The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0242.091.. April 22. 1991 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE PlANNING COMMISSION Pila Alto, California BAY Y1SION 2020 TH(~SJECT OF . THI~ REPORT ISA COUNCIL PRIORITY Meobers of the Planning Commission and City Council REPORT IN BRIEF This staff report ~ighllghts sections of the Say Vision 2020 Draft Report and their potentfal relevance to Palo Alto. The staff report's purpose is to facilitite discussion at the Aprll 29 jOint Planning Commission-City Council Study Ses,lon. a portion of which is to be devoted to Bay Vision 2020. Specific recomoendations regarding the Bay Vision 2020 Oraft Report and process are not made. After the Study Session, it is anticipated t~it Bay Vision 2020 will be considered for action on a regular Council agenda. Attachments to thfs report include: Bay Vision 2020 Reylew Draft Report; February lI, 1991 Santa Clara County comments; february 21, 1991 City of Sunnyvale comments; and february 6, 1991 City of San Jose c~mments. B., Vision l020 Commission Members Peter Giles and Bab Ming will be present (or the Study Session. BACKGROUND The Bay Vision 2020 Commission was established In 1989. Loc.l Bay Are • • lected officiols and the Regional Issues Forum, , body created by the Bay Are. Cour~il and the Greenbelt Alliance (i.e .• the conveners] aPPOinted 31 ~rs to the Commission. The Commissfon tasks were to make a one-year, independent study of the ways the Dine-county Say Area is growing in population and changing in character; adopt a general vision for the Bay Area 1& the year 2020; and recommend ~asures to achfeve the vision. The Draft Report notes, on page 2, that ·we also rec~gnized the strong public interest il oUler issues such as illproving public education, pr-oyiding help for the CMR:242:91 / o h~less, coabat1ng drugs, et~. In short, the Conveners asked that our first prio~ltl be issues of land use, housing, transportation, the regional economy, and enviycnmental qu~1ity. But the Conveners &lso said tnat our priorities and our recomaendations should support efforts to improve education, revitalize l~ner cities, ~nd help with the r~ion's mu1t'p1e social concernSr- T.e origi"" Bay Vision 2020 time line called for public c.mments on the Draft Report in Ja~uary and February followed by submission of a proposal to the sh.te legislature. The time 11ne and pr<ocess has beer. $'Jbstanthlly IOmdlfied by Governor Wilson's position that his administration would not ~aYe adequate time to 9ive ap?fopri&te Ittentian to the 9rowt~ ~anagem~nt/re9,unll government issue in 1991 and thus supported further study and discussion. A modified Bay Visi~n 2010 report is anticipat~d to be ivai1able in early May. The legislaturt WIS focusing increasing atter.tion O~ the 9r~h mlnag~nt/ regional goyernment issue i. 1989 and 1990. It is antiCipated that following resolution of t •• current budget probl ... , att •• tion .ill refocus on the •• issue' and Say Vision 2020 could be part of major legl.lation ;. 1992. REYIEW OF THE BAY VISION 2020 DRAFT REPORT The following section of the st.ff report will highlight portions of the Sal Vision 2020 Oraft Rep~rt that appelr to be espec,al'y rele~ant ~ither because of the importance of their underlying assumption and/or of their potential i~lct on Palo Alto. Questions a~e riised that Commissioners Jnd Council Meobers moy wish to pursue during the April 29 Studl Session. lnherently, th ... Ire it .... 10 t~e Draft Report not Mntioned in this .tlff report. Discussion of the u"mentioned tteDS that raise questions or concerps should .1so De pursued .t the Study Ses.;on. findings .nd C9n,JusiQns~·Pages 3-1 ?f the praft Report A. Finding. and Conclusions 4\ and tZZ Identify the Bay Vision 2020 Com.ission's central conclusion, ·we .ust iRprOvE our ways of managing growt ... • -If we do not become mon effective than we currer,tly are ;n dealing with our regional proble~s, we will lose t~it specialness of which we are ~11 so ?roud.- Shou1d the City toncyr ~it~ thl, &$sessment1 Is the problem sever~ enou9~ to warrant the creation of I d~fferent way of address~ng growth minagement issuts with a l,~ely decrease iA the independence of local jurisdiction's land use decfsion ~ak1ng authority? B. findings and Conclusions 13, 14 and 'S identify the nloe·county Bay Areas 1$ ·a sin91e interdependent region,· t~ed together ·e".,~ronmenti'llt econOllically, fi,mctional1y and go ... ·ernmentally.· SOle of the responses to the Drift Rfport ~dentify connections w;t~ ireas outside of thp. Dine counties and Question the appropriateness of the ~fne-county arr."gement for any new 9rowt~ .anagement effort. Would C"R:Z42:91 ,:\cmr\bv2020 4/22191 Page l • , . o th! City prefer I different grouping of caunt;~St a smaller area, i lirqer aru? C. flndfng and Conclusion 15 notes that there ire -many issues that ire better dealt with lQcal1y or 'subregiQ~111y·.~ What will be t~t process of defining what issues are appropr1ate for local ~r subreg;~nal resolutfop.? D~ Findings and Concl~sions 18 and 19 conclude that current growth patterns ire unacceptable. Again, as asked under it!m A abo~eJ is the existing situation a serious enou9~ problem to warrant the effort and risk assoc1ated with change? Is there support for I new r~ional growth ~anagement approach eRphastzfng new development in exlstfng developed areas (i.e., in fill and redevelopment) and creation of new, compact urban and suburban areu'? L Finding and Concl~sion III addresses the need for increased effcrts to have cOmmYnities assist in the deye'o~nt of affordable housing. Palo Alto's affordable ~ousing efforts nave been re1itfvely pr~ductlYE. What Is not dlrettl! .ddressed i. the Bal Vision 2020 Drift Report is how it regional g~h .. nagement process would bring about the development of mor. housing (affordable and market} in exIsting communities. Jf Falo Alte or another jurisdiction failed to meet future houslng goals, what type of sanctions would appear appropriate? F. Finding and Conclusion 118 is that changes iA state law are needed to relfeve the fiscal press~re o~ the local land use decision Making process. ... Any reallocation of h",d use-rthted revenues will ha .. 'e to seriously consider the rtdistrlbution of sales ta). Fila Alto has a high per capita amount of sales tax and a redistribution ~chan1sM would likely shift some amount of revenue to other jur1sdictior.s. How should Palo Alto respo~d to the redistributfon issue? Val yes and Goals--Pages B to 13 of the Craft Report It is noted on page IS of the Draft Report that there is a need for a rfgfonal plan and ·The goals state.ent in the preceding sectior. of t~is report sets forth polfcies and objectives to be used i" preparlng th,s ~lan.· Commissioners and Council Members should comment on t~e values and goals and especialty indicate areas of CQnce~ and potential ~dification. A. On pages 8 and 9, there is a discussion of growth and the ongOing debate regardinQ whether there s~ould be (o~ can be) a regional ·cirrying capaclty •• CMR:242:91 p:\Cllr\bv2020 4/22/;1 Page 3 , . '. • . .~ o o Given tne strength of t~e Bay Area;s economy and the des1re of people to move to t~1$ area. City staff doubts that the carrying capaCity concept is both appropriate and ca" be fmplemented for an are~ as large is the Bay Area. How would Commissioners and Council Members treat the carrying capacity issue? Should ther~ be I (ity positio~ on this issue? B. The f1TSt two paragrap~s on page 10 address the issue of establishing urban limit lines. The regfona1 pl anning approac.h inherent in the Bay VisIon 2020 Draft Report establIshes the tradeoff of higher density, more urba~ dewelopment fnside of urban limit lines in exchange for protection of lands with open space and/or agricultural value. T~is tradeoff is consistent witn Palo AltQ~5 treatment of Baylands l F~oth,lls and the deyeloped urban area. C. The fift' paragraph on page 10 n.tes that with Bay Vision's region.l growth ~nagezent vision, -there would be some fncreise i" the density and mix of housing and business areas.-finding places for additional housfng in a developed City suc~ IS Palo Alto is generilly a difficult task. If a f~ture regional process identified a target of a 5 to 10 percent (i.e., ],200 to 2.400 dwelling units) increase in Palo Alto's hocsing stock. W~tt fs the likelihood of the City successfully respond i '91 Regional Goygrnancg--pages 14 to 1B of the Draft Report A. ItellS 1 to 4 an page 14 conclude that ·Present regionoll goverllance is inadequate-and a new agency is needed. The needed actions cannot be satisfied by better coordInatIon of existing organfzations. It is recoamended that I new ~ine-cGunt1 Regional CommiSSion (Re) be created by consolIdating the Bal Area AIr Quality Management District (BAAQMO) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (~TC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Does the City s~aye the conclusion that the present system is inadequate and better coordinatfon by existing agenCies is ~ot the answer to the growth management issu~? B. It .. 5 on page 14 notes t~.t the San Francisco Bay Regional Vater QualIty Control Board (RWQCB), Bay Con,erYation and Oeyelopment COinission (BCOCJ and other single-purpose agencies could become part of the RC during' later consolIdation. Soae jurisdictions have advocated initial inclusion of the R~QCB and/or BeDC in the new Re. Should the City sopport incl.si.n of either or both of t~es. agencies and/or other regional functions in the initial RC? C. Itees 6 and 1 on pages 15 and 16 identify the wack of an Interim Regional Commission (IRC) established for. four·yo.r period. The lRC's functions WQuld include admiDistration of eKlsting regional programs, preparation af a regional ~lan, identtffcation of measures necessary to 1~leaent the regional plan and exercising -a~thority to perait or deny 0IR:242:91 p:\clIr\by2020 4/22/91 Page 4 • \ development5 determined by ~ajorit1 ~ote of t~e C~mmiss;on to be of regional 1~ortance because of their cnar.cter, sfze or Tocatton~· ~re the t.sks of the IRC appropri.te? Should approval of the regional pIa. be left to the Coomlssloo Dr involve loc.l action? ~s noted in the text, there is not agreement among Ba] ViSion 2020 members regarding the IRC's review of developments--sho"ld the City ta ••• position on this issue? After four years, sho~ld tnt IRe cont~nue on w;t~out state leg1sTat1Ye attfon or should the permanent RC require new legis1ation? O. It .... 9 to 11 on pages 16 to 18 address the establl,h~r.t of the initial Dr interfe Regional CommiSSion. Goes the City concur that the Initial board should b. appointed rather than elected? Ooe, the City agree that. board of 35 to 40 people would be workable? Ther. is • wide range of opinion en what portions of the Initial board should be composed of elected offiCial, and the public .t large--What po,itlon ,hould the City take on this is,ue? Of the .ethod. of appointment identified in Item II, Which one. would the City f,vor? tR canclYsion, t~is staff report has identified e'e~nts of the Bay Vision 1020 Draft Report that appear to be especially Important to the City and/or especially i~rtant to the general issue ~f regional grQwt~ management as addressed ~1 the Bay Vision 202u CosmiSSion. Questions ~i~e been raised to facilitate Plannfng Coam1ssion and City Council discussion of this item. ~fter the ~pril 29 Study Session, staff will returo to the Council with recOll1len:d'atians for i formal response to the Bay Yfsion 2020 Draft Report. Respectf.ll, s"biitted. ~I/t£th' -IfAd~~';l ~ENNETH R. SCHREIBE. Director of Planning and COmMUnity [nvirDRaent ()-U1L-:i{.Ul,,;,};y JUNE FLEMING Assistant City Manager Attachments: BaY Vision 2020 Revie. Draft Report february 21, 199J Santa Clara Count, cOlTlTler.ts february 21, 1991 City of Sunnyval! c~nts february 6, 1991 Citl of San Jcse comments cc: II<>b Mang Peter Giles CIIR:242:91 p:\c.r\bv2020 4/22/91 Page 5 • I o Bay VISion 2020 Review Draft Report January, 1991 oro: The People of the San Francisco Bay Area On behalf of the 31 members of the Bay Vision 2020 Commission, I am pleased to send yo~ this draft report. As with most people in the region, we cherish the Bay Area and seek to assure its beauty, livability, economic strength~ and the opportunities it affords those who live here. We have concluded, however, that these qualities are in jeopardy because we have no effective means for addressing the problems that cr~ss city and county bouadaries. Only by some changes in the structure of government in the re9ion can we tackle increasing traffic conqestion, long commutes between home and job, shortages of affordable hQu5ing, loss of valued open space to urban sprawl, predictable air pollution, and deterioration of our economic base. We fear chat present development trends, unless otherwise Channeled, will result in a reqion that emulates Los Angeles rather thaD insures the character lonq associated with the Bay Area. OUr commission was formed late in 1989. The Con9~nors· of our Commission Asked us to make a one-year, independent ezamination of the ways in whicb the nine-county Bay Area is grOWing in population and changing in character. Tbey also asked us to adopt a general vision for the Bay Area in the year 2020, and to recommend measures to achieve our vision. This draft report is the resalt of our work thus far. During January and Pebruary, members of our Commission will be available to discuss our findings and recommendations. Then, at the end of February, we will review all the comments and suqgestions we have received and we viII complete our final report. After that. we expect to continue working to support leqi&lation a~d oth~r ~easures necessary to put our reoommendations into effect. * Elected Off~cials of city and county 90vernment in the Bay Area, and the Regional Issues Forum created by the Bay Area Council and t~e Greenbelt A11iance. . ,:.-- • '\ Bay VISion 2020 Revie~ Report o OUr Assignment Our Commi8sion was asked to focus p~imarily on those issues that we DOted above. 'fhese were our primary concerns.. But we also recogftiled the strong public interest in other issues such aa isprovinq public eduCAtion, providiDq h.lp fcr tbe b02eles&~ c~atinq drugs, etc. In ahort, the Convenors asked that our first priority be issues of land use, housing, transportation, the reqional economy, and en.vironmental quality .. ,But the Convenors also said that our priorities and our recommendations should support efforts to improve education, revitalize inner cities, and help with the region's multiple social concerns. Our Diversity When the Convenors appointed our Commission, they made clear that we had been chos_n intentionally to be a digers~ group of Bay Area citizens. Our vocational backqrounds and experience include business and industry, agtieultute~ housing and commercial de~~lopment, finance, education, conservation, and various aspects of public service. some of us are involved with the concerns of specific oonstit~encies, such as Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, African ABericans, and the Lesbian and Gay community. Many of us are actively seeking SOlutions to a broad array of economic and social concerns. We coae from cities, suborbs, and rural areas: and we represent the racial, ethnic, cultural, and geographic spect~um of the Bay Area~ Natura~ly, with this .uch diversity, we began our work witb different outlooks and points of view. But as we qot to know each other, and as we worked together to learn bow the Bay Area is changing, we began to find a strikin9 amount of consensas. Indeed, all of us bave learned mucb from this process, in which we have met for two full afternoons a ~onth and have spent countless additional hours in reading, discussin9~ and thinkin9 ~bout regional matters. Nevertheless, there ate still $ome things about which ~e differ~ Some members of our Commission disagree land, in a fev cases, disagree strongly) with individual conclusions and recommendations in this draft report. As I've noted before, ve expect to continue our efforts in early 1991 to see whether we can find further common ground, byt total aqreemect oc everything may not be possible. Ic the areas where we have not tbu$ far found complete consensus, we mirror the diver;eDce of views amofl9 Bay Area residents generally. • \ ..i1 ') Bay VISion 2020 Review Draft Report For example, we have noted that current fo~ecasts predict an i~crease in the Bay Ar~a's population frem the current 6 million to well over 7 million by the year 2020. Some of uS have concluded that there is a point beyond which the Bay Area's population must not be allowed to groY if the natural resources of the Bay Area ~re to be protected adequately. Others of us believe that ~~h a population limit is neith~r desirable nor possible to achi~ye. Still others believe that the issue is not population growth itself, but the need to manage development so that natoral resources are not degraded as population increases. All of us agree, however, that the environmental impacts of an increasinq population and an expanding economy will require a new, more compr~hensive ability to plan and make reqional decisions for the Bay Area. Our General principles Despite some philosophical disagreements, we have general support for three basic principles: 1. We all seek a prosperous economy. a livahle environment, and a harmonious society. More and more$ however$ it is obvious that we will Dot achieve these goals by chance, particuarly during a time of sizable population growth. We will need to manaqe growth and change if we are to achieve the economic benefits of qrowth and also to protect the Bay Area's natural reSOurces. We will need$ for ezample# to channel aDd encourage development in some areas and to discourage or prevent it in others. 2. The Bay Area will continue to have many kinds of communities. But# as part of our diverSity, we will need adequate denalties and concentrations, both in areas where people live and in areas where they work. This is essential to make public transit fin4ncially possible and attractive to people. A new regional emphasis on public transit will be requi~ed$ along with the necessity of decreasing private vehicle trips, and stronger community commit.ents to increasing the density of development. 