban Nation,the Rise ofSprawl and the Decline of the American_Dream", by Andr( Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck. Chapter 5, "The American Transportation Mess", describes how our street system became dysfunctional. It compares the current model (c with it's predecessor (traditional) and provides many good arguments for narrow streets Swift and Associates,Longmont, Colorado Street Study. This study correlates 20,000 acc over an eight year period to 13 variables associated with the street. They found the safes- wide. This report is available at http://www.fivepts.com/streetutah.htm http://www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm 4/8/2005 Alan B. Cohen,Architect AIA Page 5 of 6 Citizens for Sensible Transportation www.cfst.org, A non profit group in Oregon offer tl publications: Civilized Streets - A Guide to Traffic Calming. Traffic Calming the Solutio: Traffic and A New Vision for Neighborhood Livability, and others. Center for Sustainable Transport, Australia www.arrb.org.au. The web page has a very 1 of transportation related papers. "Take Back Your Streets",Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA, 617-350-0990. This excellent primer for those wishing to take back control of their streets. It discusses some I design, legal aspects, and recommendations for engagement. If focuses on the New Engle applicable across the country. "Restoring the Rule of Law and Respect for Communities in Transportation",by Stephen Burrington, in the New York University "Environmental Law Journal", Vol. 5, Number3, from the Conservation Law Foundation (see above). This booklet is an in-depth article or of transportation issues and road design. Not an easy read,but interesting information ai development of a strong analytical argument for citizen involvement in roadway design. "Performance Streets", Bucks County (Pennsylvania) Planning Commission, (215) 345-32' booklet on street designs that work without overkill. "Residential Streets", ASCE, NAHB, ULI, Order#R07, 800-321-8050. A comprehensive stn guide published jointly by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Associa Builders and the Urban Land Institute. "Progress", a monthly publication from Surface Transportation Policy Project, (202) 466-8 www.transact.org or www.tea21.org. Lots of good transportation information, TEA-21 € calming, street design, etc. "Reclaiming Our Streets", A Community Action Plan To Calm Neighborhood Traffic, pre Reclaiming Our Streets Task Force,Portland, Oregon, available from Bureau of Traffic M Office of Transportation,1120 SW 5th Ave., Ste. 730, Portland Oregon. "Moving_Toward More Community-Oriented Transportation.Strategies for the.San Franc Area", Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 101 Eighth St., Oakland, CA 94607. Thi. resource guide with: References,Implementation Guides, Model Codes, Case Studies, DE etc. "Skinny Streets", City of Portland's Office of Transportation, (503) 823-7046.This pamphl( the "Skinny Street" program in Portland. Narrow Residential Streets Do They Really Slow Down Speeds? A paper reporting resu. Francisco survey which showed a correlation of traffic speed to street width. By James A http://www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm 4/8/2005 Alan B. Cohen,Architect AIA Page 6 of 6 John B. Peers, ITE 6th Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers, 1997. James L reached at mailto:jim.daisa@kimley-horn.com The Relationship Between Residential Street Design and Pedestrian Safety. A paper whic the influence of the streetscape on traffic speeds. By Joni L. Giese, Gary A. Davis and Rol Presented at the ITE 6th Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers,1997. I have to determine how to acquire this paper. Walkable Communities, Inc. A Florida non-profit which helps communities become mo and pedestrian friendly. They have an inventory of publications, videos and slides and c communities with presentations. More info at http://www.walkable.org. Copyright© 1998-2004 All rights reserved. http://www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm 4/8/2005 Connect Destinations and '; _ ,. : Transportation Types , ,,t i t-,+ ;1 =FGA yr-,-,,,,7, ` . Historic towns featured streets that were connected in a grid '•y4 '" `` " ' i ,k..11 network to provide different routes for travel and disperse "mss;_};�.°"*" .. o 'f" the impact of traffic. An interconnected grid system of 'i`,,.-,,, k r�'�- . � - "+. streets shortens the distance between destinations, making • f„ ``' .,. trips by bike and on foot more attractive. It is also used to ,; . ,,.7jS-.. *ite s Z"fr'� 'z. connect transportation types by building in transit, bicycle 1<' ,,, un.' i < ,` '� and pedestrian infrastructure-both at major destinations,; , 't°� �� 3 , IC -V. j� t- `• ..ma 4 such as shopping and office areas, and along safe travel ",�, 7' y , 43aer. ; corridors for the different modes. ' a x M J ,, v40. te r' ., iy rt re new Ea` �tayto4ft6leighlaourhood Plan in Surrey is a model ofsmart growth streets Some o�,t#te '^ 'e t t ��3 k t�h �..0 C--- er?oniiance objectives in the Plan include to"[e]nsure;pedestrian priority of•pedestrians over vehicles along all_ ,4r iit veal residential streets with minimumdriveway interruptions :,[m]aximize opportunities for extending the fine` 4a 4 ,grained interconnected pedestrian/bike circulation system toincrease options for passive recreational .. ''.44,-to iportunities for ail age groups [e]nsure that commercial and;transit services_are within a 400 metre(1/4 mile) r"' alk able radius of all residences The Road Network Plan uses a modified m grid systeof local and minor 7 L. collector streets with a=ocus on short blocks and rearlanes td provide;many route choices and a refined 44,p,edestnan/cyclist r ! n street parkin is encouraged and driveways must be on the lane where lanes else. The Plans'ets.ou taLe'd road�[itandards in charts as well as Oa-grams for each_street type Streets are a4 Aga1 c seen as a Itey component in meef�ing environmental protection goals and`include.street dr:amage,_that emphasizes stormwater infiltration and'street trees as part:of the"urban forest." . ,4 1 www.wcel.arg/issuesturban/sbgicasestudies/EastClayton • ..---a*,k l' " i i I 4., t.11} .