14 - Laserfiche WebLink

FOCUS and Potential Infill Incentives On the development-priority side, regional staff has assembled inforniation fiom a variety of sources and constricted about four dozen individually mapped data layers for the entire region. Staff has also devised a graphic methodology for weighting data layers and interactively combining them in order to explore alternative priority scenarios. After looking at a number of alternatives with the TAC, we decided to concentrate on a single, simple map, which was based solely on the most important regional policy considerations. The resultant map (which PTAC will be able to review at its meeting) identifies potential priority locations which are (1) within existing communities; (2) near fixed transit; and (3) within areas where jobs exceed employed residents. Not only are these three key policy considerations powerful within their own right, they are also highly correlated with other lesser regional concerns. They represent complexity without adding complexity. The final map does not demarcate potential Priority Area boundaries, nor does it identify potential or desirable development intensities. It only provides "signposts" or clues to where Priority Areas might be. The map is purposely composed of uniform dots, rather than real geographic areas, to signal its imprecision. It is our intention to define more precise boundaries and desired development intensities directly with willing local government partners. We propose that no Priority Area be designated without agreement from the affected local goverunent. When we look at the final potential Priority Area map in detail, it also becomes readily apparent that it can only take us so far, and maybe not far enough. The three key policy considerations point to some obvious-and some not so obvious-places to locate priority development. However, we can readily notice that a more nuanced interpretation of regional policy would take us to a few more areas. We are also acutely conscious of the fact that we may not be aware of other local factors that wuld make some presently un-demarcated areas candidates for priority status, particularly with the appropriate invest- ments. We, therefore, propose that there be an open process allowing any local government to submit areas (generally one-hundred acres or more) for priority-area consideration provided that these areas meet three basic entry criteria: that they be: 1. Within an existing community; 2. Near existing or plamred fixed hansit (or served by comparable bus capacity); 3. Planned (or planning) for more housing. After entry, areas maybe further priority-ranked by other criteria, including: • The presence of multiple or mixed-uses contributing to a complete community; The presence of job concentrations, providing nearby employment; Circulation and connectivity. Rather than impose standards top-down, we will refine all these criteria and their precise application in consultation with local governments. We will also discuss a possible hierarchy of priority "place types" with local governments, recogtuzing that not every place can be or wants to be like downtown San Francisco, but nevertheless could be a deserving priority for regional support. In addition, we propose to differentiate areas based on their level of planning readiness. Those with plans and/or developments in place would be designated as Pri- orityAreas; those requiring new or additional planning would be classified as Potential Priority Areas. PAGE 9