3. We in the Bay Area have no shortage of government but we do not hay. government organized to do what is needed for the future. We seek not more government, but better, more efficient government. Thus we advocate: (a) vigorous leadership in Sacramento to establish state growth-management policies and to provide ways to finance schools, transportation systems, and other infrastructure; (bJ a neW$ nine county Bay Area agency for growth management that vould initially combine three existing major regional agencies--the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments; and (c) local government planning and decision-making effeetively e~ercised in conformdty with at.te and regional growth-management policies. " • " • . '.--~ . '-, Bay V18lon 2020 Revie~ Report Our DrAft Report In this report we do three things: pirst, we list the major findings and conclusions that have resulted fram our year of discussions of reqionAl issues ~ith knowledgeable, experienced people from the Bay Area and tnrouqhout the nation" Second, we outline our 90a1S tor ~hat the Bay Area should be like in the year 2020--our vision of a desirable future for the Bay Area" And, thi.rd, we propose the governmental and other means needed to mate this vision a reality. Our recommendations build on existing institutions, propose bold steps where these are required, and are at the same time pr~ctical" We recognize that not everyone will agree with every aspect of our recomaendations~ We expect that tbose most involved with the issues of governance viII be most interested in the reoommendatjons~ But we a~50 look forward to comments by the general public and those in the pri9ate and non-profit sectors~ We arge readers to focus less on individual details than 00 the broad objectives we seek to achieve~ We intend our ~eport to stiaulate diacussiQo about regional iasues. not to provide final answer.~ Our report is thus a beqinning, not an end. And. although our Commission's one-year assiqnment has been compl@ot.ed .. we pledge our further efforts. as individuals, to work 'With the Conveaors and with other interested Bay Area citizens to achieve the vision we set forth in this report. Yours very truly, ~~~4>~ Ira Michael H~nU Chair • Bay VJ.Sion 2020 Review Draft Report -1- BAY VISION 2020 COMMISSIONERS CHAIR "",,fessoroflow and city and regional planning, UC Berkeley; University of California at Berkeley. VlCECHAIRS A.W. Clause~ chairman or the Executive Committee. BankAmerica Corporation. Pamela W. Lloyd, member of the San Francisco Bay Regional W.te, Quality Control soara; ChlUT of the Marin Conservation Corps. Richard J. Rios, deputy executive diredor oftbe Rede\'elopment Agency of the City of SiD Jose. COMMISSIONERS Gardon Chin. executive director, Chinese Community Housing Corporation, San Franasco. ~~~~~c~b:air. Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council; former president of the ly of Women Voters. former regional administrator of the Environmental Protection of the Bay Area League of Women Voters. vice president,. education and public affairs (or Tandem Computers in superint.endent of the Cupertino School District. Armaodo F. ~ superintendent, BeU.vue Union School District in Sonoma County; former Mayor @ ROhnert PaTk Gloria S. Gee, coDtroner, PacifIC Gas &. Electric Co. Peter B. Giles, president and CEO of the Technology Center of Silicon Valley. David L. Goodman, vice president of Publit: Affairs and Marketing Senir.es for Clorox COrporatwn, OikIiind. S. Reid Gustafson, president of Northern CaJi,fornia Division of Shea Homes. Mq E. Hand-el. executive director of the Napa County Farm. Bureau and the Napa ViI1ey Grape Growers Association. Aileen C. Hernan~ urban consultant, San Francisco. • /. Bay VISion 2020 &lVie~ Report -2- James C. Hormel, president of Equidex. Inc., San Francisco. ::.';;;,..,.""" former chairman of Lane Publishing Co., publisher of Sunset Magazine ~ presidE"..nt, Manufacturing. General Products Division, and site IBM, San Jose. 5=""'-=" executive direct<lr of the East Bay Asian DevElopment Corporation, Robert A. Mang. founder and president nr Advance Design Technologies; board member ana ililiiiediate past president of the Greenbelt Alliance. oJ. Da vic! Martin, president of The Mart.kJ Group, land developers. David 1. Nichols, former county manager of San Mateo County. Martin Paley. management consultant. San Francisco. Rohert H. Power, chairman .rthe Nut Tree Partnership, Vacaville. Davic! M. Reiser, president of the Santa Clara and San Benito Central Labor Council. Martin J. Rosen, president of the Trust (or Public Land. Dwight C. S-Ie, board member of the Save San Francisco Bay Association. president of EnshaDab Developmenu; (ormer Santa Clara :,!!O""!g!!!~~, pastor of the Davis Cbapel Christian Methodist Episcopal Scott F. Wylie, director ofCommunkatiocs for Raychem Corporation, Menlo Park. Beth W'&naan, former mayor BDd council member in Morgan Hili; grants coordinator for bOUSlIli community development for Santa Clara County. -',,- '. o ./ Bay Vision 2020 Review Draft Report -3- FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. the increase in highway and freeway congestion, long between bomes and workplaces. fears about a lessening of our economic competitiveness, air quality damaged by the exhausts of internal combustion engines~ and unnecessary loss of open spate. Witbout better reo:;gnitioD of our interdependeDCies in managing future patterns of development in the Bay Area, we are likely to have a future with much more of the same ~onditions that concern us today. 2. In the Sa Area we have lent" of overnment. but it is DOt adTtuatel y coordinated. e reglon as nme counbes+ citles, an 721 Speclat dlStncts not counting schcol districts). Many of these special districts are multi-county and some are region wide. Most of these governmental units have taxing authority_ But we have yet to create a democratic. responsive, and accountable political structure to address our regional interdependem:ies. Increa..o;ingly .. our cities and counties make 13l!d use decisions to maximize tax revenues, Dot to CaJ'ry out other planning goals. fnadequate incentives exist to encourage construction or affordable housing. And there are few political incentives for local offICials to make difficult decisions in the broad regional interest rather than in JocaJ int.eroasts. a much "regional" issues. Yet we .rn;reaslD'''Y used livjng in one community. working in another, shopping in a third. and Ir"v.,lm,~ to s.till others for a symphony. a ball game. a visit to friends or relatives, or trave1ing across the region to rea<::h the ocean or the Sierra. And all of us recognize that when we are some dista.nce from hOnH!! and are asked where we live. we are as apt to say .. the Bay Area-as to name the city or county where we live. is. for jobs a regional economy competes s ~¢~~~T with ceas in the glcbal economy. r array of freeways, transit systems. and patterns or land use we travel around the region. And governmentally. we have a variety ~;~~·:li~~;' singJe-purpose agencies (to regulate regiona1 air quality. Bay filling, water transportation funding, etc.), But we have no multi-purpose agency that can effectively with issues of broad regional importance. \. Bay VISion 2020 Revie~ Report Benito, San Joaquin, Santa en1%., St.aruslaus, Lake, and Yolo eo"nti ... Thu.., some people would defme the Bay Area as DOW consisting of at .least 14 or 15 counties. Tbere is no ';Iuestion that the search for affordable housing has led large numbers of people who work m the nine-county region to live in these contiguous counties. But defming the Bay Area to include all of them would have little practical value. Rather, (a) the Bay Area should continue to be defined as the nine counties bordering on "San Francisco Bay; (b) those of us who .live in the nine counties mould recognize the ways in which we are increasingly linked to &<\joining counties; (e) these counties .hould be invited to take part in regional and subregional planning on issues of mutJ.al concern such as housing end transportation; and (d) the Bay Area', efforts to manage i!S growth should not result i., exporting problems to adjacent counties. ~ ~ 1990, there The Association of Bay Governments an increase to 7 million in the year 2010, and more by 2020. Will1e some argue that this increose in population could be reduced by actions taken over the next decades to limit growth, others believe it is important to incor]>Ot'&te these projections into regional planning. Thus, the potential cbalJenge to the region is to find jobs and housing for many more people wb ile minimizing the potentially adverse consequences of this population growth on the region's resources. 8. Our growth patterns at ~Dt emphasize low densities, both for housing and for businesses. Htgber devdopmeIir enSlties woUld accommOdate grov.ih and tea ve more land for open space~ Data developed by ABAG indicate that we continue to settle the Bay Area at approximately the same overall density as we ha,'e in the past-eight residential units per acre. As our population and businesses grow, and our density of settlement does not, we ronvert sizable amounts of undeveloped land eacb year. ABAG estimates, based upon local government pTanning i that app:'orimately 285,000 acres of land (214,000 for residential purposes and 71,000 for business purposes) have been or will be set aside for development in the 20-year period from 1985-2005. Based upon actual experience, ABAG further estimates that an average or 8.500 acres per year will be used by 2{'(}5 for new residential and business purposes. Projected population changes, as assembled for the Commission by Professor Richard LeGates of San Francisco State University, indicate that cities witb the higbest rates of projected growth are at the region's edge. All Bay Area cities with projected growth rates over 30 percent (from 1990 to 2005) are outside tbe core of the regbn, except for Emeryville. , , I • t II I ··fii ~ ./ .. Bay Vision 2020 Review Ur&1\ Report -5- Francisco. most of eastern San Mateo County. the San Jose area,. and we3tern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Jobs in the Bay Area have increasingly moved to 'Work~ places outside the older urbanized core. In some cases this Ol&y create a better balance of jobs and bousinl[ within a subregion. The suburbonization of jobs, however, &!so has flegative effects. Professor Robert eervero of UC Berkeley concluded in 1989 that more suburbanites live farther from their workplace today than a deeade or more ago when the preponderance of jobs was in inner cities. One impact ot dispersed employment is that commuting increasingly takes place aloug secondary roads not designed to band1e the volume or traffic the)' must now accommodate. AnDther is increased commute tra\"el. And a third is that job opportu.nities move away (rom low-income residents of central cities. In addition. dispersed development requires costly new infrastructure, which must be bwlt even though usable infrastructure is often already aVaIlable in older communities. Aeeordi,'lI to the Bay Area Council. even with the softening prices later the year, fewer than 15 pen:ent of those entering the maTket for a single-family home (ne ... ""me .... to the Ba)' Area, fIrst-time buyers, expanding families) could afford the typically-priced borne. Mayor Carol Whiteside of Modesto told the Commission that the average price of a home in her dty early in 1990 was $129,000. It appears that bousing prices lead many people to accept the disadvantage of long commute trips and to live outside the nine counties. Many of us live in rental units and in multi-unit buildinlrS. LeGales reported that in the eigbt,.year period from 1980-19B8, 43 percent of the housing units built in the region were multi-family. 56 pen:eDt single-family, and I pert1!nt mobile bomes. The rate of new multi-family construction io the 80s is very close to the exiEting Bay Area TaRo of multi-fanuly units to single-family housing. The rate at which multi-famBy housing is constructed has not increased. In turn, as ABAG reports" we ha,,-e not increased the residential densities with which we develop land. The Bay Area rental market is also expensive or iJnaffordable to many of us. In January, 1990. the median advertised Bay Area rent f.cx a two-bedroom apartment was $750 a month, with • high of $975 in San Francisco and a low of $495 in Solano County. The typicalllOmebuyer and apartment renter in the Bay Area finds a cost structure that ofieJ::J makes residences outside or the regiQD'S. urbanized core more affnrdable. !"eeting ~~ is • C") Bay VlSioo 2020 Review ~ Report -6- ]n addition, cities need incenti yes to overcome their ftseal concerns that affordable housing produces relatively little in tax revenues compared to the costs of provirli;-.g sen-ices foe its residents. Moreover. some communities are concerned that they may be required to accept a disproportionate amount of the region'. affordable housing. 12. Homelessness is increasin in all areas o( the -0 and fun is needed to coe with 1t. e on-Jt ousmg con 0 0 em orma,. usmg e' nUnl r O!'AFDC temporary shelter approvals as a base, estimates that more than 220,()O() individuals were homeless in the Bay Area at some tinte in 1989. Communities need funding help to provide housing for peopie whose needs cannot be met by the private market. Incentives are needed fer c-omm unities and neighborhoods to include stK:h housing. use planning process would make transit more mean automobile trips. and that, in turn~ would mean less air poUution (rom automobile engines, As long as automobiles are powered by internaJ combustion engines, there will be pressures to reduce automobile travel and to reduce the use o( sing1e-ocwpant vehicles if current air quality st.andards are to be met.. Moreover. these p<eSSures for trip reduction will also exist regarding tcuck traveL 15. A number o(states and metropolitsn areas have enacted "£\flam;; to m~ growth more enecu v:il:!ut none proVides an exact JIlOdel for eBay Area. 1'er'etS mUCh to team from areas, but we need to develop our own Jorm of regional home rure; nobody can do it Cor us. We C3..D... however. learn from the growth management strategies enacted by different slate governments (e_g_~ Florida, New Jersey~ Oregon) and by metropolitan regions (e.g_. the seven COUtlties surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul which have had a form of metropolitan government for more than 20 years, and three counties in the Portland, Oregon area, which han formed a metropolitan government). to be with other. must be in place or funded concurrently with the opening of the new ~~~~E~': means infrc15tructure to serve Dew deveJopment (roads. sewers, ""Compactness"" means that urban sp.-awl patterns are not permitted, such means as use of urban growth boundaries. component. • • i1 <) 'i •. Bay VISion 2020 Review Draft Report ., use. governments increasingly p.operty, saJes, and other tax revenues, planning objectives. Local governments say to have money for the public .services they called the "fiscalization" ofland use. Its governments to use land so as to produce building housing, particularly housing foc lo •• -illcome ·7- 19. State leadershig is needed in other aTeas as well such as helping to revitalize our central Cities. I hlS means Improved public: sc600ls, an end to hometessness. adequate health care, etc. Solutions to these problems require federal, stare, and local efforts that can be helped b:1 more effective regional governance. As we have noted before. our assignment was not to propose speclfic remedies in these areas. but rather to assure that any changes we recommend in regional governance can help in rmding solutions. We have. however, specifically considered whether any regional change in school district organization would be helpful. We conclude that it would not-current emphasis is on reducing the size of large school districts, not on increasing it. But we stroo.gly reeogni:z.e. the importance of improving our public schools ~f we are to maintain the quality of life we seek for the Bay Area. 20. Water supply will more and more be a matter of Bay Area cantero. No single agency proVides water, or plans water supphes. for the enbre regwn. Instead, 67 different agencies do this for their parts or the region. Some of these agencies are quite smaIl, but others are large-the San Franr.isco Warer Department, for example, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Some parts of the region appear to have water supplies adequate for maoy years, but others have now stopped development because they have no water available for new hookups. These conditions are aggravated by the current drought. but even in years of normal rainfall there will be questions about the avaUability or water to support new growth. Water supply agencies should continue to be utilities supplying an essential commodity; they should Dot be the planners or determiners of growth 01' where it should or should not go. 2 L Earth uakes are inevitable in the Sa Area and the do not res t munkipal or county un, Des. t e tune o. a ma}Ol' ea qu e, our reglOnal Intera~peDdence IS o6vwus"ne steps that we can take to prepare ourselves now and to assist each other in times of emergency require regiooal planning and the capacity to mobilize our resources on a regional basis. W~~~2~2~.~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Our tre.ffic COugestiGD and our cummuw times as we come more more to resemble Southern California. The search affordable housing will distort our Jiving patterns, and deceDt housing reasonahly close to where we work wiD be an unfuJfilled wish for many of tlS. Bay VUIion 2020 Review~ Report V ALlIES MID GOAlS The CommjssMD has devewpcd a genera! "isioD of what life can be like for all Bay Area residents in 2020. This general vi..;;ion incorporates basic elements-who we are, the communities we five in. our sWTOundi.ngs., the continued likelihood of our population growth. ete.