} Vt Tailor Road Requirements ,r `may ` , to their Preferred Uses 3 r �4L ..... ws...al.1u.. .4 Wide suburban roads may empty automobile traffic quickly • , ., „ t ' - onto arterial throughways, but they do not provide a safe {3� Si hf 4, i4 route for children walking to school. Many municipalities ,,� ,°-, £a ;:1 42.:*::':';',%. ,: ,L f are more closely tailoring street standards to their intended , uses to decrease the cost of construction and maintenance. ha• l-��t, rt A - � Avoiding excess road widths also ensures that traffic speeds r ;'a t , _;t, fit into the character of neighbourhoods. ,�- i f4'a63 t s - , j;: .p ?.1;x w -* S v !-O, ,ate . `" '� • 7,r uls7.,:, 4zis. y • qr 't; im.s. 4. .r ,.�a,,..:.',_:..ffi�-. .Smart Bylaws-Summary ...,. .. - -- - ---• , ,,A, , --.. ,.<.,,ar,...,,._ ..-,...,,.,..�,,d>.. ....x........�..-_. _,� t�,:. 1 =_-.1.-.1_---t::: ...:= Encourage Transit- Supportive Land Uses 16yr`e,Aiii tv.4.SPaccg , �i e,,to ro-L.rn�es;j12�8. re u' Locations along existing and future transit lines are the �:4s 1 r�,fjcan -ktfii .� :'. logical places to encourage more intensive development owritosi•as"a`ob magr�e-t, tx , because of their proximity to transit and commercial areas. a en`hikt densities-as low as `°' ',F1."''' ,„---- , �rtf{ ; rt <- Transit area zoning can apply to specific transit hubs, corri- ieracr�l;usEifyv, 114MI fii �`'�t"b"t s,. cis; dors, or transit network. These zones feature mixed-use, 3 e t e'dawnt ytr 9r ,E 1s,' iv ,$:: higher density developments that generate significant A;.1: ns c: 6 vKithSs r :�� �;�-�-. 4 transit ridership (such as offices and apai intents), and good 1 `+ ' IP�. +o 4t:0‘.4•..4,' Y ,f..`,;::, pedestrian access. The proximity to transit, shops and other ono = ,eXf. sar€' sr'` ' ,. � amenities means that many daily commercial needs can be -r°, °,_aa " , SIou met on foot. . 4jii£'e:e���4x z ,so rr-erGte...... dt e:t at r'vt3ru�ct.-55,,, Y, i zoa..,,,N,,,,,,,,,,-„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„.:.„„t„ '' '�3'• j. r„„.„ ,-1,7, Desi Great i ^..0 i. a `' .� • f'r.k' 1f4 t`tai J � � C5 .r V '_ on-t,�alnfo n:e best 't p:Iy?ti es ikPlica t .e l Neighbourhoods .- g- --7.--1a,'j ev a t ra -o'70-.*:;'e d 15c°Iea til o e i e eloper g �` h 11 i e c 4' rnl 114-it;,111 T - �- g ” 5*;'�`^" �4 Design guidelines for more intensive z•t e osalszl c�Cit)r pro toes ale i S,t t .0 -:an E ooe' 'f; r-A-0 ua -y eto ej,ie'nts •de the smut s,A b�1�`:o7.'•-•';',is ' :, development ensure that new neigh- ''-xpecal�iar 1--;2.L'.11,:41,.tn.,rlot�stzes�>a ,1 a : et e o: bourhoods adhere to well-accepted i .�on �©n '1 fess e erltial ifiif pes, ie .eTir esc-b 1 design principles, and that infill o',i o ate e C i g, of sitce plan,b 11 in lco> 1 ra f � -, g P P .-�tip,ai ':e .g. n mpeu ace,and iandsca'pf g no,c p e-i :; development respects the character of ., rlq lG{o y i x r �to .,,t,-,,...:: + . .; , L �� % , existing neighbourhoods. Develop- re ce org is ssio.ques/urbanlbg/Parti/F ern ont ; . a t. anent that looks like it fits with a street .-t an cfiiias tlesi n uidelines to clarif what is ex ected aa, *.V . g y-. p . . demonstrates to residents that differ- l*arid sfnaljlot developments for this suburban community;, ,° . - ' enttypes of housingare in single .'r e e oblecfJve is to'retain the§,malt town character and g '+i# C vb r +�. ` Y a' le- ''''.11 icu tnral land base adjacent to a major centre family neighbourhoods. :4 ,t .K -r x kWE- ,4 „ ...'01p,.,'.4v.,, 10 g1isu /uroan/sbg/Part3/design -. , ,."fir, a W , 3 '• 4 o'_ c iSetaicif of the Affordable lIousuttj1�C Design Ad i ' a ��`y'' i_� a .K+-n , e l 'e:°c tt .0.. !', ``nslta 7 .r..:.t.n a S4 q^ a15r4fi t °es-19nudv o erg ;�,.:A " a A x ,`k a el :e' o ;�lejits makes starg*iliffxii•' fault for F Y rims,. •qy,p . y v:iR o ns including scant .., nd T�n e s }_A ?ata- F o street Ijghiirlg standards'• • 't .1y„, t i le 1<,5fg', . '`' -' ig t o on'. a„dir�ec �z -.lig 1�.0 4. " ,.Ee.:0 'ardS p 4,fr 01 ,,T Rei-PSY -IH , a O'a`e A• '[j. - v:44, 1G. { �f Y�Y xProg i � a{`nYi4 {ta..�.t , ti 1 het ice)��Iass e {Krb /sbg?�Part3jo jai;; r , •'; 4'. R2'�-t4'- tc, "�i . t'. «,,,......5.�.s.*.w 'tz-__ .h h; ate rw ria ... . t '''''°"'''''''''''''"'"''''' 14 ',.','..m,,,. .x,.m�-.�..','',�''',. ''-,,.«.'.', ..`7.. --x --..,n,,"'.:.—_.z. ,m West Coast Environmental Law.,�m.� .»,._ Policy Guide on Neighborhood Collaborative Planning Adopted April 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Neighborhood advocates and experts representing a variety of perspectives convened in Cl;ii`.ogo 411,..1,- 1906 fo;w C J,m��ci..ttt .fin hT,__ighhnrlu,F,T.F collµooroativee Plto.+,f'tSg A series J...tat of working papers were commissioned through APA's Research Department to inform eke TVis`vtaissievn. �`v.�.,v'n. ,vr vrvm..0 t..:nilies VT_V.:v s. T,revnd tnrri plWSSSs µr41 prro ms vvllrveteA J" Y and analyzed. This Policy Guide responds to the needs identified in both the working YtYvru pn41 t1ir��y u.Y.�..`„'a:t::,.oriel 1n subo'wittept l�i�rv, o�,.'.�.L.° ::`.Il:Y.a..rl.`;rratt.l.s 8a.rb 41 4.'uli`v'ry identified through the process. APA defines neighborhoods as diverse, dynamic social and economic entities with „psi ,wry ohwrt%.viorisla os, T.A.,iv1: re S V_VTJ` zrvra h)r resifienit✓Ifltt,%th the rr%igh trvrSSSrvruiµu,41 community at large.Neighborhoods should be recognized as building blocks of overall vvuu'tur.itJ` ra,v elvttruInl T rveµl r,f r LKls and ptt vrs u ust lirv,t,t rvputr55rvtiris arirl suggestions of people and groups within the neighborhood to create a framework that will ;.::able Y1•:ns to la1...:o.sa bs`'.ater ei:rive of inin.b st..pporlrv'V..t.n41 i.L..plvi:ienter1.,not.`...1 J,w;t 1.5.::v neighborhood level,but at the municipal,regional and even state levels. It should be noted that this Policy Guide is intended to apply to those large jurisdictions tivt have it.S rvntirrvd nei borhrvrvrrlls. Tb,epolicy r,v,vv i.'•rvs 11:ai sonic j'nras`aicir..n. nia..j have sound and effective comprehensive plans without a neighborhood planning vrv.trinporient or specific ideni=scation,of YSaardinrbbvrlirvrv`.s. 'Further, the 1`t`v1i,_V,rJ !nay not apply r to smaller jurisdictions that may be a neighborhood itself. FINDINGS Neighborhoods are the strategic building blocks of overall community development. Neighlv,vrlurvrvA ,v,vllq)rvr.''tiv`v' thlwLuaiub req..'.ttres i nr.4r_Vrsi r-linb of Hi,-recf.nrvriU.:_, social an 41 physical characteristics in order to maintain both the sense of place and the sense of r_Vr trryttt, truly. 