|
If the rail line were replaced by a freeway exit, we could feed the ferry
with so many more commuters.
 |
What WE have to look forward
to - like San Mateo
providing 206 new
residential units, including 31 affordable units,
National Award for
Smart Growth Achievement 2002 Winners - City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)
Category: Policies and Regulations
Project: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) incentive
Program
Redwood City Caltrain
Station. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/san_mateo.htm |
| San Mateo’s
TOD Incentive Program uses transportation funds to help communities that
build more housing near rail stations. It spurs construction of needed
housing and creates environmental benefits by giving people the option
of commuting and running errands by rail.
This program directly links land use with efficient use of the existing
transportation system.
To address a housing shortfall, reduce congestion, and improve environmental quality,
Unfortunately this
will not happen. Denser development will increase congestion and
associated air pollution. Why? Because too few people will use the
train.
the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)
provides incentives for land use agencies (20 constituent cities as well
as the county) to create housing near transit stations. C/CAG allocates
up to 10 percent of State Transportation Improvement Program funds for
the San Mateo County TOD Incentive Program. The program provides a
financial incentive for local land use authorities to develop housing
near transit stations.
Under the program, a jurisdiction
receives incentive funds based on the number of bedrooms in the housing
units. Typically, eligible projects receive up to $2,000 per bedroom. In
order to be eligible for the program, housing must be within one-third
of a mile of a rail transit station, and density must be at least 40 units per acre. In the event that the
program is oversubscribed, C/CAG may reduce the funding per bedroom or
provide additional funding to the program. Land use agencies only get
the funding once the units are built or are under construction. Funds
are then used to support improvements either on- or off-site as
determined by the land use agency. In addition to direct transportation
improvements, some general improvements such as landscaping, lighting,
sidewalks, plazas, and recreational projects are allowed.
For the first cycle, October 1999 to
September 2001, C/CAG programmed $2.3 million to the TOD Incentive
Program to support development of 1,282 bedrooms in five projects. The
second cycle, February 2002 to February 2004, has programmed over $2.9
million for 10 projects to facilitate the creation of 2,407 bedrooms.
Highlights
Interest from Other Jurisdictions
The "success" of C/CAG’s TOD Incentive Program has
encouraged other jurisdictions to implement similar programs. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the metropolitan planning
organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, adopted a Housing Incentive
Program based on C/CAG’s model. Legislation being considered at the
state level would create a similar program. Sacramento, Fresno, and
Monterey Counties (in California) are also considering similar programs.
Integration with Transportation
Planning
The TOD Incentive Program recognizes that coordinating land use and
transportation is critical to achieving an efficient transportation
system and making the best use of tax dollars. C/CAG’s approach is an
innovative use of transportation funds that provides incentives to land
use decision-makers to achieve transit-oriented development.
Sounds like they know what they're
doing don't they?
How many people aspire to live with no garden,
neighbors thru the wall playing their stereo, dog barking, having to
keep the blinds down for privacy, and no privacy outside either?
How much have they got transit right, in the
past?
What happens to rail if business moves out of the city?
How much do YOU want to live next to a
railway line?
What are the chances of the train dropping you off within walking
distance of your work?
Will the train run frequently enuf for you to
endure the waiting and scheduling?
Will the expense of rail detract from a more flexible bus
service in suburbia?
How many people will need to take the train
to make any significant change to freeway congestion?
How should our tax dollars be most cost-effectively spent to make the
biggest difference to traffic congestion & air
pollution?
Find out what history has told us
already at http://www.geocities.com/cartransit/USTransportCost.htm |
|
San Quentin Prison Reuse
The Marin County
Board of Supervisors recently convened a planning committee to look at
various reuse options for the San Quentin prison site . As the Marin
Countywide Plan is currently being updated, this presents an ideal
opportunity to look at what potential reuse could occur.
This location
could be a transportation hub surrounded by housing, while keeping
adjacent San Quentin Village. A well-designed vision for the property can be ready
for implementation.
The charge of the
committee is to evaluate various opportunities and constraints on the
site and bring forth land use recommendations for inclusion into the
Countywide Plan update process. It is envisioned that the San Quentin
Reuse Planning Committee will continue to meet through the end of 2002
and present their final recommendations to the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors in March, 2003.
The Committee meets
on a monthly basis. Meetings (see below) are open to the public and are
normally held at the San Rafael Corporate Center,
750 Lindaro Street, San Rafael, in the evenings.
Committee
Members
Membership and representation of the
fourteen-member committee is as follows: |
San Quentin Reuse
Planning Committee
Steve Kinsey,
Chair, Marin County Board of Supervisors |
Vision Workshop
Meeting Schedule and Proposed Topics
Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Additional Links |
Alex Amoroso, Housing
Al Boro, City of San Rafael
John Dupar, Town of Corte Madera
Phil Frank, Historic Preservation/Culture
Paula Gutierres, California Department of General Services
Huey Johnson, Environment |
Larry
Lanctot, City of Larkspur
Dana Miller, San Quentin Village
Jessuina Perez-Teran, Social Equity
Annette Rose, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
Stephen Roulac, Commercial/Business
Sim Van der Ryn, Energy/Renewable Resources
Bill White, Real Estate |
The State Department of General Services completed a
report in 2001 which analyzed potential reuse scenarios of the San Quentin
prison site in PDF and the relocation of the existing facility and
programs. The three scenarios in the report are not intended to be
recommended land use alternatives but rather provide data and background
analysis for the site. County's San Quentin Pages:
Meeting
Schedule and Planned Topics |
| March 13, 2002 |
San Quentin Planning Process and Calendar - The State as
Property Owner and Surplus Property Disposal
Surrounding Land Uses |
| April 10, 2002 |
Natural Assets and
Opportunities - Shoreline, Ridges, Access
- Historic Buildings – Preservation and Reuse |
| May 2, 2002 |
Circulation On and Off Site
– Auto, Pedestrian, Bike
- Transit - Ferry, Rail, Bus |
| June 12, 2002 |
Housing
- Commercial Mixed-Use
Opportunities |
| July 10, 2002 |
Prison Operation and
Programs, Closure Alternatives
Community Benefits Community Needs – Schools, Child Care, Public
Facilities |
| September 11, 2002 |
Community
Design Energy and Utility
Infrastructure
Innovative Building Practices |
| October 9, 2002 |
Bringing It All Together –
Coalescing the Vision |
| November 13, 2002 |
Illustrating the Vision -
Creating a Graphic Representation
- Conduct Public Workshop (separate meeting |
| December 11, 2002 |
Review Input from Public
Workshop
- Prepare Draft Recommendations |
| January 8, 2003 |
Review Draft Recommendations and
Refine |
|
February 12 2003 |
Adopt
Final Recommendations
3. Where Do We Go From Here? 6:15
How we'll take the input from the community workshop along with
Information learned from previous meetings to develop and refine
recommendations.
4. Visioning Workshop Summary Report 6:20
Discussion of the report outlining Visioning Workshop themes and
outcomes.
5. Options Brainstorming 7:00
Using the six subject areas from the workshop along with workshop input
as a basis, identify and discuss options for potential reuse of the site.
|
| March
12, 2003 |
Survey Outcomes
Review the outcomes from the survey to identify areas of consensus.
Discuss comments received.
Refining the Recommendations
Continue our discussion from last month refining the draft recommendations
and graphics.
Wed Mar 12 6pm SR Corp Center 750
Lindaro SR
Share a Meal 6:00 Dinner is provided for members of the
Planning Committee
Public Comment 8:40
|
|