-and also specific goals aDd objectives. First, the basic elements: Our eDvironme~t: All or us in the Bay Area are trustees or a special place or great natur8l beauty and environmt!otal diversity. Thf=se qualities are fragile, however. and are threatened by Gur seeming inability to manage population gro .... <th so as to maximi2e its benefits and minimize its adverse impacts. The .peolalness of this plac~ needs to be protected for Qurselves aDd for future generations. Our people: The diversity of those who live her. is part or our speolalness. By the ,year 2030. no ~De racial or ethnic group will be a majority in the nine<ounty Bay Area. Population projections indicate that our diveT'Sity with regard to raa!. ethnicity. and persooalllfestyle will continue to increase. Our diversity needs to be a building block out of which we f""hion harmonious communities of shared purpose and equal opportunity. Our ability to bave that diversity reflected in all the places wbere we ~ve and work win. like our natural environment, be a qlark of our quality of life. ~~~~~j~ Growth in our econvmy and growth in our population labor force and well-managed businesses ~~~~'~~~::: have contributed to a healthy Bay Area !if, or wise public polk:ies ifit is to continue to The health of !:he Bay Area economy is hoked to the same factors that affed each or us as individuals: clean air, good scbools. safe communities. affordable housing. pure aDd plentiful ,. ... tet-. good public transportation, uncongested highways, and protected open space are aD indicative of a good place to ~ve and a good place to 00 business. Our communities: The way in which we li"'e in the Bay Area does not follow a random pattern. More of us who are poor and of color live in OUT central cities. In the year 2020, we look to a Bay Area with more job and housing chaires, where economic opportunity and achievement are not linked to skin color or cultural heritage:. Even if job opportuoities are more equitably distributed. and affordable open housing is more available in both our l&.rge and our small cities, many of us will still clloose to remain in or relocate to central cities. That cboice must be open to all of us, without regard to race. ethnicity or economic status. But that choice will be JX>ssible only if Gur central city scboots truly educate our children, if good health care is available to all. and if our neighborhoods are safe and drugfree. 'We do DOt consider these ccncem.o; to be pious expressions of the good life, but rather goals we mu'St achieve, worthy oCour best efforts at allle-veIs or governmeDt and in all our private endeavors. Without 5t.1ch achievement, we risk having a Bay Area increasingly dime<! inw estranged enclaves of ri<:h and poor. Our population continues to grow and so does our economy. and this both good and bad. Tbe Commission 9, central recommEndation continues, it needs to be managed so as to ensure its positive aspects negative impacts. Economic growth has enriched our cultural life and • .. o Bay VlSion 202() Review Draft Report "-, .. -9- our educational opportunities, and h~ brought many of US a high degree of economic prosperity. But this growth has also ~n accomp.,ued by development that has . displaced valued open space, by congestlon of our highways, by unacceptable levels of a.r poUution. by a rapjd escalation in the price of housing, and by an aggravation of waur quality and supply problems. In the Cuture, our gro .... th must be consistent with the availability oC resources and inCrastr.cture. Growth can be managed so as to protect and improve our natu ... "a.l and our human environment. But without effective growth management, our Bay Area quality of life will deteriorate. There continues to be a ~ively debate among Commissi~n members ~n the question of population 9EOWth. Some Commission members would seek to discourage population qrowth so as to keep our population within a yet undefined regional *carrying capacity.-Others would manage and accommodate popu1ation growtb in accordance with population projections. The most powerful Commission consensus is that the qrowth of the Bay Area has changed life for all of us, and that the challenqes to our region cannot be successfully met with our curr~nt structure of local governments and regional Single-purpose agencies. Equally iaportant is the Commission consensus that future regional efforts to manage or moderate 9rowth cannot unfairly impact any racial~ cultural, or economic group. Our common concerns: In the nine-county Bay Area. we are not onJy bound together by the Bay but 8lSO by our daily crossing of political boundaries for purposes of work, housing, oommeree~ recreation. and education. City and county boundaries drawn years ago, during far differa.ot times, make government increasingly difi"K:"ult. The Bay Area Deeds 3 better balance than now exists t...'tween the interests of the region and the interests of individual rommunit1es. We have strong governments Ie speak for local interests. But our current regional agencies, sueb as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, are limited by the single-purpose nature of the laws that created them. While preserving our local governme.ut decision capacities.. we must give ourselves a new regional capacity to deba~ decide, and implement regional policies aff'~ng the economy. the environment, transportation, and land use. And on certain issues that are multi-jurisdictional but not necessarily regional in scope, there is a need for subregional groups or cities and counties. bringing together those local govemme:tts most affected by the issue at hand. The Bay Area as a WOl"kf center. We are the trustees of the plaee where the United Nations Charter was SJgDed. Now the Bay Area is increasingly a gateway to the nations of the PacifIC Rim. We want the Bay Are. to continue to be botb a place of value to the people who live here and also a place where work! leadership gather:; to pursue issues or peace. human development, wprld commerce~ and protection or the environment. The eoDowing goah; are bask to atwning and maintaioiDg dle well· being of the region. We base these goals on the belief that all DC us in the present generation are trustees of our environment and the colDJDUDities we live in for future generations. If we are to have a cnherent regional future, the Bay Area's growth Deeds to be guided by integrated policies developed with a regional perspective. • \ Bay Vision 2020 Review~ Report o -10- • OUR GENERAL VISION OF THE BAY AREA BY THE YEAR 2020 The Land-Urban Areas Wld Open Space: Our urban areas would be distinct from our C'Cuntryside. Urban areas would have establiohed boundaries, and all urban development of a residential and commen:ia1 c:baracta' would take place within tbose boundaries. New, more effective sreps would protect permanent open spaces and agricultural lands. Our growth w()uld be managed so that new development takes place wherever possible within a1ready.urbanized areas. 'Where currently undeveloped areas are set aside fOI" p1s.nned new growth. the areas need to meet the test of being within regionally. agreed-upon urban limit lines. Such boundaries would delineate where growth should go and where it sbould not. Urban limit Jines. setting boundaries within which the free market would operate, would encourage coherent develupment foc the region. But the lines are not intended to be static and (",ed for an time. Wben they cbange in the process of regional review. newly designated urban areas need Dot necessarily be contiguolls with already urbanized areas. Wherever urban limit lines are drawD or changed .. a primary goal is the protection of a compact growth policy for the Bay Area. Defined areas (or urban development. the permanent protection of valued open spa<::e t and 8. maintenance or agricultural lands need to be a top priority fGf those who will make policy {or the Bay Area. The specific means (or achieving these goals need to emerge Ctom ~nal planning. • • • Within urban areas there would be adequate and appropriate areas of open space ror recreation and to serve as "lungs-ror our urban life. Outside of urban boundaries, we would carefully manage our open space resources. These resources can include agricultural lands, recreational lands and waters, and protected areas 0( special environmental importance and sensitivity. Open spaces of a non-urban character would he off-limits to url>an developmeot. ProUlcted greenbelts, forests, and waterways become the means by which we derrne our areas of settlement.. and make dear our intention to manage gro\l,>t}a without unplanned, piecemeal spread over the lands of the Bay Area. To accommodate population and employment growth within the boundaries of urban areas. and to create the population base for reasib!e mass t.""&ns.it., there would be some increase in the density and mix of bousing and busiop.ss areas. Within urban areas, adequate supplies of land would thus be mai.tained for commercial, industrial, and residentia1 development. New housing and business areas can also be created in already...established urban ized areas by filling in smaller, pa.ssed--over sites, and by encouraging the rede"ewpment of older-aging areas 'or new purposes. In pursuing !Such policies, we can avoid unnecessary development or open space and can often use existing iofrast.ructure, with signmcant cost sa\-ing5. The San Francisco Bay-De1ta Estuary including its rivers, streams, and creeks would be restored as a healthy, ecologic.Dy diverse, and productive DatUra! ~urce. protected and valued as esseDtial to the environmental and economic well-heing of the region. ,~ "" Bay VJSioD 2020 Review Draft Report -11- • The sound management of solid and hazardous waste through source reduction, recycling, and disposal is an important aspect of our concern for the \and. In 1991. solid waste management is the responsibility or local governments acting within established state policy. That policy needs to be implemented consistent with a regard for the land and the maximum concern for the recycling of all solid waste material. The air: The Bay Area would have year~round healthful air. There would be fun compliii:iiCeWith federal and state clean air laws and the capacity to implement these dean air laws consistent with the special conditions of the Bay Area. • • • • • The continued health and well-being of t.he Bay Area water supply of high quality. The managemer:.t or our water Compliance with federal and state laws affecting water quality and treatment. Planning of water supply. including water consen.ation., water stor'age, reclamation. and the potential for desalination. to assure adequacy and high quality. Placement ofinfrastru<:ture for water supply and treatment so tbat it sup.ports development in areas designated for urban growth and DOt in protected~ undeveloped areas, outside or urban boundaries. Pratectiun af waten-hed lands and aquifers. Management of waste disposal so as not 00 impair the quality of water supply, the Bay-Delta Estuary, and waterways of the Bay Area. HOUS~ All parts of the Bay Area would have bousing in a variety of price ranges, iiflo Ie and available to all segments of the Bay Area's populatiun. Communities would provide their fair shares of affordable housing for aD or our population, througb appropriate land use planning and incentives. Financial help would be available to households and to local go\"ernments so that those with little or DO income could also be adequately housed. People would be able I<l fmd good-quality, affordable bous;"g in reasonably close proximity I<l their workplaces. The search for affordable housing ",ould no longer force workers in the nine-eounty Bay Area to live at the periphery of these counties and in adjoining areas. The cost of this sprawl in fouled air, congested roads, loss of irreplacable land resources, wasted energy. and strain on young and gro\l,ing families, is a cost we would no longer bear as a region. Area would have an efficient, energy-<-onserving, Iy-.>ric<!d, and integrated transportation system combining the best and private resources. The system would emphasize the use of carriers that are noo-polluting. To JDBet our goals of clean air s.nd relatively-uncongested highways, a signifieant reduction will be needed in trips by .ing~cupant vehicles propelled by internal ~-'-- r"'- Bay Vision 2020 Rev;.,~ Report o -12- combustion engines. Bay Area transportation planning is required by federal aIld state law to address such reductions. which will be more achievable if some residential densities are in<:reased and if the balance of jobs and housing in urban areas is improved. Transportation and land ..... decisions would be support;". of eaoh other and consistent with clean air objectives. Transportation infrastructure would not be an independent stimulant t.o land use development. Mass transit would be available to population and work centers; in more sparsely-populated ruraJ areas~ however, roadways and private vehicles will remain the primary means. of transportation. Air-trave1 is an essential aspect of our private lives as well as of the region~s economy. Regional aspects of airport development would be planned in accordance with other objet.tive3. Ollr cities and their residents: We are large1y an urban peop1e in the Bay Area. We have bUilt Cltles, large and small. that are vital to our way or:ife. These cities are rich grounds for commerce, for the exchange of ideas, and for much that we are proud of as a civilized community. At the same tjme~ serious problems exist in low-income, run-down communitie!1+ mostly in older cities. that adversely affect the general quality of life and opportuni~s for economic growth in the regioo. But tbe major adverse impact of these problems is on the residents of these communities. Regional decision-making that encompasses only environmenta1 issues~ trans-portation,. hou~;ing. and revenue-sharing, is not likely to deal fully with thE: issues tbat are of central concern to inner city residents, particuJar!y those ofeolor. Livable urban areas would thus, in 2020, be places that invite residence by newcomers as well as those who currently Ii ve in central ci ties. The next pha-o;e of regjonaJ planning. in seeking more compact forms 01 infiU and developmeD~ would find a balance between the needs or neWCOJDefli to central cities and those who live there. It will not be easy. But a Bay Area that wo<ks better for all of us must not be bwlt at the expense of those who live in tbe commuruties where change v.ill occur. The Commission believes that a new regional ageocy can be helpful in decisions affecting 5().."'iaI issues, even though these issues are specifically 10cal or art:. largely th"'!' responsibility or federal and state governments. A new regional agency cannot avoid a concern for tbe livability of central dties and the well being of their residents.. The agency would provide a forum for the discussion or these issues and in the process. people throughout the region would bettc.-J understand tbe importance of sohring central city pi'oblems. Moreover, central city people would be among those making policy fer the yegionaJ agency. At the heart or the Commission's ton~rn for ~nner dties and their residents rs. the understanding that in specific and sometimes subtle ways we are aJi Hnked tQ each other in the Bay Area. Without livab1e central cities (as refleeted at least in good. schools, affordable sbelter, adequate child care, access to jobs and safe streets), those who live in the center will remain disadvantaged and others will continue to avoid living in urban centers .. If our urban centers do not become more hDspit.able places for all of us, and the move to suburbs and the periphery of the region continues, the effort to manage growth while protecting our environment is almost cert.a.in to fall. .' . • o Bay Vision 2020 Review Dral't Report -13- The economy: A strong Bay Area economy produces the employment fundamental to our wen:&mg as a regioQ and it produces the tax revenue that supports a variety or beneficial public activities. A vibrant economy is thus essential to the Bay Area's quality of life. Regional planning and decision-making would work to insure that a strong economy is compabble with development protective of our environment and consistent with the growth management goals reflected throughout this report. fo'""u-d to guide us in protecting our gr'owUl us to recommend a govern ing cwcrently are interd.apendencies in a1l ~~~~~~~~th~e! economy. require a regional creative agreements This new regional governing framework would give us capacities appropriate to our regional interdependencies. But it would not replace the role of local government in providing individual services and protecting locaJ community identity and vitality_And subregional arrangements among loca! governments. where appropriate. would be encouraged. But for the (lISt time, the Bay Area would also have a governing potential to match t.'