1*-i,ghhrlrlr,oA pl•.nn.::;b is-not vert.s:stenllJ` Tv-ncl at the tri.stf-:vijtt lrv�:rvl Very few neighborhoods have plans. Many have piecemeal plans, such as housing plans, b,.:s.:rss 1.5&4 ::.plans,bt.t.ttrvl w.r,•roinprrv'1:`vn.sie µ;;4l ;nlr_bL.'tcA Unfortunately what is more commonly found is a confusing array of programs, lvrvr tis rir_s, slim w5i5,r*,vla~ij,ectivcs. Planning often occurs in response to a problem,for instance a plant closing, siting of a "T TTT TT" (locally ,u...mntred 1 rid use:),ror crime an rime. Resid,en1;arre ltir,ed,of,endless community meetings where nothing ever seems to happen.Planning is viewed v'ti✓tYivirv'a:slar ".tither ineffective or ti-,p L4,-- ifl, simply Irvllirib the nei b,vrlivrvr4 why the city or other entity is doing something. Planning is not seen as a cooperative effort. Planners can help remedy this problem. Planners have unique skills to provide cornim7:.nitics .with in rottnatarr.ta5a*4145*it.:.rna>.tives, help coore.:.'ia.te the;efforts 77tH:.%* players to resolve neighborhood problems and maintain a long-term perspective that inv`%rr r*t`#.L variou.1 disciplines. It is t.nr.•'a.ubSnt .'.Y.J,n municipal planners, .ndliar::`.th the workings of local government,to help neighborhood residents see their local Yr.�hlCr.nS in thr.broad;,r``'.Tnt^:t. Q',r .thr.^..t> ?5547 IhS,r'.+b`.'.n. Pl*5*'.nrTs r...n..r•nritrib.sto. S assistance on a wide variety of subjects including plan-and grant-writing,the use of -snaps,=rids, tse.case studies, and appropriate.contactor :within government agencies and other organizations. Research conducted by the American Planning Association and other gro-pss 1',:.'sho::m deet 7ihe best neifrhhnrho .r.1r:veliv:l 1.2j i, x^. 154 residents collaborating with decision-makers, service providers,and business leaders in a process rlrsrig,ned and faenitqcA by neighborhood rdann,r5 C`toorrlinatrvl t,l,nninn efforts can enhance and protect property values within the neighborhood. Finally, most neighborhoods do not have any consistent funding for planning at the nrirrhhrnrhnrvl lr::v`514,77r a.ri.r basic rr'.7es7srs,i'..°s, such*4.0 comp7:tcr,pnt.:'.b,y'µhlir ati`.sn.�s conference registrations and administrative support to keep things on track. For ncighborlacsoA5 pla..n.o to be implrementw'.Sa,snore res,-.445f5.cs 711471-1r1 be passed esti t7', the neighborhood itself. The following are specific policy recommendations of the American Planning aAisse.oioatiresti tro•`2arlrlrt sCr' these general rnAltn, s POLICY POSITIONS GENERAL POLICIES POLICY 1. Comprehensive plans provide the framework for neighborhood planning and should hers A.cnre :within the context,of a.commrunity-::,ide playa POLICY 2. Where there are identifiable neighborhoods, a jurisdiction's comprehensive r,Ia�n rhrsidzl lv;llr7.'nr-4bYhhrrsrhnrV41 nlwn„*4tyi nr•irrhhrrtrlanrevi Anne sli.51r*;lrl s,,,rw rt thr broader needs of the community and region. POLICY 3. Planning decisions should be directed to the most appropriate level. Planning accisinrc, tl'*Pat iinrtra..vt on att.:,vesirtnitiitJ 4*71 w.vhtcsire shtls eul4 11:r ma lr5 b °i- on iron the basis of advice given by,those neighborhood groups primarily affected. On the other h.:nrl .lams g rlrv=v4714`715W !h,:t all5'1t the conn r*nu7.y a ::'l:t.J.le sh.oulrl not be overly influenced by a single neighborhood's needs or interests. POLICY 4. Neighborhoods should be encouraged to seek the best organizational structure that is suited tto w`„hi=eve their goals 'nel objectives such ac but not limited tro neighborhood associations,co-ops, development corporations. POLICY 5. Neighborhood-based coalitions that assist in the development of individual neiglibesr400ei rsr``an;.-a.tiSsns artiS`alatS neibhhtSJrhtooA vi=viiLI 771"1 0011 111"P.:ty VTi7.471 777.5'7::5 and facilitate coordination in the planning process should be encouraged and supported hsrJ 1:-)cal bV. f.evernimrent ' " . POLICY 6. Advocacy planning for neighborhoods should be accepted as a legitimate role Par professional planners, both publicly and privately employed. POLICY 7.(lie be effective in many tc�ases,neighborhood planning needs to go beyond atarltr��CYnb (lire physie.al t_frrtuCtt`vu.ri`%S �..v tAt fly •attA•al✓v`vii t a tic issues`T. social =eq.of LJ. .,....aaab u r To that end,the APA at the �national, chapter and division levels should work with social iiee, serhtadµ,CYtir7 advT,1STP tent '..lvlav liv..ph "Aa."0 ti.�ri l Yrw`rvw�itvi�.:l,j'k.�.S%' LAS b ub,eeotnvutuv p ..y ,a and other organizations to ensure that the issues social equity, children and families i`vt�.t.`.iv`v Of t`vntitvtt ultir v'.i'YI tit""Mr/ r Fttt SPECIFIC POLICIES Federal Policies POLICY 8. The Federal government should allocate funding and develop new programs base i on the i`vliowing considerattions: a. Emphasize a long term, staged improvement of neighborhoods in their entirety, in a°.t't't.'.r`l..at:ae ::`il4t the;,madras.t...1=L.xpred.JM1eA Ihro.,,,1t dire(spm..µily,U .doptro Y comprehensive plan. b. Give priority to the revitalization of neighborhoods experiencing deterioration and tarhrtlininb;tst:t(tion. c. Permit the greatest flexibility in the use of funds and encourage innovative and locally- 1s.cl-tio ic. d. Provide multi year funding with incentives for performance of stated goals. e. Tie housing to the neighborhood's overall development plan. f. Require that housing authorities and non-profit agencies comply with neighborhood in,-..o trrvti`SASt.. trvc ::ri,l2 'ahaic, radlitar4'. %Fnrlitt;Art cf r=�;t:ivia*:b radtaradral r,:rtds. g. The Federal government should give emphasis to preventing deterioration of at-risk neighborhoods and provide resources accordingly. POLICY 9. The Department of Housing and Urban Development should work closely :ith anti n S=ass, `IA5VI%#.'..tiv:.agencies to ens-re that progain design arta rd,41l.V a.y .or all neighborhood related resources--human service,transportation, economic development ati=;vv tvti--aYe,cf..ort5inatreil in itteir arplicati,,n at the n=#iglkli`vrli`vvta bevel. POLICY 10. Citizen participation should be required in sufficient form and detail to risa.Jr "'rte l&,r,ur'trAe f `' t'f rt.m;ty fir the widest:.L.r:ety'.'.rrC...4e,its and stakeholders. State Role POLICY 11. The state should develop programs and provide technical and financial support tr,local go.rr+rnmr+t1 C for rireighhorho,s planning anA rnsrrtmttlli resc,.'.ir`,,'e according v vua bv. iaau.aavaaw u to the recommendations of approved neighborhood plans. POLICY 12. Legislation that focuses resources in communities and defines neighborhood pl;�auinab r°aiegitir`:..`�te rift i.'