>e extent of its geography and the intertwining of its regional problems. The elements of a proposed regional ageocy and the state poncies which would provide the context (or the re~aJ agency's action. are descn"bed in the next section of this report. • _ M,WS4 Bay VlSion 2020 Revie~ Report -14- REGIONAL GOVERNANCE 1. ~n~ JIOvernance is inadegua.". The Bay AreA needs a democraa.:, 8CCOUD ~pou.lVe politiCal structure to link and integra." the policies of our many single..purpoee agencies. '\\"hat we have now is sometimes descn'bed as "vertic:al-gove..rnment-an 8JT'ay of separate, special-purpose agencies in such areas as air quality. ",ate. quality, transportation, e\l:. But there is no "horiwntal" agency to reflect the many ways in which the region is interdependent. (ABAG is a voluntary associatiOD or local governments and is without authority to make binding decisions on reginnal issues.) And. despite the best efforts of individual governing boards and staffs, t.here is no single place where complex. regional issues can be considered; dec.isions made~ and policies carried out. Our present system of regiODaJ governan~ is Dot sufficient to achieve the Commission's goals for the year 202 O. ~ ~ fOl" created by state legislation in 1991 and (c) acting consistently within approved regional plaos. (At a minimum, are needed to reduce the tax pressures that ";JSCa!i2e" !and use and to provide financing-methods for the infrastructure needod to serve a growing population.) Despite the importanee of new state polici .... a regional agency for the Bay Area can begin to function without waiting for their enactment. is Our g-nal the Governments. The replacing the governing one agency with one, ~;~-:'n~IV!:~ transportation, and rI planning and actions iffect adjoining counties~ governments. We believe in governments and their autonomy ever local T1'~~~~~th~ehBarly Conservation and~De~V~e~lo~p~m~e~n~t~~~~~~~~~ e waste management. Some Commission members believe that in -::~~i1:~:'"~~!~~~ acting on issues or region~ concern. This later additional aqencies should be added from the start~ Others believe that consolidating three major agencies would be ~D important beqinninqr and that the new RC should be required to ~tudy and report OD the advisability of adding ao~e. ~ccc..,.~:-----__ --___ ~_·_··_·_· __ ···_ .. -.-... • l ·t i • .... I f • I • -II;\-""'~ .. __ ~ ___ , _________ ~ __ ,~, " -,,", Bay VISion 2020 Review Draft Report -15- Adminil;ter the air quality laws now the responsibility of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Administer the transportation programs now the responsibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; -Administer regional '"fair share housing" programs and other legally- mandated responsibilities of the Association of Bay Area GoveTDments.; Prepare a regional plan to achieve the Commission"s goaIs for the Bay Area in the year 2020. The goa1s statement in the preceding section of this report sets forth the policies and objectives to be used in preparing this pla"-The planning should be done with the following provisions: a) The law establishing the new agency sMuld J"e({uire the participation in p1anning of all state, regiODB~ and local agencies. The goaJ is a highly iDteractive process. b} The plan would not be a detailed land use plan, but rather would set standards fur meeting regiona! D~e.g .• jobs--bousing proximity. urban/opec space boundaries. areas (or new infill development.. affordable housing targets. water supp!y. and criteria for siting Cacilities such as airports and solid waste landCills, which are necess" ry but might be locally undesirable. c) Once the regional plan has been approved, cities, counties, Local Agency FonnatioD Commissions. and other government.a.l units wou1d be required to bring their plans into coruormity with the regional plan. When the new RC has approved the plans of local and ret~nal governmental units as being in conformity, they would bave total authority to carry out their plans, subject omy to appeals Ul the RC if the approved plaD is not being fully folluwed. d) In its planning, the RC should make the maximum use of tb~ general plans adopted by cities and counties. The new agency should encout1lge ·subregional" planning.....,trorts by groups of cities aDd counties to plan i D more detaIl C".. their parts of the Bay Area. ODe such begin.ning is the est.ablist.ment of congestion management program agencies in each county. A subregional approach may become the core idea for preparing the reg;onal plan. least: Recommend measures necessary to carry out the regional plan. including at aJ What actions sbol!ld be taken if a local government does not carry out its own plans in comonnity with regional goals. This could include financial penalties (o,g., withbo3· tax revenues n!Sulting Cram any new development not in coruormity), RC actious y compelling compliance, additional incentives, or some combination or incentives disincentives. Bay Vision 2020 Revie~ Report -16- b) Whether there should be regional sharing o( tax inc::tme (rom new rommerr..ial, lndustriol, .... d high-cost .... i<leotial dev~lopment, and if so, how this should be done; e) Whether the governing board of the agency empowered to carry !Jut the plan after the initial four-year period should be directly elected or appointed; and d.} Vlhether other agencies should be merged into the new agency and, if so, when and how. -Have authority to permit or deny developments determined by majority vote 01 the ColIUDissioD to be of regional importance because or their (baracter. size, or location. The CommissioD ,,"'Ould ftrSt determine whether a proposed development :is of .-.gWnal impG!'tance. Those that are would be reviewed to insure that, if approved, they would not tender major aspects of the regional plan useless before the plan could be completed. Then: would be no moratorium on development. To insure that the regional review process is workable, regulations would be adopted to establish time limits both fur the Commission·s determination of whether a development has regional signifICance and then (or the Commission's approving or denying pennits for such projeds to proceed. SOme Commission members do not agree with this proposal, believing that it could result in delaying worthwhile projects" ~particlJla.rly as initial standards are being developed. Other CommissioDers poict out that a comparable policy of interim permit controls was successfully a~lnistered by both the Bay Conservation and Oevelopment Commission and the califo~nia Coastal Commission. 7. Planning period. Tile RC sbould bave a four-year planning period. A5 a practical matter, its pJiIlWOu!d have to be completed by the end of the third year, leading to debate within the region and consideration by the Governor and Legislature in the fourth year~ Some Commission members believe that legislation establishing the Be should enable it to continue to function after the plannin9 period and to implement the plan unless specific legis~atiye action is taken to prevent this. agencies, special-purpose districts, kal ~.l,~ •• lA a1l be major participants in an open planning pt"o<.... The goal is a regional plan aU affected parties have helped c reate, and tha t an wi!! accept. 9. Govern,;,&. board. For tbe initial four-year period, the governing board should be appmnted. But,. as DOted above, the RC should report on the advisability of electing tl.e governing body of the agency designated to carry out the regi~nal plan after the four-year transition period. 10. Criteria for appointmeDt. The governing board 0{ the RC !.hould renect the racial, ethnic, social, and income diversity of the Bay Area. It should also reflect the region's inner cities, suhurbs, and rural areas. Each of the nine counties should have at least one representative. B....cacause larger areas should have representation generally renecting the size or their i i • I "- '. Bay VISion 2020 Review Draft Report -17- populations, the governing board would he relatively large; a board of 35-40 people would not he unwo<ka.b!e. -Half the memhers of the governing board should represent local governments and half should be ChoseD from the public at large. Some Commission members note that, hecause the 90verning boards of the BAAOMD, MTe, and ABAG consist almost entirely of locally-elected officials, perhaps the same should be true of the new RC governing board. Others believe that loca1~y-elected officials sho~ld in any event comprise more than half of the governing board, and still other Commissioners favor having fewer than half from local government. People appointed to the governing board sbould he able to devote adequate time to the agency·s work. Board members should be paid for their work. 11. OUring the reviev period for this draft report, suggestions as to methods by which the RC governing board could best be appointed so as to meet the criteria established in paraqrapb 10. The Commission believes that the following alternatives should be considered, but welcomes other proposals. -Local government representatives.. Whatever the pertentage of local government representatives, there are two gencrat .alternatives: a) LocaDy-elected ofT'lCials (mayors, city council members, and county supervison;) could themselves serve on the governing board, as they now serve on the boards of the BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG. If this alternative is chosen. it may he necessary (or local officials to be able to appoint alternates who could attend meetings in their absence. Some agencies bave found this necessary to insure that quorums are present at meetings, Dr-: b) LocaJly-elected offICials could appoint people to serve, including Cormer ejected ofTlcia1s~ as they now appoint members of the planning commissions. Advocates of this alternative believe that the workload (or the new Re, plus the time requirements of serving on a city council or board of supervisors, would make it difficult fOf locaIly..,lected officials to be on the Re. But others point out that Iocally-elected offiCials DOW find time (or service on regional bodies. The Commission bas reviewed two general ways apP"m. a.) representative::-on the i~~~'~~1~~~~~~~~~~t in either of the ",aysst!~~~~ ~~'i;l~~:~~~~~~o~: he appointed (I) by 51 Senate, and Speaker of the AssemblY. or ~:~~:;;~~'.tl:'~ d'.~~~~;l: state senators and assembly membe,.. ,a l!! (3) in some other manner. b.) Sin~ ~ting panel. The panel would consist of 10 residents of the nine-countyy ~ Five would be locally..eleded officials chosen by • \ "~ .. ',., .. , '1l!' . Bay Vision 2020 Review ~ Report -18- the Associatioll of Bay Area Governments. One panel member woWd be appointed by the Governor, one by the President Pro Tem of the Stare Senate, IiIld one by the Speaker 0' the Assembly. The other two panel members would be people of community stature and broad regimlBl perspective, such as the President of St4nford University and the Chancellor of UC Berkeley. The panel would appoint the pubUb. repr"",ntatives tD the governing board, or alternately it would appoint all the mem rs oCthe RC, both local government and public representatives. - Those selected by the appointing panel would serve four.year terms (the initial existence of the governing board would be four years). The appointment panel would also cboose a chair and vice chair for the governing board. After making its appointments, the panel would meet again only if needed tD fill vacancies on the governing board. "Ii A state appropriation for the four·year plauning period should be sought .. ~, ..... ;;-:-a;; budget review demonstrates that there would be 5ufl"tcient cost savings in the.merger of the BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG tD fund the work of tbe new agency. THE BAY VISION 2020 COMMISSION DISCUSSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND REGIONAL ISSUES WITH THE FOLWWJNG: John BarroW§,. former chief administrative oft1cer I Marin County. Richard Bate, National Housing Planning Council of England. Leo ~ Oaldaod city councilman. Lewis Butler, president, California Tommorrow. and associate director, UC Berkeley Institute of Go"ernmental Lawrence Dahms~ executive director. Metropolitan TrallsportatiOQ Commission. ~ !~~;:::~e~F1~on~'da Atlantic UniversitylFlorida International ~ and Urban Problems; architect of Florida's Man'Lgem.",t Rod Diridon. supervisor, Santa Clara County, and 1989·90 chair of MTC. professor, UC Berkeley. Graduate School of Education, and founder of for California Education (PACE). Randy Hami!tDn, IGS visiting scholar, and former dean, Golden Gate University. VICtor Jones, professor emeritus, UC Berkeley Political Science Department. Todd Kaufman, principal consultant, California State Assembly Office of Researeh. / Bay Vision 2020 Review Draft Report -19- former assembly member from Richmond. former chairman of the =':T.:';::;:~~; Government Committee, and author of regional government legislation and 1970.. prof ..... ", emeritus, UC Berkeley Political Science Department, and former Richard LeGa'tE$..,. professor. San Francisco State University UTban Studies Department. Scott McCre~9 environmental policy consultan~ lecturer jn UC Berkeley Landscape ArChitecture partmeot. Michael McGill. executive director, Bay Area Economic Forum. Lam Orman, executive director. Greenbelt Alliance. Neal Peirce, nationally-syndicated urban affairs writer. Jane Pisano, president, The 2000 Partnership, Los Angeles. Henry Richmond, executive director, 1000 Friends of Oregon. Stan Scott, retired assist&nt director, IGS. SEDCORP, The Solano Economic that included congressman vice chairperson of the county's road in the one of a consortium proposing a toll County Fannlands and Open 1~~~j~~~]~~~~~So~:!a~n~O~~lrn~.gation Oistrkt; Bill ~ Croup; - Angelo Sirac\J1!3.. president, Bay Area CoWlCil. Steven Thompson, director, California State Assembly Office of Research. Revan Tranter? executive director p Association or Bay Area Governments. Carol Whiteside, mayor, City of Modesto. Special papers were prepared for the Commission by: Ed Blakely, professor and cha;", Department of City and Regional Planning, UC Bel'liakiy. Alex Saragoza, professor and chair, Center for Latin American Studies, UC Berkeley. L. Ung-chi Wang. professor and chair, Department of Ethnic Studies, UC Berkeley. COMMlS'>ION ORIGIN The origins of the commission lie in the 1989 efforts nf two groups, working initially without knowledge of each other. to spur efforts towa-.-d more effective regional dedsi:cm making in the Bay Area. After having considered & number of things that might be cIcme, each group concluded independently that the most promising """t step would be formadon or a blue-n'bbnn citizen commission to analyze current trends in the Bay Area. propose a visioD (or the future, and malL! SpecUlC recommendations to achieve that vision. /" Bay Vision 2020 Revie~ Report -20- The fint group was initiated by the tbair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Supervisor Rod Diridon of Santa Clara County. He wa.joined by the cbair of the A.sociation of Bay Area Governments, Mayor Warren Hopkim; of Rohnert Park, and by successive chairs of the Bay Area Ak Quality Management District, Supervisor Susan". Wilson of Santa Clara County and Councilmember Sbir'.ey CampbeU of Hayward. In addition, the local govenunent coDveoors of the SAY VISiON 2020 Commission include the ehairs. of the nine county boards of supervisors; the mayor of' Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose; representatives of the cities in eath of the 9 counties; and the president of the League of California Cities. Simultaneously, 8 group or leaders or business and environmentat groups were meeting under the auspices of the Regional Issues Forum, which is sponsored joiaUy by the Bay Area County and the Greenbelt Alliance. As the two groups became aware of their joint interest in establishing a citizen wmmissioo. they developed an agreement by which they worked together to select and recruit members of the Commission. Leaders of the Regional Issues Forum include Angelo Siracusa, president of the Bay Area Couoc>l, and Larry Orman. executive director of the Greenbelt ADianee. MANAGEMENT Management services bave been provided to Bay Vi,ion 2020 by the Califo...,i. Environmental Trust. • state-wide, noD-profit 501(e)3 organization, incorporated in 1985. SAY VISION 2020 BrAFF Josepil E.. Bodovilz,. Project Manager Tish Sp.-ague, Associate Project Manager Mel Moplo(; Project ConsultaPt Kathy Funk. Adminirtrative AssistantJ Accounting Justme CboJ, Associate fO<" work with racial/ethnic groups Maria VillaneaI. Secretary SUBMISSION OF WRTM'EN COMMEN1'S The CommissioD welcomes written comments on this final draft. during January ane! February, 1991. Tbey will be used to help the commission produce its final report in late February. Please send your suggestions to: Bay Vision 2020 Commission Hearst Building, Room 60S 5 Tbird Street SaP ~'rancisco, CA 94103 • '\ . . , ~117Z1?1~£JF(~111Cl C.la~r1ft. JJaanl"j SlljI<::nm"rl Fifth DinriJ;j February 21. 1991 l£a Michael Heyman. Chair Say Vision 2020 Commission Hea.rst "Building S Third St[eet~ R~om 1014 San F[anciaco. CA 94\03 Dear chairman Hey~an: Sany" ~d "::OUI ~.Jli\"e ',-. County of Santa Clara Office of Ifre Counly :E.'(ct:ull .... e C"'-'flI)' Go',ernrnenl Cenrer, Fa::;, 'Vu';;Q 70 WCSI HeddrI1S $ITee1 San .lOSe. cail"..om12l 95<'lO l-lOal :>9'9-2 .. :.0,,- The Saata Clara County Board of Supervisors would like to thank toe Commission fo!" tbeir extensive work aod commitment ove!: the past year in qrapplinq vith sOIT.e of· the lIost iCiportant and complex issu.es in the [egion. We ap~[eclate the care with which you bave a.rt~culated your qoals a~d values and a vision for the Bay Area. We commend your efforts. The Board met February 1t. to review the dealt report. Our comm~nts and £ecommendations are as follows: o We have some concern about the nine county bay area fD~US: The traditional nine county eegion miqht be an appropriate [o~um to addee55 certain [eq\o~al issues bu~ other issues would require different qroupings. Our recom_endation is that there be overlapping r~qional bodies with different county nemberships in order to address the range of reqional issues. We encouraqe a discussion of new ways of dividing the Legion .. c We Iecoqnize the Bay Vision 2020 Commission could not iDelude concerns such as education. social services and health among others that are intertwined with thes~ regional issues. Ho~~ver. we feel the report should lndicate.these limitations catber than . providing the expecta~ion that social iss~es of inner cities will be addressed thtough the ~egional bcdy. • lr~ Michael Hey~an pac;e 2 February 21. 