.:.n.:eirrall S S stt#14011.a ans`.'.r'�; to he.t,,loptv`%aa,•Pn AS WJ Aosol£lS...% £fl APA's Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. POLICY 13.The state should provide flexibility in funding for communities so that it might be used inti a coordinated and(targeted POLICY 14. The state needs to link state university resources,especially in information, planning rro:+r.'..ca.C,?.u`j community organizing,:.:th::`:,.bhh`.'.rl:`.`.r.~.d assistance r.'. .rgan.'atio ;. Neighborhood planning should be incorporated into accredited planning programs at collreges+.Miry r.:at-u V ersiti`v.C.. Municipal Role POLICY 15. City plans should incorporate neighborhood level perspectives to the city's r.&v iSi0::_.m wl i e,'nri plart,:ub Yrorr+Cer+e The city rha,SSSS also ee,i blush th`.'. as a basic area for needs assessment,provision and improvement. POLICY 16. City government should establish city-wide goals and criteria for approving •neir,hhr,rha,a,.a pl:tip These reritrV-ri Arevrel‘‘Yeri via'fhre 1Jbrtireiv.lioa S*T% support of the neighborhoods. Goals and criteria should address the issue of nr+ibhhorhrlrlri be.._;1nrl..ties?,nra how noighhoik0,.,�.l a,rbo,na:l..n.t:`.PJ-t&V are rees,b'"aa3''`%`a "official". POLICY 17. City planners must ensure compatibility among the city master plan, zoning `vrA..:S...rieev CU) recreational nlonc other reg-lµf rSnW Mira theµpprrosicAl plan. POLICY 18. At a minimum,cities should be encouraged to provide financial assistance (`._.r'._.variety,of categorical progranis for undertaking comprehensive neighborhood vision programs, planning efforts, and establishing indicators of performance. POLICY 19. City government should be encouraged to coordinate the resources of the 1 rd i f-r city w.c.Via5.F.S b to.'.YYrr�vrVra ri;;i t"flASa�od T Yl ns. hais in; `Vs 'f*:: '.: .: :s community policing, solid waste services,housing and community development, school 5nAlilvrr�.ar+Jr f%tlecng•=tnra economic SsiewSl op ent•53..55.4 tortri1m turong r514ber.`;. POLICY 20. The municipal planning agency is encouraged to designate a planner to vvvr` aattwtw trvrobrily l.t..rts.✓t.A.avrre ttSP neighkorhitrSr.r Oµrira prosiirle iia fin-twat-4)r.such�ty demographics,public investments and plans,economic performance data and property tv. maarrshaaianteantal.aoa...•..,..itnaa. TT larger Jrisri:t.c,,r ,taiaoibthaal..nrhn.,.u,..lr sh ,.1A l ovo planners assigned to work with them on a regular basis. POLICY 21. Local capital improvement plans, service area boundaries,community and he.*auan service 110,-.atian.. •md rothrer crtt itn.:nity rrvs`vl rcr.'� str..tregirvs shrv'.!lr�l lint r.,:r„aing to neighborhood priorities. The municipality should actively solicit neighborhood partioinotinn in thre r5Vvrwll l�+rwrabrvt trirrlr�r�Cr tr`l, ItSrly reflect nei.1 ,,,rhoroo interests.Neighborhoods should see tangible benefits come out of their work and the city shv'�:ld ra;••��.i`�i'blatbrvrhralr`lr ,C Ilaaaat r.LtAYlr.'.rl;:,.t tri' vrhr51e51,5 POLICY 22. Cities need to involve and educate elected and appointed officials and niiii'n.t`v'.1Jwl `.`.ipl`5Jy:,`5s about the ittn1Jotinnce of neinhhrorhr"VoS nl •w,r r� the pl t'uatnb vabaa t.a process. POLICY 23. Effective neighborhood planning requires that the municipality provide ramilar n i -rtunitiac fnrrnal inrl infnrnuil fnr rpiahhnrhnnrl laarltre '"rrnce the municipality to meet among themselves and with local officials to discuss how the implementation attr.',n rorneigl born od planning is going and 1.0 compare progress with their own and the community's overall goals. POLICY 24. Neighborhood plans and planning should address a wide range of issues,but should krc taiilro.r:,ra to"ICC!their tYcci ie 11CCAs, rror ry aa*riYle: a. A definition of neighborhood boundaries--a description of how they were derived and how alloy :YYI y tro.:i m.irvLjr! sorsii`.14.?arcor; to A.eGrrectre.ry `.ir whro .s .ne,Nl Vr�r.awl who should be involved in the planning process; c. A vision statement; d. Overall objectives SJS each element of the ‘vision.trtt..tremrent;e. Physical pint rat„ the.a dighhrorhr`--4 in:li:•at.rig proposed improvements to the neighborhood f. Specific tasks and assignments; g. Design g`w.flreililes H T inlw to City-:VriAc o jectives, t. A 5.recto.*ry of res.1t rees;j. Shrort-t5 iLL implementation projects to build support and momentum. k. Statistics about the neighborhood,, incl'udling population,cmploy hent education,ca.ttion etc , 1 Maps sh�o::r.ng ., v 'i ..w., a Maps neighborhood resources such as churches,libraries, parks,historic sites,neighborhood sr-ch«.r Aern'grapl'.SW.tr t::. ,A*1.u[lrernen. ti:;n rchc.rt n. A date of adoption and date for the next review or update o. Statement of acceptance by the mw'naicipality EXCEPTIONS Exceptions from the General Policy positions or the Specific Policy positions supported lov(.vele vi r" riitardirigs`Sµtlr rt:aa.3vt�ainb J Y NONE TO DATE. AMENDMENTS This Policy is subject to amendment for the purpose of the following; 1. adding findings or supplementing previous findings with new data or interpretations; 9ftg1 2. adding Specific Policy Positions based on new findings or reasoning that tend to add to bi it not reject.crif-',.cly, ,.L,e eni—.al Policy Position,.,,ne_l Amore Qpeci is Policy Positions,or one or more Exceptions from Policy Positions. NONE TO DATE AUTHORITY Endnotes ©Copyright 2005 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved Construction and Maintenance-Building New Streets and Sidewalks http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/LocalImprovementDistricts/StreetS. iy;9f t!C Its_ S9arch 9u; F,L%zui !ie?..! il_.,... — — — . .�ie P L(-1:r 1! I :�ro S !-i s t•i' -. ' .s L t I z6'� `r'- t, - 4e° 1P0 iBTL EJ t . TRANSPORTATION Construction and Maintenance Building New Streets and Sidewalks Standards for Residential Streets in Portland Construction and Maintenance Potholes 0 Introduction Street Repaving and 0 Development Standards Markings 0 Adopted Standards Improving Streets with LIDs Building New Streets and Introduction Sidewalks Over the past ninety years,it has been Portland's policy to provide maintenance services Backed Up Sewers and on only those local streets built to City standards.Those standards were developed to Drains ensure that streets accepted for City maintenance meet necessary safety and durability Street Cleaning Graffiti on Structures requirements. Sidewalks Streets in new subdivisions and other raw land developments are built to city standards at Trees and Bushes the expense of the developers,who then pass the cost along to new home buyers. Trimming Construction of City streets in existing neighborhoods has been accomplished through the Street Lighting city-managed Local Improvement District program,with the costs being assessed upon the Traffic Signals adjacent,benefiting properties.Of the approximately 1200 miles of local streets in Portland,virtually all were improved through these two approaches. Emergency Transportation Emergency In Portland as of 1991,only about 80 miles of public rights-of-way used as neighborhood Preparation streets remain unimproved.Many of the residents of these neighborhoods feel that the City Snow and Ice offers too few improvement options,that the street standards are excessive,and that Earthquake Info streets built to these standards are too costly.Added to those concerns is growing public dissatisfaction with high traffic speeds and volumes on streets already improved to city City of Portland Elevations standards.Street drainage,erosion control and water pollution issues have emerged in the Tualatin River Basin,and are a growing concern across the city. Education Programs In 1988,a citizens committee was created to look at and search for solutions to the Safe Routes Portland problems associated with unimproved neighborhood streets.Through a committee,a Getting Around Portland in 0 consultant was retained to"brainstorm"new solutions to traditional neighborhood street the 21st Century Video - problems.At the suggestion of the consultant,the committee recommended that the City PSU Traffic and develop new standards for City-maintained residential streets. Transportation Class In May 1990,the City began development of new standards for City-maintained residential streets.This report summarizes the development of those new residential street standards. Environmental Programs The standards were adopted by the Portland City Council on July 31,1991. It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air Green Cars DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS Maintenance Recycling Air Quality 1.Allow additional street width variations 2.Allow right-of-way widths to coincide with street widths Traffic Calming Programs 3.Allow reduced dead-end street turnaround sizes How It Works 4.Allow mountable curbs to be used in turnaround areas Devices 5.Reduce minimum required separated sidewalk width to four feet Evaluations In a report prepared by the consulting firm of Cogan Sharpe Cogan,it was recommended Laws that City staff"...begin the effort to establish a performance evaluation approach to Research determine appropriate street improvement standards,while remaining acceptable for Program Info and Staff maintenance." Frequently Asked Questions Site Index Within the body of literature pertaining to the role of the neighborhood street and its impact Site Map on the surrounding environment,the 1980 Bucks County,Pennsylvania publication, Performance Streets,reflected a new and substantially different view of the purposes of Transportation Options the various elements of residential street design.That document states: Programs Newsletter • 'Whether street standards were intuitivelybased or adapted from highway design, PSU Traffic and what seemed to have been overlooked was that local residential streets are part Transportation Class and parcel of the neighborhood they serve.People live on them.It would seem TravelSmart desirable,therefore,not solely to move traffic safely and efficiently,but to see that the needs of people for a residential neighborhood that is quiet,safe,pleasant, convenient and sociable are met as well." 0 Print-friendly version Legal In 1990,the National Association of Home Builders,the Urban Land Institute,and the • American Society of Civil Engineers joined to publish another milestone in urban street design,Residential Streets,which advocates: of 4 6/22/2005 12:19 Pl' Construction and Maintenance-Building New Streets and Sidewalks http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/LocallmprovementDistricts/Street • Designing to minimize traffic volumes and speeds in residential areas • Properly scaled streets • Streets planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff • Streets which can serve as meeting places and centers of community activity The philosophies espoused in both documents are clearly shared by many Portlanders. The challenge was to find a way to bring them to reality in Portland.The citizens committee's recommendation to develop performance standards was the beginning. The City retained a consultant to research the existing standards of several other communities for purposes of comparison,and then to propose new performance-based standards in an interim report.Transportation could then evaluate and refine those standards,secure public comment,and modify them as needed,before final City Council approval of implementation. In March 1991,the consultant completed the required interim report.Below are the consultant's key suggestions,followed by Transportation's recommendations. 1.Allow additional street width variations. • Response:Transportation concurs with this recommendation.The City's existing neighborhood street standards are designed primarily as a traffic facility comprised of two travel lanes,plus either two parking lanes,one parking lane,or no parking, yielding widths of 32,28,or 20 feet,respectively.Transportation proposes(a) reducing the current 32-foot standard to 26 feet,and(b)reducing the current 28-foot standard to 20 feet. The problems of high speeds and through,non-neighborhood traffic have been the source of continuing complaints from throughout the community.Streets designed to existing standards accommodate higher travel speeds.By virtue of the appearance of the 28 or 32-foot streets as wide,inviting thoroughfares,they may also be used as a short-cut by non-neighborhood traffic.In addition to being considered costly to construct,the existing standards produce excessive stormwater runoff,require wide rights-of-way,are wasteful of natural resources, and demand clearing of many trees and other vegetation. An approach which reduces all of these problems,and one advocated in the publication Residential Streets,is building narrower streets with only a single travel lane.These"queuing streets",intended for two-way traffic,are comprised of a single traffic lane and a parking lane on one or both sides.When two vehicles meet on a queuing street,one of the vehicles must yield by pulling over into a vacant segment of the adjacent parking lane.