1,91 c ~he interim and tinal Re9icnal Com~tssioc should be composed entirely of publi~ elected officials with a one per!on~ one vote sttoctu~e_ Because of our COQce~ns LeqatdiD9 the si~e of tbe body. tbis could be accomplished through weigbted voti09. We want to ~mphasi2e that we could not support appointmen~s tC ei,thec body made by state officials. o Any reqional ta1 sharing must take into account the historical positions of communities relative·to tax Levenues. Sbarin9 of f&tur~ tax revenues solely may un~airly benefit cities witb longstanding and lucrative ta~ bases, at tbe expense of ~ities experiencing receat ~rowth. o When the ne~ regional commission d~signs proqrams to .ddtess concerns in ai[~ water~ housing and othe£ areas. past effo£ts by communities should be taken inta account. Any mandated goals or re5trictions ~hat are established should be individuali,ed foc each community. crediting its previous accomplishments in aeeting e~pecte~ goals. o We suggest that consideration be given to locating the new reqional bo~y in the largest city in the largest county i~ ~he region Thank yoa for ic.vi t ing OUI comments 00. .tbe proposa 1 at this time. We welcome opportnnities to participate in furtner discussions on this important endeavor. Sincerely. ~~Chair BOdld of Super~isors .. · " REOEIV ED fES 2 a 1991 ~AIIT CI1'IIIIGIl IMrblIr .. W~dnY1l ca-ociL" .. o ,~ CIT Y SUNNYVALE OF The HJort of Silicon VaUe:t .. 56 WEST OUVE AV!NUE SUNN'YV,6"lL CA.I,fFORNt' 9-1056 l-\OSI 730· H"'IO February 21, 1991 !I.r, MIChael Heyman Chairperson Bay VISion 2020 Commission Hearst Bullding 5 Third Stree~ Room 1014 Sa., Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Mr, Heyman: On beha~ of the Sunnyvale City Counc~ I wis." 10 commend you and the members of the Bay ViSion 2020 Commission for your dedlcation and perseverance kl the developmen! of the regional government Pfoposal. The cornp!exity of the issues and the nat~~e of the task the Commission diss""-,,,d was enormous and we appreciate t11e Commissicn's stimulating a renewed discussion on this critical issue. On Tuesday, February 19, the Sunnyvale City Coone, look action on !he Comm1ssion's regional governmen! proposal, Overan rd like to point oul thet Council suwarts the concepts put forth in !he proposal and we look fo<ward to continued dialogue and implementatioo 01 final ,ecommendations penaining 10 this issue. As referenced in our report, prease note that our Council is very inte,eSled in the con~nua!ion of a wO<king group to continue 10 finafrze the Commission report and begin preparation lor implementatioo of the consoridation measures. O'J1er major positions we took on the report include !he farrowing: We would like to see !he inclusion of the Regional Wate, Ouarlly Control Board and !he Bay Conservation and Development Commission in the merger of spedal cflStticts at this time; Because of our cootinued dependency on other counties outside of !he 9-counIy Bay Area for meeting some of our housing needs, we recommend additional efforts that take into account oojOining coun1ies in the Bay Area when regional boundaries begin to be defined; We would encourage development 01 regions that lake into accwnt adjoining counties in the Bay Area; and .fQ.IC O(IJ ,""CESS CALL TOO'Til' eM 71O.]sOJ ~.,..~p-- ,Q o .. , February 21,1991 . Page 2 03 VI 3;)3 R rf~! ~ £ 83i Tha1111e Commission recognize that 1he nine subregional CMA age1iCliSlll4!klrlll,be batter blended into 1he development ollha Bay VJSion 2020 pia" These represent a brief synopsis ollhe Council's actions, for 1110 Commissioo's usa at their meeting 01 february 25, a separate po&'OOn paper accompanjes this leiter. W. look forward 10 continued parlidpation ... Ihis discussion and 10 furlher eflO<1s by the Commission on this very importanI issue 01 regionai govemance. Sincerely, tf;£Jll~ flichard Napier Mayor RN:jb = Revan Tranter, Director, Association 01 Bay Area Govenvnents CITY OF SUNNYVALE Pcsitioo Paper 00 Bay Vision 2020: Amendments and Recommendations FIND!NGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Sunnyvale City Coonc~ concurs wlth the basic findings and conclusions about the Bay Area as they were encapsulated by the Say ViSion 2020 Commi.sion. The roncwing section lndudes suggested amendments to t~ goals and regional governance issues of the proposal. GOALS Amendments: 1. UrlJan Areas and Open Space -In this seciion there is a lot of discussion about estabrlShing "urban Dmif' Dnes which would set the boundaries fer Ufban development. 1r", report impff es that these rUles wm permanently p<olect opert space and agricIJJturai lands. tt alsc states that the urbart r,m~ fines ate not meant 10 be static and fixed for all time, aOO, whert the lines do change, newly designated urban aredS need not be contiguous with already urbanized areas. f urban Umit fines can be ;:hanged and new development can occur In a noncontiguous mamer, we have no! reany dene much to "permanently" preseNe open space or stop urban more "5p<aw!.' Tne City of Sumyvale would suggest that a firm stand should be taken with regard!o really controlling growth. Further, we feel that oxe urban limit lines are set that a rigorous review I"ocess t" enange them be pu1 into place. The Commission ought to clarify this issue fiUfther along these unes. Alsc In this section. we would recommend the Inclusion of "It ansfcrmation" of sefid waste in the goals penaining to the "sound management 01 sefid and nazard<JUs waste,- 2. Water· Sunnyvale's view is tl1at SignifICant mention was made regarding water quarlty and supply issues that there sl10uld be ~ttJe hesilatioo to add the RWQC8 and ~ BCDC 10 the structure 01 the new Re. Technically, the C~ recomrnertds that the new water qua~ty parameters be reasonable and aenie,e measurable bertarllS and that the group consider applying the water poficy guid.rtnes that were developed by the League of Ca~fomia Cities in 1988. We would alse recommeOO that language be added thai emphasizes thet tl1e desarillization process be used only as a last resort. F",ally, in terms 01 water supply piamiIlg, the report sl10uld be amended 10 include transfer facilities, off-stream storage and conventional storage. • , o 3. Hc<Jsing -AcIOrtional emphasis should be added to the need for encouracing fur. pa.1icipation in "fair·share" affordable housing targets and pursu~ of 2 "00< area ratiO sim~ar to lhat recommended by Santa Clara County"s Golden Triangle Task Force. 4. Citizen Participation· MOfe firm program ideas need to be dertneated' regarding the methods 01 increasing inner-c~ participation in the planning process. 5. Economy -The issue 01 developing a strong eccr.omy to support the regional government proposal sounds good in general. but this issue needs to be deM with in 6ght 01 other recommendations later in this paper regarding how to achieve equitable tax-sharing proposals, etc. 6. Governing -• is recommended that whenever possible, subregional govennment arrangements occur simJ1ar to the way in whk:!> the Coogestion Management Plaming Agencies (CMPAs) have been developed. RECOMMENDATlONS PERTAINING TO THE REGIONAL GOVERNANCE ELEMENTS 1. Tax Sharing and -Fiscalizaaon· . This }ssue needs furt.'"Ier examination before a fina! report is adopted lor implementa110n as the issues are complex and not ea5!ly resolved. We concur wr.h the comment that no form of regional government can be successftA in managing regional growth unless fi~ reform to creale more equ~le tax and revenue sharing is accompflShed prior to any authority being grant.d to a regional bOOy. We recognize thai t'1is is a very comprtcated issue and we haVe seen simprtSuc forms 01 revenue sharing proposed that appear to offer a panacea, however, we believe the issue is bigger than this. We recognize that there are cities who by choice have zonjng practice s that preclude certain c!eve!oprnent. and t'1ere are some jurisdictions that rely on oll'.ers for special services, etc. Perhaps the potential for more mil!gaUcn exists. The ·lSsue for consideration here is that tax sharing alternatives require further, careful study to the extent Iha! "special focus group should be created around this issue ~eff. 2. Consolidation of Special Districts/Development of Be . We recommend that the merger 01 the air, !ransn and planning agencies include the addrtion 01 beth the Regional Water Ouafrty Control Board (RWOCS) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) at this ~me so as to taJo:e advantage 01 these consorldalion opporIun<1es. a is our berref that the issues 01 air, ."aler, transit and plaming a.-e very clos21y Inlerdependenl 3. Siting Criteria for 'LutUs' -'" assuming the duties 01 these agencies, the Couoc~ recommends that additional facl1ities be included in the creation 01 criteria for siting regfona1 faCIlities: • • • transfer facJ1ities materials recovery faciTrues recycrmg conection and processing cervlers 2 • ", o 1111 ~ansformation" faCIlities • mustries that consume recycled materials We would assert !hat t'1ose actually involved in siting the facintles should be given the power to override oejections 10 the faCIlity and tr.at the ct~e ria sh<>~ld anow locally undesirable land uses to serve pubnc needs regardiess of jurisdictional boundaries. 4, FlC's Role in Carrying out the Regional Plan -The Council strongly encOU<"ages thal the RC make optimum use of existing county and city ger.eral plans and !hat an in-depth study effort be conducted before the RC gets invoived in structural tax sharing changes. 5. RC's Authority to Permn or Deny Developments -Councij feels strongly t'lat the development of what constiMes a 'regional project" needs to be more thorO'.Jgh1y worked out and further, !hat very strict response guidefir.es be set so that local agency review is not delayed, 6. Interim RC Governing Board· CounC1l supports ttle idea to have the interim board be appointees with a strong bia. toward a majority of the elected officials and furttler. !hat representation be based as closely as possible on population. 7. Methods of Appointment Jo the RC -Council suppo<ts the option of exploring scme other mamer!han these suggested in tile report thai scmeOOw O1corporates the option of anowing at least one existing member of the merging agencies to have representation an the board (far transition and ~'storical purposes) and again. Iha! the board be made up of a majority of members woo are local elected officials. B. Funding -Cooncl1 supports combining the ideas of obtaining state appropriations and merging lIle budgets of the organizations. 9, 'Next Steps' -Council beneves ft critical t'lat the momentum for this proposal continue and that a follow-upfUT1plementat!on group be created immediately that wiD sofidify all tile input from this review process and further develop a proposal that will proactively establish a regional framework prior 10 any state legislative mandates. ft is our be,ef that the Ionowing have immediate need for clarifiClation and/or resolution: a The logistics of the merger of the existing agnecies; b. The meU10d for inclusion of the AWQCB and BCDC into the AC; c. The creation of a special study group to C10nduct an in·depth review of revenue~-.haring and the redistribution of current revenue structures. Mare definition an what constitutes 'equ~le tax and revenue sharing' is needed and the issue of what the relationship w1ll be between 't1ousing rich' 3 , \ \ I • o but still growing communities to more bui~-ouI but "housing poor" COfTlITlIxmies needs addres.sed; d. Speci1ics on the structure, duties and authority that an RC must have to garner the clout necessa.y to conduct regionaJ decisl"" maldng: a. A working definition 01 "regiona.'1y significant projects" will need more darificatio,,,, particularly acknowledgir.g how these areas that are adjoining to Ihe nine Bay Area COLonties will come into play when the actual boundaries begin to be de!ir.ed; r. The developmenl 01 a public educaton and marketing program for the proposal's impJementa~on phase ("friends 01 the Bay Area1: g. A long-term method lor representation on arod structure oIth. AC alter the interim lou' year period is over. 4 • " REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCI L NO. 91-079 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL DATE: February 19. 1991 SUBJECT: BAY VISION 2020 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL REPORT IN BRIEF The Bay VISion 2020 Commission, a select group of Bay Alea citizens, has put together a proposaf on regional government and is accepting input from local government and other agencies at !his time. n-.s report provides a summary of !he Bay VISion 2020 regional government proposal and a brief analysis of the major provisions. Staff has made several recommendations for modIfications to the report and recommendations regarding further issues for study. Overan, staff is recommending that Council support rhe basic concept of !he Bay VISion 2020 proposal and !hat a letter containing aQditions and further issues f9r study be sent 10 !he Comrnission prier 10 thcli:" Fsbruary 25 meeting. BACKGROUND AJ. !he Legislative and Budget issues Workshop, Council selected the development of a compre~.ensive regional governance policy as their number one priority for stL<ly in !he Office of !he City Manager for 1991, In !he background issue paper for this ftem. staff proposed several actions: that staff develop a comprehensive Counc~ policy on regional goverrvnenl and growth management; that Couocil oon~nue to make s ubreg!onaI/regional goverrvnenl and growth management one of !heir top legislative pricrities for the next several years, and in the immediate future, monitor end make recommendations on legislative and other proposals such as "Say VISion 2020". Council tool< action last month to suppe't the regional governance issue as one of !heir high priority issues when they approved !he In!ergovemmenta! Relations Strategy for 1991. This report focuses on the intermediate step in Ihe process of developing a comprehensive policy on regional government and growth management It-.roogh p<oIIidlng Couocil wfth an analysis and recommendations regarding !hE Bay VISion 2020 Commisslon's report on regional government. This report'WllI proIIide Counc, wfth a brief history of the Bay VISion 2020 Commission's fiOOngs and conclusionlS, values, goals, vision and the recornmenda~ of the Commission as well as a brief summary of Speaker Brown's regional government bill AF:-3. ~ addition, staff WIll p<oIIide recommendations arc comments for forwarcfll1Q to the Commission prior 10 their meetir.g of February 25 wtUch is being held 10 review an gcverM1entaJ input on the report. Included in thls report are severa! key documents I!=========== Issued by the CiI)' Maocger ============ \ , . , Bay VIsion 2020 0 Page 2 containing de!aJled information regardIng the proposal, OOuding the Bay VISIon 2020 document !tse~ (Anachment ~ and comments from the ABAG Board of D~ectOfS iAttacl1ment I~. Genera! History of Bay Vosior. 2020 Bay VJSion 2020 was organized in 1 ~S9 and its 31 members were asked to make a one year. independent examination 0( the ways in whidl the nln.""""ty Bay Area is growing in population and changing in character inducfing, but not Umked to, increasing 1raflic congestion, long commute', shor1ages of affO'dabie housing, loss of valued open space to uroall sprawl, air ponution and the deterioration 0( our economiC base. The groop was also charged with adopting a general vision for the Bay Area in the year 2020 and to recommend measures to achieve that visron. The Commission is in the process 0( accep~ng input from g<lv.mmental agencies, business and industry groups, developers, environmental organizatiaos, etc. so that a final report can be completed. This represents a modification to the group's original plan to spoosor legisiation in time for introduction this year. The urgency to do this was diminished when Governor VViison announced that Ilis administration would not have adequate time to foCus attention on the growtl1 management/regional government issue this year and intends 10 suppon: further sl!Jdy and discussion. The fonowing set!ion 0( this report will discuss the Commission's major findings and coocIusioos, values and goals and their perceived "vislon'" for the Bay Atea in the year 2020. findings and Coodusions Bliefty, the Bay VISion 2020 Commission came up with 22 cf<fferent fincfmgs and conclusions pertaining 10 the future 0( the Bay Atea: 1. The central conclusion is that, in the nine Bay Atea Counties, we must improve our ways of managing growth or we will lose many 0( the quarrues thal make this region such a special place; 2. In !he Bay Area we have plenty 0( government, but it is not adequately coordinated; 3. In many ways, the nine counties that border on San Francisco Bay are a single, interdependent region; 4. We are reglonal in at least lour general ways: environmentally, econornicaffy, fuoctionaJTy, and governmental; 5. Al the same time, our communities are (flVerse, and we have many issues ll1al are bette: deal! with locally or "subreglo!\al1'f (by groups of cities or COUnties); 6. I present trends continue, the Bay Area's population will increase; • • Bay VlsI"" 2020 page 3 t :- 7. The poputation wi1l be more DIVerse; 8. Our gi'Owth patterns at present emphasize low densities, both for housing and for busrnesses; 9. Our growth patterns 2150 emphasize the movement 01 bol" housing a!1d jobs to the edges oItha region; 10. Housing prices dictate many 3Spects o! Bay Area rde and the search for affordable housing increasingly leads 10 long commute trips; I I. 'fair Share' housing goals, by which communities each accept a reasooable share 01 tha r6gioo's affordable housing. represent important efforts to ooild such housing; 12. Homelessness is increasing in a~ areas 01 !he region and funding is needed to coPe with it; 13. Ajr quarrty in tha Bay Area does not meet the standards of federal and stale laws, and it is becoming more and more obvious that air qua['ty, housing, transPQl1ation, and land use are not separate issues but, on a regional level, are closely ~nked; 14. IV. present there is no regional frarr.eworl< by which kY.aIIy.undesirable land uses (or LULUs) can be sfted; 15. A nurnbef 01 stales and metroporrtan areas have enacted programs to manage growth mo<e ellectively, but none provides an exact model for the Bay Area; 16. Among the strmegies adop1ed in at""r states that appear particularly useful are ·consistercy.