(Of interest is the fact that many of the City's older local streets range from 18 to 28 feet wide and,as such,are queuing streets.) Acceptable operation of a queuing street occurs only where there are occasional breaks in the curbside parking approximately forty feet in length to permit the yielding vehicle to pull over.These breaks are ordinarily available where ample off-street parking for residents is available,and where on-street parking by residents or guests is only occasional.Breaks in parking are also provided by individual driveways,combinations of driveways,and intersections.These conditions are commonly satisfied in areas Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling Residential Zoned,R5(5000 square feet per dwelling unit)through RF(2 acres per dwelling unit).In more densely-zoned areas,queuing streets may be inappropriate because of inadequate off-street parking capacity,or because of differing emergency response requirements. The City currently requires all streets in new subdivisions to be built to accommodate on-street parking.The City requires through streets to be 32 feet wide,which permits two travel lanes plus on-street parking on both sides of the street.For either cul-de-sacs,or streets serving 30 or fewer dwellings,or one-way streets,the required dimension is 28 feet,which permits two travel lanes and a parking lane on one side only.It is proposed that through streets be built with a single travel lane with parking on one or both sides,for widths of 20 or 26 feet, respectively.It is also recommended that the decision to provide a street with two-side versus one-side parking be at the discretion of the developer of the subdivision or of the property owners funding construction of the street. The proposal to reduce the widths of through streets differs from that for cul-de-sacs,where it is proposed that the 20 and 26-foot widths be permitted to be further reduced to 18 and 24 feet,respectively.The two foot reduction,termed the "cul-de-sac compromise",would be constructed only if requested by those funding the street improvement.Although the additional two-foot reduction in travel lane width reduces impervious surfaces and saves natural resources,it also further reduces the ease of operation between adjacent parked and moving vehicles. Because a cul-de-sac serves only those who are directly accessed by it,the two-foot reduction may be a desirable element for those residing on the street. .of 4 • 6/72/2005 17.19 PA Construction and Maintenance-Building New Streets and Sidewalks http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/LocalImprovementDistricts/StreetS.. Because the site of a fire emergency can be accessed from either direction on a through street,the Portland Fire Bureau has endorsed the proposed reduced street widths for through streets,but cul-de-sac streets present a problem for fire fighting operations.Hydrants are normally located at the intersection,and the first fire apparatus responding to an emergency pauses to connect its hoses to that hydrant. The truck then moves up the street,with the hose being drawn out from the rear, "snaking"out over the lane.If the street is narrow enough for only a single travel lane,such as with a queuing street,the second apparatus would have to drive over the charged hoses,risking greater damage or injury.Instead,on"short" cul-de-sacs,the second vehicle will park at the intersection and needed equipment can be carried to the scene by the firefighters. On longer cul-de-sac streets,fire fighting capabilities may be seriously compromised if all equipment must be hand-carried to the emergency scene from • the second or third apparatus.In addition,long,tightly curved,narrow cul-de-sacs with on-street parking may be physically inaccessible to fire apparatus.For that reason,except with the Fire Bureau Chief's approval of measures designed to facilitate fire protection capabilities,it is proposed that newly-platted cul-de-sacs greater than 300 feet in length be built as a"fire lane",with two unobstructed travel lanes and,if needed,additional parking lanes. It is proposed that curbs be required,except where unsuitable or inappropriate,on all through streets.Curbs are used on City streets to:a)facilitate sidewalk construction;b)confine vehicles to the roadway;c)control on-street parking;d) protect adjacent landscaping;e)channel street drainage;and f)accommodate roof drains.Circumstances under which curbs may be omitted may include,for example,where roadside drainage swales are necessary for water quality control purposes,or where City-adopted neighborhood plans provide the framework and rationale for uncurbed"lane"treatments. 2.Allow right-of-way widths to coincide with street widths. • Response:Transportation concurs with this recommendation,and proposes reducing the right-of-way widths required for queuing streets in Plan Single Dwelling Residential Zones R7,R10,R20 and RF.Retain sufficient right-of-way width in zone R5 to accommodate the potential of sidewalk/planting strip construction on both sides of the street. Dedication of rights-of-way greatly in excess of those needed to accommodate specific street widths is costly and unreasonable.Proposed right-of-way widths are shown on Page 8.These reduced widths permit greater utilization of privately developable land,while maintaining sufficient space for utility installations and sidewalks. 3.Allow reduced dead-end street turnaround sizes. • Response:Transportation concurs with this recommendation,and proposes adoption of a reduced diameter of 70 feet for all newly-platted dead-end streets. The current standard diameter of all dead-end street turnarounds is 90 feet,and was originally developed to allow the largest fire apparatus to turn around without requiring a backing maneuver.According to Residential Streets,"vehicle types that rarely use the street should not be a determining factor in the design.When weighed against the disadvantages of an extensive paved area-poor aesthetics, higher maintenance and installation costs,increased stormwater runoff,and the significant limits that large dimensional requirements place on sound land planning -the minor inconvenience experienced by some drivers in reversing direction is not an important consideration."Bucks County's Performance Streets states, "Cul-de-sac turnarounds should be designed no larger than necessary to permit free turning of the largest service vehicles regularly serving the neighborhood." 4.Allow mountable curbs to be used in turnaround areas. • Response:Transportation concurs with this recommendation. Once homes are built on the property adjacent to a cul-de-sac,the majority of the curb line within the cul-de-sac is occupied by driveways.Permitting mountable curb to be constructed at the time of initial construction of the cul-de-sac will preclude the need to tear out and replace the curbing with driveway approaches.Mountable curbs are not permitted elsewhere because they:a)permit and may encourage easy vehicular access to the front yard area of a residence,in conflict with City planning regulations;and b)permit easy vehicular access to the sidewalk area, which can cause sidewalk damage for which the property owner is liable. 5.Reduce minimum required separated sidewalk width to four feet. • Response:Transportation concurs with this recommendation,but only in of 4 6/22/2005 12:19 PM Construction and Maintenance-Building New Streets and Sidewalks http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/LocallmprovementDistrirts/Street Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling Zones R7,R10,R20,and RF. The current minimum required width of a sidewalk in a residential area is five feet. Where a sidewalk is built adjacent to the curb without an intervening planting strip, pedestrians are forced to share the sidewalk with utility poles,signs,mail boxes, etc.A five-foot width is needed to provide space for pedestrian use around those obstacles.Where a sidewalk is built separate from the curb,the sidewalk is not similarly obstructed,and a four-foot width is sufficient for low volume pedestrian usage found in low density areas R7 through RF. ADOPTED STANDARDS: A.In Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling Zone R5 only: 1.Through street: a.Park two sides (1)RAN=50';street width=26' b.Park one side (1)RNV=40';street width=20' 2.Newly-platted dead-end street less than or equal to 300 feet in length: a.Park two sides (1)RNV=40';street width=26'(or 24') b.Park one side (1)RNV=35';street width=20'(or 18') 3.Newly-platted dead-end street more than 300 feet in length: a.Park two sides (1)RAN=40';street width=28' b.Park one side (1)RAN=35';street width=20' 4.Minimum sidewalk width=5 feet 5.Curb return radius=30 feet B.In Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling Zones R7,R10,R20,RE: 1.Through street width: a.Park two sides (1)RNV=40';street width=26' b.Park one side (1)RAN=35';street width=20' 2.Newly-platted dead-end street less than or equal to 300 feet in length: a.Park two sides (1)R/W=40';street width=26'(or 24') b.Park one side (1)RAN=35';street width=20'(or 18') *3.Newly-platted dead-end street more than 300 feet in length: a.Park one side (1)RAN=40';street width=28' b.No parking (1)RAN=35';street width=20' 4.Sidewalk widths: a.In combination with curb=5 feet b.Separated from curb=4 feet 5.Curb return radius=30 feet *Unless queuing street approved by Chief of Fire Bureau. • C.Turnaround diameter: RNV dia.=80 feet Paved dia=70 feet Adopted October 18,1991 (Revised January 3,2002) •of 4 6/22/2005 12:19 Pb West Coast Environmental Law-Issues-Urban Growth and Develo... http://www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg/Part4/roads. V:.Wh.t's.N.es COnt3Ct U r.1 d�r� rid IL Flame West Coast Environmental Law British Columbia's Iugal champion lot thil cilwronniellt • .±;7;.v4 j._? Services Resources About Us Hot Topics Urban Growth and Development WCEL> Issues> Urban Growth and Development>Smart Bylaws Guide> Part 4>Tailor Road Requirements to their Preferred Use Smart Bylaws Guide —Tailor Road Requirements to their Preferred Use Roads are a major source of impermeable surfaces in municipalities and account for more than 25% of the land use in urban areas. They also provide the largest amount of public space in each community. Road corridors and networks shape the character, function and livability of adjacent land uses and communities. Because of these strong public and community character considerations, roads can no longer be considered as predominantly traffic carrying facilities moving vehicles and goods. While traffic movement is still a primary objective, the needs of all travel modes and adjacent uses must be given equal consideration. Of primary concern for smart growth development is the conventional width of streets. Wide suburban roads may empty automobile traffic quickly onto arterial throughways, but they do not provide a safe route for children walking to school. Many municipalities are more closely tailoring street standards to their intended uses to decrease the cost of construction and maintenance. Avoiding excess road widths also ensures that traffic speeds fit into the character of neighbourhoods. Using traffic calming to retrofit streets to reduce vehicle speeds can also assist municipalities to better tailor road designs to desired uses. Narrowing streets helps slow traffic, improve both driver and pedestrian safety, and create a more welcoming pedestrian streetscape. Street networks should include a wide sidewalk, limited drive-way cuts, and a boulevard or planting strip to enhance the urban forest and create a buffer for pedestrians. Street rights-of-way also have an important role in urban ecology and rainwater management. Streets are now designed to handle rainwater runoff using water infiltration devices such as swales along the edges. Road rights-of-way are also of 4 6/22/2005 12:28 PM West Coast Environmental Law-Issues-Urban Growth and Develo... http://www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg/Part4/roar increasingly used as part of the urban forest where standards are set for minimum revegetation and shade coverage of the road at maturity. Street Types lEmail Address Category One—trails, lanes, and streets providing neighbourhood access with pavement widths of 5 to 8 metres (16 to 26 feet), parking on one or both sides, and at least one boulevard with sidewalk. Category Two—main streets and avenues that provide access to neighbourhood streets and between neighbourhood centres, and serve mixed-use developments. Total pavement width of 15 metres (48 feet, with mainstreet as narrow as 11 metres/36 feet), with one travel lane, curbside parking and wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Category Three—Boulevards