· -concurrency:" and ·compactness;- 17. As a region we can do much to manage cur own growlh, but we must also have strong state policies and strategies; 18. State leadership and changes in state Jaw are needed, particularly to change the fiscal pressures on land use; 19. State leadership is needed in other areas as wen, such as helping to revftarlZe our ""ntral cities; 20. Water supply will mo<e and more be a matter 01 Bay Area concern; 21. Earthquakes are inevitable in the Bay Area and they do not respect municipal or COIrIty boundary lines; 22. FIflally, ~ we do no! become more effective 1han we currently are in dearrng with our regiO<1aJ problems, we will lose Ihal specialness of which we are all so proud. , • .. ' .. ' , , Bay VISion 2020 P"lI' " o Overan. staff left !hat the... basic f,ndings defineated by the Ccmmlssion were wen encapsulated and some or the positive aspects stafl observed regarding the basic conclusions include the following: • • • • • • Values There is COflfirmatioo or the land use/development effects on infrastructure needs. such as pubrle transit; There is coofinmation or the importance or transportation ~nkages to COUI'lties ootside or the Bay Area; 'Fair share-' housing goals are already supported by Council, most recently in their actiOn to approve an affDtdab!e housing study with an ordir1aJ1Ce implemenlillg the study as wen as a study of !he creation of new zoning distri<.:ts requiring sm .. ~.r lois; Acknowledgement 0: the fink between transportation and air quafrty is crucial This goes along with Council's recent approval or the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance aimed at reducing traffic: congestion a'lC! improving air quafrty, In a<lcfrtion, Council ",ill be asked 10 approve an Air Quanty sub-element 10 the General Plan this summer and the Futures Study will be addressjng the jobs/housing ratio to shorten commute lengthS; There is confirmation of the need lor tuncfltlg to be in pace lor infrastru:::ture belore new development takes place; There is confirmation of the importance or water supply needs whicll is in nne wit~ the City's legislative priorities over the last few years, In general, the Commission deveioped a general vision or what fire could be like for an Bay Area residents in 2020. As staled in the report. 'This general vision incorporates basic elements-who we ar~, the communities we live in. our surroundings, 1Ile continued &kefihood or our population growth, etc,' The ... basic elements indu<le: • • • • The real natural beauty and environmental diversity !hat makes the region speciai needs 10 be protected; The d"rversity or those who live here is part or our specialnes.; GrOWth in our economy and grOWth in our population have gone hand-in·hand; The health of 1he Bay Area economy is Dnked 10 the same f~OfS !hat aflect each of us as in<frviduals: clean air, good schoOls, safe communities, alfordable housing, pure and plentiful waler, good pubrle transportafiorl, unc:ongested highways and protected open space; . " , . , - . /" Say Vision 2020 Page 5 o • Many of us wilt choose to remain in or reiocate to centra) cilles ar?d the chok:e of doing SO must be open 10 an of us, reg.,.d1ess of race, ethrlicity, or economic • • • status; Our population continues to grow and so does our economy, and as growth continues, ft needs to be managed so as to ensure ils positive aspects and minimize !is negative impacts so as to protect and improve our natural and human envitorvnent; In the nine-couoty Bay Area, we are no! only bound together by the Bay, t>..J1 by our daily crossing of por.tical boundaries fo< purposes of work, housing, commerce. recreation and educ8_tion. The Bay Area needs a better balance than now exists between the interests of the region and the interests of irKfrviduai communmes: The Bay Area needs 10 continue 10 be both a piace of value to the people who live here and also a place where world leadership gathers 10 pursue issues of peace, human development, world oommerce, and protection of the environment. As with the Commission's basic fioongs and oonclusions, staff fe~ that these values were in line with !he CiIy's >Jenera! plar>_ The nex! section deals with the more cancre(e goals and the actual regional 9Qvernance proposal. TIle Commission developed goals which they le~ were basic to attaining and maintaining !he wel-being ot !he regior-. Many of these goals are ., fact the sort of policies which would likely be part of a future regional plan and these were developed 10 con~ey the general vision fo< the Bay Area by the year 2020. Urban Areas and Open Space lkban areas would have estabrtShed oo~ndaries, and all urban deve10pment ot a residential and comrroerciaJ character would take place within those boo.Kldaries. Growth would be managed so !hat new d~elopment Ial<e. place wharever possible withln aJready-urbanized areas. Where currently undeveloped areas are set aside fo< plamed new growth, thesa areas need 10 meet the le.1 of being within regionany-agreed upon "Ixban Iim~ lines.' Top policy priorities will need 10 address defir,ed areas fo< urban development. the permanent protection 01 valued open space, and a maintenance ot agricu~uraI lands. The specific means for achieving !hese goal. would need 10 emerge from rB9iona1 piaming: • Wrthin urban areas there would be adequate and appropliate areas of open space for recreation and to seM as 'lungs" for our urban life; , • Bay VIsion :ao2O Page 6 Q. o • • • To accommodate population and employment growth w;thin the, boundaries of urban areas, and 10 create the popuiation base fer feasible mass transit, there would be some increase in the density and mix of houSing and business ",eas. New housing and business areas can also be created in already-estabrl5hed urbenized areas by filrong in smaller, passed-over .;ieS, and by encouraging tI1e redevelopment of older aging areas for new purposes; The San Francisco Bay-Oefta Estuary would be restored as a healthy, productive natlNal resource: The sound management of so!id and hazardous waste through source reductioo. recycITng, and disposal is an important aspect of concern for the land. Staff Comments: These goals are currently being addressed i1 Sunnyvale and continuation of such efforts Wll be relevant to reglonaJ participation, for example the Sunnyvale jobs/hoosing balance is currentfy at a ratio of 2.9 and ABAG's standard is set at 1.60, One of the preliminary goals of the Futures Study is 10 imp<ove tne jobs/housing ratio in Sumyvale. Council also formally adopted the Golden Triangle's floc< area ratio several years ago and sim.lar participation from cities and counties In the Bay Area should encourage a' better jobs/Ilouslng balance in the region. The repoft Implies that the urban limn ines will permanently proted ope" space and agricuituallands, but l also states that the urban !m~ DflSS are no! meant 10 be static and fixed for aD time. R also stales that when new r ..... s do change, newly designated urban areas need no! be ContigUOl'. ~ already urbanized areas. If urban imillines can be changed and new development can occur In a noncontinguous mamer, we have not really done much 10 "permanently" preserve open space or stop urban "sprawl.' Staff recommends IIlat this issue be clarified and a firmer stand takan ~ regard 10 contromng growth. In reference 10 the goal ot sound management of sorid and hazardous waste through source reductiol\ recyclIng and cflSpOSa!, staff beITeves that some mention should be made within the context of these goals statements IIlat "transformation' ot solid was1e should also be included in !his discussion. This iswa is discussed ftx1her later in this report. Air The Bay Ivea would have year -found healthfu! air and would be in fu" complIance ~ federal and state dean air Taws. Council portO)' supports this goal. Water Management The oontinued health and wen-being of the Bay Area depends on an adequate water supply of high qualitj and the management ot our water resources """ds 10 assure: '.;" ~. . .-: aay VIsion 2020 Page 7 • • • • • Comp~ance with federal and state laws affec>-Jng water quafity and treatment; P1anning of water supp~·. irtCluding water cooservation. water storage, recIamation.. and t'1e potential for desaflnization, and to assure adequacy and Ngh quafrty; Placement of infrastructure for water supply and treatment so that ~ supports development in areas designated Ivr urban growth and roOt in protected, undeveloped areas, outside 01 urban boundaries; Protection 01 watershed lands a.'"Ie! aq'.Jilers; Management of waste Cisposa! so as not to impair the qUalrty of water suppet, tho Bay-Delta Estuary, and waterways of the Bay Area. Stat! Comments: Stat! sees the need to make suee that the new water quarrty parameters are reasonable and achieve measurable benefits and that this be addressed in the Commission's final report. In addrtioo, I is fe~ that there needs to be a stror.g emphasis that the desaflnlzation process being suggesteo is done so orJy as a last resort in recogf1~ion of the exponential cost.of this waier resource. further. in terms of water suppl~ planning, other issues that should be added 10 the plate include transfer facilities, off-stream storage and contentior.al storage. Staff suggests that the Commission utTlZe the model water policy guider""", that were developed by the league and supporteo by Council. These additional ~ems should round O<.~ any p<oposed regional approach to water supply plaming. Structurally, water agencies have been excluded from the initial consor,da~on proposals. Housing All parts of the Bay Area, according 10 the Commission. would have housing in a variety of price ranges, affordable and ava,able to all segments of the Bay hea's population. Convnunities would provida their lair shares of affordable housing for an of our population, through appropriate land use planning and incentives. Fl11anciai help would be ava;1able to households and to local governments so that t'1ose with little or no income oouid also be a.ctequately housed. Staff Comments: In terms of this issue, Sur.nyvale has, for example, created approximately 10,000 new housing '-"its over the past ten years and subsc,;bed 10 the .35 FAR recommended by the Golden Triangle Task Force. Continued p<actices soc." as these would be desirable and the Mle"..sage should be made very strong thai an participants will work 10 achieve the "fair share" affordable housing targets. • • Say VIsion 2020 0 Pog.8 Transportation o The Bay Area would have an efl'.cient, energy-conser.ing, convenient, reasoo3bly-priced, and iPlegra!ed transportation system combining Ihe best 01 pub"C and private resources. The system would empt.asize !he use 01 carriers that. are non-ponuting. ReduC'Jons would be needed in trips by single-occupant vehicles propelled by ntemai combusl.ion engines. &x:h ,eductions will be mere achievable ~ some residential densities are increased in mer ring areas 01 tt-.e Bay Area and t the balance 01 jobs and housing in urban areas is improved. Transportation and land use decision woold be supportive 01 each othe1' and consistent with ~an air objectives. F01a1!y, regional aspects 01 airport development would be plamed in acccrdance with other objectives. Staff Comrnerns: Overall. these goais are consistent with current City practices. Cities and their residents While 0lK cities are rich in commerce and culture, serious problems exist in loW-income, run-down comrrnJOities that adv~1y affect the general quarrty 01 fne and opportunities for economic growth.in !he regio<\. The Commission feels frvable urban areas wOuld be plaCeS !hat nvile residence by newcomers as wen as those who currently We there. The new regional 8gen<:y wm need to prcvid. a forum for Ill. discussion of these issues. y.,'1tI1OuI livable central cities, (as reflected at least in good schools, affordable shelter, adequate child care, access to jobs and safe streets), those who Uve in !he center wiH remain disadvantaged and others wm continue to avoid living in urban centers. Sial! Comments: Staff recommends that !he issue 01 increased panicipation Irom urban core residents in !he regional planning process needs further clarified in terms 01 how Illis will be achieved. Economy A vibrant economy is essential to the Bay Area's quarrty oIli1e. Regional piaming and decision-maki:>g would work to ensure that a strong economy is compalJble with development that is protective of our environment ane consistent with the growth management goals mentioned throughout this study. SIal! Comments: Staff believes that 1I1e premise/goal of regional economic strength makes sense but that ILr1her discussion on how they envision the "Iinancir.g" will happen needs to occur. In addition, !he Ink between Qfowth conlroj and economic strength needs explored further. " , " • .: - .~ . Bay Vision 2020 Page 9 Governing !he Region The CoiMlission fe~ that in order for !he .alues which were put forward were 10 be me~ there would need 10 be govemjng capacity for lIle region that we currentiy do not have; one thai would specifically recognize the inlerdependencies in an the areas mentioned above O.e. air, land, housing, transportation. elc.). According to the Commission, these interdependencies require a r"9iona! goveming framework where necessary cooperatioo can be assured, creative agreements reached, trade-offs considered, and appropriate authority exercised. ThiS new regional governing framework woold give us capacities appropriate 10 our r"9ional interdependencies but it is not intended 10 replace the role of local govemment in providing ind .. idual services and protecting local community identity and warily. In addlticl<', sulxegiooal arrangements among local governments, where appropriale, would be encouraged. Stall Comments: The ideal thai is depicted here is ditficu~ 10 reMe. More study wil! be required before a more specific position on govemance can be made. Staff believes l important to locus on the sub-regional issue and the role 10 be played at this level. Regional Governance The inlent of this section or the report is to provide the elements of a proposed r"9iooal agency andlhe 5tate pofocies which would provide !he conteJ<l1or the r"9lonal agency's action. There are twelve elements 10 the proposal and sc-me of these will be combined for ease in analysis. The lopics will be presented first fonowed by stall comments and recommendalions. Al the end of !he report. general comments will also be made concerning the document as a whoTe in the 'discussion' section. The Need for a New Regional Go',emmen~ Tax Sharing and Fiscalization of Land Use The Commission asserts that the Bay Alea needs a democratic, accoun1able, responsive political structure 10 un;, and integrate the many single-purpose districts. Further they assert !here neecis 10 be aJ effective 5tate policies for managing growlh and change; b) a regional agency created by state legislation, and cl strong local governments acting consistently within approved regional plans. Stall Comments: The recent state budge! experience has shown that changing the structure of governments abilities 10 lax will be a very sensitive area t"" needs further n-depth study than is presented in this ,eport. However, this is a crucial issue for any MtKe cflSCUSSions on the issu9 of regional government. M was noted by \t.e Task Force an<! stall for the City of San Jose (Attac:lYnen! no, I would be prudenllo send forth !he comment thaI no foon 01 r"9lonal govemment can be successrut in managing r"9ior1al growlh unless fiscal refonn 10 Cfeate moce equitable tax and reven<Je sharing is accomplished prior 10 any auIhori!y being granted 10 a r"9iooal body. FISCal issues are campI.>. and not easily -\ .. Bay Vlslon 2020 Pago 10 o / \ . understood "'I alone resolved. Again. these specifics call lor a much more focused study before final actions are considered. In addition. there is no doubl til allegislation will be required 10 provide the necessary author:ty ween tile issues of structure and "flscafllation" are resolved. Creation of a New Nine-Counly Regional Commission (RC) via Consolidation The Commission proposed the merging of several exlsting, single-purpose agencies, specifically the Bay Area Nr Ouality Managemenl District (BMOMD), the Metroporrtan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay hea Governments (ABAG). The consorldated regional agency (to be referred to now as t"e Regional Commission. or "RC") would have a new governing board replacing lhe governing bodies 01 the lhreg merged agencies. The merger would fink , in one agency w~.h one new governing board, responsibiTrty for regional air quafrty, regiO<1al transportation, a'ld regional aspects of land use. In addition. the Commission recommended that other regional agencies should be considered for later consolidation nto the new RC. Staff Comments: The concept of merging Ihese agencies is very consistenl with Councifs desire 10 consortdate ntergovemmentaJ functions weenever possible. This merger would' offer a pMicularfy i"Itriguir.g opportur\lly 10 merge interdependent agencies into one. To take l one step fu<1t1er, staH recommends that the time is right now 10 proceed with a merger but shouJcI also ilciude the RegiO<1al Water Ouafrty Control Board (RWacs) particularly il Ugh! of the prominence of water quafrty and supply issues mentioned in the neport. 1n adcIllion, water quality arod supply is included in the Council's high·priority legislative and lGR issues for the next few years. I is also recognized that this is a highly pofrticized issue t'lat may compncate consolidation. The Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCOC) should also be considered as part of the consoridation at this lime. Have the RC Plan for lIle Region arid EslablisMmplement Policies The Commission would be responSlble for administering the air quarrty laws now !he responsibiTrty of lt1e 6MQMD; adminisler the transporta~on programs now the responsibility of the MTe; administer regional "fair share housing" programs and other legalTy-mandated responsibifrties of ABAG, and, prepare a regional plan 10 achieve the AC's gcals for the area by 2020. The Commission recommended that the plaming for preparing the plan should include the following provisions: 1. The law gstabflShing the new agency should require the participation in pIaMing of all stale. regiO<1al and local agencies; 2. The plan should not be a detailed land use plan but rather would set standards for meeting regional needs, i.e. joOs/housin.g proximity, urban open space boundaries, a .. eas for new infiR development, aHerdable housing targets, water supply, and er~eria for siting facilities such as airports and solid waste land1in. "tUch are necessary ~ migh! be locally undesirable; Bay Vision 2020 Page 11 r'. 