and parkways that provide regional access with multiple through lanes in each direction, bicycle lanes, planting strips, multiple-use trails, and wide sidewalks. (modified from Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighbourhoods by Dan Burden 1999) Street Types Local Residential Road— 17 to 20 metre right-of-way with a 6 to 10 metre curb-to-curb distance. A 4.5 to 5.0 metre boulevard (including rainwater infiltration trench on one side of the road) and sidewalk. Parking on both sides of the street. Residential Collector—22 metre right-of-way with 11.3 metre curb-to-curb distance. A 5.35 metre boulevard (including rainwater infiltration trenches on both sides of the road) and sidewalk. Parking on one side of the street. Green Arterial—27 metre right-of-way with a 9 to 12 metre curb-to-curb distance. A 7.5 to 9 metre boulevard, stand along infiltration trenches, and sidewalks. From East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan (James Taylor Chair UBC 2000) Figures 5.2.3.1-5.2.3.3 Concerns about Compromising Emergency Response Municipal staff often cite concerns about increasing emergency response times as the primary impediment to decreasing road widths. However, several resources (listed below) demonstrate how narrow streets are efficient emergency response are compatible. The issue involves more the connectivity of the road network and access to buildings, rather than the width of the streets. A street network based on a grid or modified grid system allows many routes to a single location and disperses of 4 6/22/2005 12:28 P1 West Coast Environmental Law-Issues-Urban Growth and Develo... http://www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg/Part4/roads traffic. A conventional cul-de-sac and wider road network allows for greater speed but more limited access and greater route lengths. Emergency Response, Traffic Calming and Traditional Neighborhood Streets, by Dan Burden with Paul Zykofsky, deals with concerns raised by fire departments and other emergency responders to innovative street retrofit and design efforts. It also explains to traffic engineers, local officials and residents what the emergency responders' concerns are. Walkable Streets and the Fire Department is a 30-minute videotape that addresses how to create more livable neighborhoods while allowing for prompt emergency response. It includes interviews with fire chiefs from Chico and Mountain View, California and Portland, Oregon discussing what works and what does not. Examples of Tailoring Road Requirements City of Surrey—East Clayton Neighbourhood Plan that integrates the green infrastructure with narrow roads (as proposed in the East Clayton Neighbourhood Concept Plan) District of Langford traffic circles (with diagrams) that significantly improve the safety of intersections District of Highlands—road standards (Schedule B, Section R to the Subdivision Bylaw No. 154 pp. 33-35) set maximum widths based on design speeds to ensure small, narrow, and windy roads in keeping with the character of the municipality. Coupled with the revegetation standards and requirements for minimum clearing to discourage scotch broom, most new roads quickly integrate into the rural setting. Ottawa Regional Road Corridor Guidelines that create standards for urban arterials that take into account adjacent land uses and the needs of non-auto users Portland, Oregon's Skinny Streets Apex, North Carolina -zoning that requires narrow, tree-lined streets with sidewalks designed to slow traffic Hillsboro, Oregon - local and minor collector streets have a target design speed of 40 kilometres per hour (25 miles per hour) or less (Section 137 Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance No. 1945) Dade County, Florida -zoning that limits blocks to a 1,300 foot perimeter and 400 foot length (or less), with alleys For More Information Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines: An Oregon Guide for i of 4 6/22/2005 12:28 PM West Coast Environmental Law-Issues-Urban Growth and Develo... http://www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg/Part4/roa( Reducing Street Widths (Oregon Department of Transportation, 2000) Narrow Streets Database (Congress for a New Urbanism) Pedestrian & Streetscape Guide (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2003) Traditional Neighbourhood Development: Street Design Guidelines (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999) (includes TND design principles, safety, geometric design) Traditional Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (North Carolina Department of Highways 2000) Road Diets: Fixing the Big Roads (Dan Burden and Peter Lagerwey, 1999) Second Nature: Improving Transportation Without Putting Nature Second (Surface Transportation Policy Project 2003) Other recent model street guidelines can be found in: Residential Streets (Walter Kulash) Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighbourhoods (Dan Burden) Emergency Response, Traffic Calming and Traditional Neighbourhood Streets (Dan Burden with Paul Zykofsky) '7<E Except where otherwise specified,this page and all contents are Copyright©1995-2004 z � RMbythe West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation—1 800 330-WCEL � �� J' 1001 —207 West Hastings Street,Vancouver, BC,V6B 1 H7 CANADA. Disclaimer Email:infoPwcel.orq. Design by Communicopia.Net 1 of 4 6/22/2005 12:28 P] http://www.trans.ci.portland.orms/scripts/pfhtr Date Printed=June 22nd,2005-Page URL=http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/DesignReferences/Streetlmprovements/Default.htm Page=[/DesignReferences/Streetlmprovements/Default.html Design References Design Guidelines for Public Street Improvements 0 Introduction o Street Design Criteria Roles and Responsibilities o Construction Cost Estimates o Initiation of Public Street Improvement Glossary Projects o References 0 Plan Review Process o Exhibits o Traffic Design Criteria October 1993 Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner Felicia Trader Director, Portland Office of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Management Bureau of Transportation Engineering & Goran Sparrman P.E Development City Traffic Engineer Victor F. Rhodes, RE City Engineer Rob Burchfield, P.E. Donald W. Gardner Project Analysis and Design Development Services Elizabeth Papadopoulos, P.E Operations Section Jerry Markesino, P.E. Permit Engineering Section NEXT l of 1 6/22/2005 12:26 PM