3. Once the regional plan has ooen a;>proved, c~ies, counties, Local Alea Formation Commissions, and other gove rnmental units would be required to br''''9 their plans ta conformity w~h the regional plan; . 4. h its pianning, the RC should make tile maximum use of the general plans adopted by cities and counties. Staff Comments: The major aspeel of where this issue ",m need further examinaliorl wi~ be in \he process 01 "setting the standards fO( regionai needs.' Most of the approach appears acceptable on the SUfface, however staff would recommend thet the Commission consider adding the rorrowing to the faolities which win have crrteria lor siting: transfer Slations, materials recovery faClTrties, recycf"'9 colIecliorl and processing centers, "tra"!Sformation' I.olities, and industries that consume recycled malerials. The cr~eri. should be teclvlicaI in nature wrth !hose siting the f.olity giver! the power 10 override objectionS 10 the facifrty. Generally speaking, the crileria should aRow Iocaiiy undesirable land uses (LULUs) to serve publIc needs regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. On the issue 01 the encot.I'8gement of 'subregional' planning efforts, staff recommends that Ccuncu encourage the oontinuatioo of such plaming simUar 10 that us ed by the recently~eated Congestion Management Planrung Agency [CMPA). The RoT. of the RC in Recommending Measu,es to Carry out the Regional Plan Tr.e Commission recommended thai the new RC make recommendalions to carry <XX the regional plan includIng at leaSl : • • • • What actions should be taken l a local government does not carry <XX its own plans in conformity with regional goals (firnmcial penalties? financial incentives?); W:"e!her there should be regionai sharing of lax income from ne ..... commercial, r.dustrial, and hig/l-coSl res idenUai developmen~ and ~ so, how this should be done; Whether the governing board 01 the agency empo ..... ."ed to carry <XX the plan after the initial lour-year period should be directly elected or appointed; and Whether other agencies should be merged into the new agency, and f so, when and how. Staff Comments k is stalfs conlention that the sharing 01 sales tax revenue and tieing trus to land-use is so sensitive an issue thaI ~ will lake in-depth S1udy in lenms 01 what structure and form such proposals might take. There may be more success in this area I local ~ on trus issue is provided and that t becomes par! 01 state law with the direct local goverrvnent input. In general, regional egencies and subregional agencies lend 10 have better • ~. Bay VIsion 2020 Page 12 o success I ~ is groooded in state law and wherl some !eve! of regulatOl)' abmty is part of \he Pf<>g(am {for exomple, the CMPA and the Gokten Triangle Jl'AJ. F",any, a strong message of support for the idea of making optimum use or existing county and city general plans should also be conveyed 10 tile Commission. TIre RC's Autl10rily to Permit or Deny Developments The Commission felt that \he RC should 'have the aU'.hority to perm" Of deny developments determined by majority vOle of the Commission to be of reglonal importance because of their character, size, Of location. • To ensure that lMe regional review process is workable, regulations would be adopted 10 e,;tab!ish ~me fimils be\h for the Commission's determination of whether a developmerJ had (e~ionaJ significance and \hen for !he Commission's approving 0( denying permits for such projects 10 Pfcceed. Staff Comments: There are several concerns associated with til is issue, partially because of age-old "Ioc:aJ control" Issues and partially from \he complexity tris I<ind of Pfocess could have. A more developed definilion of what constitutes a 'regionar project will r.ave to be Ihoroughiy WOfl<ed out Staff has scme concem that the review precess suggested here cOuld be cumbersome and cities ike Sunnyvale which have a strict review Pfoeess turnaround time could be negatively Impacted. Staff recommends Ihal it the new RC is granted review authority of this sort, very strict response deaelf"",s So'lould be included so 1I1at local agency review is not delayed. Without this, economic development efforts could be prematurely restricted. Also, some recogniticn will need to be made in the interim tIlat recognizes that every development at this time will resutt in a negalive impact on air quarlly due to the existing cono"ruon of nonattainmenl to federal and state dean air laws. Planning Period and Participants in Planning The Commission recommends that the RC should have a four·year piaming period with completion of the plan in year three fonowed by dew!e within the region and consideration bV!he Governor and legislature in lI1e fourth year. State agenefes, speciaJ. purpose districts, local governments, and the privOte sector should an be major partidpants in the open planning process. Staff Comments: This Pfoposal offers the opportunity for state buy . ., to the process and also anotr.er agencies !hat will be affected. lhe only reservation would be that the process r.o( get stifled at !he time of plan review since so many agencies will be involved. Interim RC Goveming Board and Cri!eua lor Appointment '!he Commission proposes 1h.at lor the 'nrual four·y~ar period, the governing beard should be appointed. The board should reflect the racial, eth.,ic, social and income d'IVO.rSity of "'"'"-.:-""...,.....-~,.--.-----~--- \. . . ! • ' .. .. • >-. Bay Vision 2020 Page 13 / 1t ... Bay Area. Each of the nine counties .. '>culd have at least ooe represenla~ve and the size of the board has been recommended to be large but not as meny as 35. Also as proposed, hal! the members of the governing board should represent local governments and hal! should be chosen from the pubfic at large, with board members receiving oompensation lor their work. Stall Comments: The Issue of representation is always a <fIfficult one to broach. particu',arly wit.~ a mu~itvde of agencies an seeking representation 00 a group aimed at -consofidatioo for unificatloo. • Stall recommends support lor having the RC serve their first round as appointees and ~at a strong majority of the mambers be IocaJ erected officiafs. Methods of Appointment /0 the RC The Commission offered several alternatives as 10 how the local government representatives, no matler how many will be on the Re, be appointed. First they recommended thai locaJIy-elec!ed officials could themselves serve on the governing board as Ihey now serve on the boards or the SMQMD, AMAG and MTC or, second, Iocany-elec!ed officials could appoint people 10 serve, iocICJding fonmer eleeled ':offICials. The Commission took !he appointment issue further 10 recommend who would be appointing this first four-year board. One a,lemalive is 10 have tI'.e 10caI govemmern representatives appointed through either of the previous methods mentioned above. As for 1he genera) public representatives, l is sugg<>Sled that they be appointed eittler by 1; _£,Wjde officials (Governor, et. al); 2) by !he Bay Area legislative delegation. or 3) in some 0Iher marYler. The other alternative suggests the use or a single appoir1~ng panel consisting or 10 residents or the nir1e-<;ounty Bay Area. FIVe would be 1ocaJIy-elecled or.icials chosen by ABAG; one appointed by the Governor, one by the President Pro Tern ot Ihe Senate and ooe appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. The other two members would be 'people of community stature and broad regional perspective, such as !he Chancaijor of UC Berkeley or President of Stanford University. The panel, as proposed, would appoirn the pubflC representatives 10 the govemlng board, or alternately appoint all the members of the Re. Staff Comments: Stall would recommend that the opUon or exploring 'some other manner" be pursued further prior to estabfishment of the first RC. Such an anernalive should somehcw i1oorpora1e the option or allowing at least one exi~ng member of the merging agerlCies to have represenlation on the board lor transition and historical purposes. However, an important fa,cJor lor consideration ot this issue would be that :ne representawes be accountable to lI",e residents or the Bay Area Ul(ough adequale representation by means ot assuring a majority or members are local elecled officials. • \ , .' lIay VIsion 2020 0 Page 14 Funding The CommiSsion recoo'.mends that a state appropriation for the four-year planning period b<I purst.oed unless a deta"ed budget review demonstrates that there would be sufficient cosl savings in the merger 0{ the 1hree-plus organizations to fund the work 0{ the new agency. Staff Comments: Staff recommends that the implement~tion phase 01 Ire Re proposal look further rno h'1e issue 0{ lun<fmg the organization par'jcularly, combining both ideas 01 state appropriation and economies 01 scale lhrough merged budgets. Estimales have been made that perhaps $300,000 • $1,000,000 annually carl be saved t>Vough a merger. Relationship 01 the BaY Vision 2020 Proposal 10 the Speaker's Bi", AB3 CW. BrOWl'll The Say VISion 2Q2O proposal has been recognizad as a noo-Iegisiative proposal on the iSsue of regional governance. One 01 the outcomes for tha proposal was for a bill to be sponsored in 1991 containing the !inaJ version of itS prOvisions. in the mean fime, Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown has introduced, fO( the second year in a row, a comprehensive regional government biU (AB3). tis p,udent at this time to provide"a brlef overview of \his Iegislafion !or purposes of compar'.soo 10 the Bay VISion 2020 proposal and because 1here is a d'lStinct tie betweerl the two. That!je is thaI ,6,53 aI10ws for the creation of a separate Regional Development infrastructure Agency (RDIA), 0( region, not currenIIy defined as one Of tha seven regions ClUt1ined in the Speaker '$ bil!. This means an area could become a region "if l is able to demonstrate tha abuily to prov'.cIe a regional se~-govemance Mlction such as 1i'Iat defined for the RDIA' in AB3. In other words, were an RC to be fofmed generaJly along \he lines 01 the Say VISion 2020 proposallhere would be a strong possibility !hat tile RC would be exempt from the addrtional provisions Of AB3. The overaR intent Of AB3 is aimed at the reorganization of local government to provide the i1fTastruc\ure and services necessa')' 10 accommodate \he SlaIe's continuing population growth, protect the Slate"s 11at<.ral resources, and improve environmental quafily. In addition, the bill seeks to address deflneation of service deflVery and to avoid duproca!ion of servic.es. The bill would create a new State Growth Management Commission which woold be comprised of 19 people with live-year terms, appointed by !he Governor 6'om lisls submitled by Specified organizations ~nciuding the league of California ClIies. CSAC, elc.). The biJ! specifies the powers and duties Of the new Commissioo to succeed those of the Office of Plaming and Researe!-, serving as Slat! to the CommissiO!', and would involve: • • reviewing the plans Of state agenciesfdepartments and regional plans !or consistency; [esolving region31 disputes; .. Say VIsion 2020 Page 1S • preparing and maintaining. C()mprehensive State Conservation and Development Plan, a 20-to 3O-year overview 01 state growth developmer~ goals and objectives, indu<fmg preservation of environmental quali\Y; and . • serving es a basis lor iudgments about !he design, location and prioritization of majo< pubrlC programs and capital projects and !he anocaticn of state resourcea lor environmental pu<pOSes Regional Development and IJJfrasl1lJCture Agencies The biB woutd most notably create Regional De',elopmen! and Infras lruCtur. Ager.cies (ROIA) 1hat would include seven regions: San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Los Angeles, South Central Coast, North Central C.oast, Sacramento Vaney, and the Central VaDey. Each region would have its own 13-member ADIA goveming bOard, elected by 6stticI voters, lor 4-year terms. As re!erenced eanler, tile bill also allows for the creation of a separate ROIA, or region, not currenCy defined by !he measure. An area could become a region r I is able to demonstrate the ability to provide a regional se~ govema'1Ce funct'on suc!1 as that defined lor the RDIA. Each board win act as the Council of Governments, Regional Transporla"iion Pia'Y1ing Agency, IJr Pollution Control 0< Air auar.1y Managemenl District and !he Regional Water Ouarlty Control Board.Ior!he region and will be funded by !he revenues provided to tile agencies ft replaces. Regional Plans The provisione of .6.B3 stlPJlate lhat regional plans will contain at least !he fOlIowir.g elemeots: • • • • • • air quality, complying with the requirements of the Stale Air Resources Board; water quaflty, complying with the requirements of the State Water Resources Contro! Board; transportation, an integrated sysleIT, which will include citing lor a regional transportation infrastructure; housing, which includes subregional requirements lor promoting a job/hOUsing balance, 'fair share" distribution and agricultural land "'Se; capital faCIlities; open space utmzation Plans will also include regional information corJCeming the fonowing factors: • popufalion demographics and dlstsibution; , , • Bay ."lslon 2020 Page 16 o , o * amounts, types and iocatioos of hoosing units; general location and .xtent of transportation, u'jlily and other regional facilities; , • s~es of aesthetic, historic, educational Of recreational quality/usefulness; • natural resources, including air, water and wildlife; and specific porlCies and programs necessary to adlleve the goals and objectives. The plan is \0 be adopted through a public hearing process and amendments will be reviewed lor consistency by the RDlA. as lead agency under the eardomia Erwironmenlal Ouarrty Ad. (CECA). Subregions SubregionS will be created, consisting of one or more counties within a region to provide a means of megrating local governments mo the regional planning and implementation process. The governing body ... ;U be a subregional planning authority, including rr.embers of local lagislativ .. bodies, establ"lShed to promote cooperation and planning consistency. Subregional bodies wiil succeed to It.e powers and responsibilities of the local agency formation commission (tAFCO) within the subregioo, receiving its revenues. Along with !he IDA boarc:t. the subregion would have the authon1y to create and"use an Ylfrastructure financing district !O finance pia" implementation. Subregional Plans AB3 proposes !hat suaregional pians w11l include elements sim~ar to those of !he regional plans, with goals, pondes and programs lor the physical and economic development and communi!y resource conservation, data and analysis documentation and assessment of the fiscal capacity of local ;Urisdictions. Fonowing adoptio" of the subregional plan local agencies would adopt general plans consistent with the regional plan DISCUSSION The Bay VISion 2020 report has rece"",d pre rlrT1inary review by staff throughoul several City departments. Overall. !here was support lor the concept of regional govem.."ent, particularly through the consolklation of !he three (plus RWOCB) agencies. There was also general agreement that discussion should continoe !rom !his point and !hat a more thorough analysis be conducted on the fonowing issues: 1. The exact nature of the merging of the agencies, how they will be staffed. etc, 2. The method for inclusion of the Regional Water Quafity Control Board (AWacs) hIe the RC, 3. The creation of a special study group to explore the whoTe issue of revenoe sharing and ~ red{stritx.:tlon or current revenue structures. Bay Vision 2020 Page 17 o .'.' -4. TIle "",alion 01 a lo!1ow-up~mplementation body that witt soridify a~ nput from the review process and continue to develop a proposal that will proactively estabnsh a regional framework prior to stale legislative mandates. 5. TIle specific structure, duties and authority that an RC must have to have the neeessary clout lor regional decision making. . 6. The creation 01 a working definnion of those projects that are of 'regiO<1a1 significarr..e ." 7_ A pubr.ctconstituent education and marketing program for the implementatiO<1 phase i'Friends of the Bay Area'). 8. A long-term method lor representation on, and structure of, the RC after fts in~ial folK -year birth. The Bay VISion 2020 proposal represents a Herculean effort to breach the comprehensive issue 01 regional government. The report is best viewed as a vehicle lor the exploration of regional government. In acki~ion, the report p.-ovides guider"",s lor examining very key iand-use, fiscal, transportation, planning, air and waler issues -an of which are crmca! to Sunnyvale. This proposal. whJ1e not a panacea, provides our mes the opportanity to review and comment on regfooa! governance issues before regional govemment becomes a statutO<)' mandate. Wrth tha~ it is critical that the issues mentioned abcve are fur1her explored a'ld that efforts continue internally to develop a comprehensive Counc, perlCY on regional goverrvnent and growth management. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to send a letter to the Bay VISion 2020 Commission that inrjudes our comments on the issues mentiO<1ed in the body of the repo<t and the ftems lor further studyldarificatioo. In aMmon, the Commission should be commended lor the time and effort expended on this issue over the past year. PUBLIC CONTACT PubRcation of tihe agenda in the San Jose Mercury News. A copy 01 toe report was also sent to tihe Bay VISion 2020 Commission Cha:r. the O,amber of Commerce and the Executive D~ector 0: ABAG. FISCAL IMPACT TIlere is no SpeCifIC donar impact that could cap:ure tihe impact 0: !his proposal. Assessing the recfJS!ributioo of curren! revenue sharing structures has been hig/1fJghled earlier as an important 'next step" in continued stucfy of this issue. Implemen!afioo 01 the proposal could resuh in the consorlda~on of programs, deffnealion 01 service delivery and could Brlminate any duplication of services. ,<--" • ;"-. . " Bay Vl$lon 2020 Page 18 ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION 1. That Council support the basic coocept 01 the Bay VISion 2Q;N proposal and \flat a letler containing add"nions and further issues fer study be sent 10 !he Commission prior to their February 25 meeting. . 2. That Council take no action on the Bay VISion 2020 regional government proposal at this time. 3. That Cwncii suggest adcfrtional direction on the issues and hove those iss""s foIwarded to the C.ommissicn. RECOMMENDATION Stall recommends a!!ernalive #1. City Manager AI!achment I: AIIact.met g R: AllaciYnenl UI: Prepared by ~ ~ J . ffer Britton ;:s:::AS.istant Reviewedby ~4~ Kare L Davis Assistant 10 the City Manager ApprOVedby~ « rtiR:JalTIeS Assistant City Manager Sir! Vision 2020 Regional Governmenl Proposal ABAG Memorandum: Board Position on Bay Vision 2020 and AB3 (Brown) City 01 San Jose Posmon Paper 0<\ Bay Vision 2020 • CITY OF SAN .JOSE, CALIFORNIA ID1 NOI'ITH fl"ST 5TltEET SAIiI lOSE, CA.lIFOAN i,lI5!1 ~ _m_ Vicci .Rudin City of Palo ~lto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto~ CA 94303 Dear Vicci: February 6~ 1991 I1fCErVEO fEB 7 199; ASSISTAPIT ClrY AlGI! As promised at OUE last meeting, I am enclosing for your information a copy of the analysis and recommendations on Bay Vision 2020's Draft Report put together by a joint staff/Council committee. The Bay Vision 2020 Eeport and related reqional ~ government issues will be the subject of a Council Committee of the Whole study session scheduled for Thursday~ February', 1991. In addition to considering the staff/Council committee report. the City Council will receive a formal presentation from Ira Michael Heyman and" .Joe Bodovitz.~ Chairperson and Project Director~ respectively~ of Bay Vision 2020. I will let you know whateveE final position CUE Council takes on the Say Vision 2020 report and would be interested in learning from you in return what your Council's concerns and position will be. We look forward to worxin~ with your City on this issue with the hope that all the cities in our county and even in the Bay Area reqion will be able to form a consensus position on what would best suit OUE region. Sinc=erely. !::~!!:;/ Legislation Coordinator Enclosure .. -. -. / r:-. cow -2/1/91 CIT :.-OF 5 A II J05E MEMORANDUM "!'O: Honorable Mayor and FROM: Ci ty Counci 1 SUBJECT: BAY vtSION 2020 DRAFT REPORT DATE: PAn: INTRODUCTION Mayorfs Reqional Government Task Force February 4~ 1991 Mayor·s Regional Government Task Force bas hel~ thxee meetings ~uring the past three weeks to review the Bay Vision 2020 (BV2020) report. The Task Force has received siqnificant input from the Mayor's Office and fro~ a staff working group consisting of representetives from the Offices of the City Manager, Intergovernmental Relations~ Environmental Management, Budget. and Ec1?nomic Development, an~ the OepaI:tments of Planning .. Public Works, and Housing. The recomroendations end analysis of this report represent the combined efforts and contributions from the Tas~ Force, the Mayor~s Office, and the staff workicq group. The Task Force·is chaired by Councilmember Shirley Lewis and includes Councilmembers Jim Beall, Joe Head, Nancy Ianni l and Pat Saus~do. Tbe most recent meetinq of the Task Force i~cluded a discussion with five of the Santa Clara County members of BV2020. Based on that discussion, it became clear that some of the City·s concerns relate to changes we would like to pr~po5e in the BVl020 Report itself. and some of them relate to e precess we are reco~ending take place over the next 120 days to consider some of the issues in more depth. Therefore l the recommendations below are broken out into those two categories4 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Related tp the SY2Q2Q Report itGe1f. 1. 'ihe City Council sbould commend the Bay Vision 2020 Commissioners for the extraordinary efforts they have given this past year to examine the effects of the reqion~s growth and development~ The Council should also recognize the BV2020 Commission for developing a vision for the Bay Area in the year 2020 which clearly identifies what we must and can do to retain and enhance those qualities which have made the Bay Area such a special place to live and wotk. 2. Tbe City Council should adopt the position that the BV2G20 Report should be amended to state clearly thlt eliminating the pressure on local governments to zone land to produce the ma%imum in prope(ty~ saies l end other ta% revenues must be an integral part of initiating any new form of re9ional government. ..... ' 1 ,~_. \ , • , 1 - • HonOIlble Mayor an~ Cit7 Council Bay Visioc 2020 Review braft Report February 4. 1991 page -2- 3. The City Council 5houl~ a~opt the position that the BV2020 Report ahoul~ be amended to state clearly that any form of reqional government and regional plan must include a way to ensure that every community fulfills its fair ahare of the burden of meetinq the region's need for housing - particularly effordable housiD9. 4. The City Council 5houl~ adopt the position that the BV2020 Report should be amended to state that the Regional Water auality COntrol Board (RHOCB) should be included in the agencies tc be consolidated, and that, in add1tion~ the new regional agency should have authority to deal with issues of regional water supply. 5. The City Council should adopt the position that the BV2020 Report should call for the development of policies and procedures to ensure that a~joining counties (which are Dot part of the nine Bay Area counties) are not used Is bedroom areas ••• result of qrcwth pressures created by the ~e9ional plan as & whole. Any reqional plln should not transfer the impact of regional 4evelcpment to our neighborinq counties. 6. rbe City COuncil .houl~ adopt the position that the BV2020 Report should CIII for an interim Regional Commission membership comprised of e strong majority of local government elected Officials. Further l it should call fer an interim Regional Commission m~rsip proportioned closely on a population bests by county. 8. Belated to I 120 ~Iy process to elamin' some issyes in de~ The City Council 5houl~ propose to the BV2020 Commission that they consider establishing with local government an implementation phase working qroup to further develop the BV2020 ~eqional Governance proposals during the next three to six months. The process should involve some combination of BV2020 Commissioners an~ local government representatives~ (Any of the issues covered undeL Part A but not satisfactorily resolve~ by changes to the BV2020 Report should also be considered in the 120 dey process.) The implementation working qI-OUP process would begin with the BV2020 Report and address the following issues: . , ~ " . . , · '. -' -.".-: Honorable Mayor and City Council Bay Vision 2020 Review Craft Report February ~# 1991 Page -3- ,. $ C "'l o The need to eliminate the pressure.on local government to zone lan~ to produce the ma~imurn in propertYt &ales~ and other tax revenu~s. The City·s po~ition should be that state legislation ereatinq the interim Regional Commission should charge that body specifically to recol~nd ~ revenue sharinq program that creates positive incentives for land use decisions supporting re9ional plan qoals. In aOdition l the legislation should stipulate that any proqram must not lead to a net tIansfer of tax income from -housing rich-but still growing communities to more built out but -housing poor-communities. o Regional plan consistency end compatibility must be defined. The City's position should be that state legislation should require the development of criteria to determine wben 8 project needs to be reviewed for regional plan consistency and compatibility, end that such criteria must be 4eveloped prior to conferring eny authority on a regional governing body. Potential cxiteria inclu~e botb the size of the development as well as other compatibility end consistency factors. However. the state legislltion charqinq the interim Regional Board should contaie language stipulating that the process must not be so ;eared to size that any project. no matter how inconsistent with the regional p:an. is passed through simply because it is smalla Neither should a project supportive of the regional plan be subjected to un~ue delays simply because it is bi;. o The new Regional Commission must be given the powers necess~ry to develop a proposed regional plan. Specifically. a well define~ scope of study must be incorporateC in the legislative charge to the interim Regional Commission that can guide its consideration of the extent and nature of authority to be 9iven to a permanent reqional commission and the fiscal incentives for local gover~Jnents to confor~ to the regional plae. c The need to ensure the broadest possible Bcceptance of the recommendations of the interim regional commission. The City's position should be that the recommendations of the interim regional commission should be submitted to an acceptable ratification process. o Developmect of a plan to consolidate both the governinq boards and staff of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Metropolitan Transportation Commission {KTC). Association of Bay Area G¢vernments (ABAG). and RWQCB as well as address how to incorporate regi~nal issues of water supply. • o Honorable Mayor and City Council Bay vision 2020 Review Dr~ft Report February (, 1991 page -4- o The Regional Commission Ihou14 be democratic, accountable, responsive, .n~ representative. This iDcludes representation proport1on~1 to the population of the different areas in the re9ion~ The City's position should be tbat these concepts Bboul~ be used as criteria in addressinq the make-up end size of both the interim and permanent Regional Commission. The questions to be consi~ered using these criteria include whether the interim Regional Commission 5hould consist of locally elected officials, persons appointe~ by locally elected officials, persons eppoint~~ t~ repre£ent the boards of the a;encies to be merged, person Ippointe~ from the general public, members who are directly el~cted from districts, or some combination of these; and whether it should be subject to the initiative, referendum end recall process. BACKGROUND The charqe of the BV202C Commissions which was established in late 1989, was to ma.e a one yelr independent examination of the ways in wbich the nine-county e.y Area is qroving. They were &ske~ to examine how the management or lack of management of this growth has created an increase in highway congestion, long commutes bet~n homes Ind workplaces, fears about 8 lessening or our economic competitiveness s air quality damage" by the exhaust from internal combustion engines, and the unn~cessary loss of open BpaCea Tb~y were also asked to adopt· a general vision for the Bay Area in the rear 2020 which would assure its beauty, livability, ecoDemic strength, ana the opportunities it affords those who live bere4 Finallys they were to recommeed measures that would achieve this -vislolla The BV2020 Commission released its -Review Draft Report-at the be9innin; of the year and durin; the months of January and February. they are actively seeking input on their Report from local qovernments, business and industry groupss environmental or~Bnizations# housinq ~evelopers, and others~ It should also be noted that the original BV2~20 timeline vas set in order to have a proposel ready for introduction to the atete legislature this year as it vas expected at the time that one or mere ot tbe reqional qovernment bills from the past session would be reintroduced and be Buceessful this yeara However, this urgency has since been diminished by Governor Wilson·s announced position that his administrltion would not have adequate time to focus attention on the growth mana9ement/re9i~nal government issue this yelE and inten~s to support further study and discussion~ • • '. Honorable Mayor a~~ City Council Bay Vision 2020 ~eview Dreft ~epo!t February 4 p 1991 Page -5- ~lUS Tbe BV2020 Report is presented in four aain sections: 1) Findings and Conclusions; 2) Value! and Goals; 3) General Vision of the Bay Area by tbe Year 2020; .nO 4) ~egiODal Governance. Although the Mayor·. Task Force and staff review focused on tbe Regional Governance section~ there was qeneral consensus that the first three sections provided qoals and a vision which are very supportive of the City's General Plan. very simply, if our neiqhbors in the Bay ReqioD and beyond do not pursue policies similar to those described in the BV2020 Report~ San Jose will ~e denied many of the environmental, economic. and quality of life benefits which ou~ own General Plan is designed to produce. SV2Q2Q"a FindiM$ Ind COncluljgD$. Vidues. Golla and Visions These sections of the BV2020 Report are excellent in describing the reqional qrowth management issues. BV2020·, ·central conclusion is that, in the nine Bay Area ccunties. we must improve our ways of manaqing growtb or we will lose many of the qualities that make this reqion such. special place-~ BV1C2Q"I RegionAl r~yernlnce propo$Als 1~ PiBC,li%ltign Ina lSI Sharipg BY2Q2P Proposes: A state/regional/local policy for growth management is ueeaed.. At a minimum. state policies a-re needed t.o reduce the tax pressures that -fiscalize-land use and to provide financing methods for the infrastructure needed to serve 8 growing population. Task FQrce and StAff Recommendation Both the Task Force members and stiff aoree very strongly that no form of regional government can be successful in ma~aging regional qrowth unless fiscal reform to create more equitable tax and revenue sharing is accomplished prior to any authority being granted to a regional body. While this topic was discusse~ at length by the Task Fo%ce and staff. it became clear that its complexities required considerably ~re study before the Council woul~ be prepared to adopt • specific taz sharing proposal. _ 2. CQnsolidatiop of Single-pyrpo3e Regional Agencies _ BY2020 ProposeSj , . . • '-, o Honcrable Mayor and City Council 8~y Vision 2020 Review Draft Report February 4. 1991 Page -6- ... --------------- Rather than create a new layer of government. a new Dine-county Regional Commission (RC) should be c~eated by consolidating and combining .. at a minimum .. the BAAQMDI KTC, aDd ABAG. The new RC would administer (1) the air quality laws DOW tbe responsibility of tbe BAAQMD; (2) the transportatioD programs now the responsibility of MTC; and (3) the regional fair share housing programs and other legal1'~Ddated responsibilities 'of ABAG. other regional agencies such .5 the RHQCB ana the Bay CouervatioD and Development CA.-auission (BCDC) should be considered for later consolidation i.Dto the new RC •. resk FQrc. and Staff Recommendation Tbe Task Force and Itaff agreed wit~ this concept because prese~tly. single-purpose regional Igencies do not plan in a coordinated fashion. Each tollows ita own man~ate5 and ~ unable and/or unwil~in9 to consider other valid regional izpacts of their 4ecisions. In other words~ they are unable weigh competinq public policies and make the difficult -tradeoffs-when they are necessa~. There was elso a strong consensus that the RWQCB and regional water supply planning should be consolidate~ with the BAAOMO, MTC, and ABAG from the cutset. Air quality, transportation, housinq. land use and economic ~eeds are as interdependent on water quality and supply need~ as they ere with each other. Therefore. it does not make sense to e%clude the RWQCB. Water quality and supply may well turn out to be the deciding factors in future regional growth management decisions. Although BV2020 agrees that water quality BDd aupply should eventually be consolidate~ in the reqional agency. they concluded that the complexities aSSOCiated with the nature of water quality Ind supply agencies woul~ be too much for the initial consolidatign attempt. However. there was agreement among the Task Force and staff that this may be the region·s and state"s only chance for many years to come t~ make significant cbanges in our government structure. It was felt that it could be another 30 years before this much momentum ~re efficient reqionel government is ever built a~ain. 3. Are,s oytside the "joe-cpynty Biy Area -BV2020 PrpPOses; Because the new agency's work would Effect adjoining counties. they would be invited as appropriate to take part in its work. .. " "' \..,:;.;. Honorable Mayor and City Council Bay Vi.ion 2020 Review praft Report February 4. 1991 Pag. -7- Task Force Ind Staff Beccmm~ndation • \. The 4ev~lopment of any regional plen mU$t con$i~er both the impacts regional ~evelopment will have on its a~joining neighbor counties and what impact our neighbor's qrowth will ~Ive on US~ In most cases, it will be development in our region impacting on edjoinin~ counties. ror e%ample~ a recent Santa Clara County transportation study indiCates that by 2005. there will be an additionel 40~OOO peopl~ commuting from counties to the sc~th of Santa Clara County into our area. There needs to be 8 strOl'lQ'er emphasis DC tbis in the BV2020 Report, and specific policies end procedures must be develope4 to ensure that responsibilities and costs (re!~~c~ to housing or otherwise) .re not tr~nsferred to neighboring counties not part of the juris"iction of the nine county .Bay Regional Commission. . 4. comprehensive Regional Plan -Bi2Q2Q PrQpo;el: The RC would prepare a regional plan to achieve the Coandssion·. 9Qals for the Say Area in the ~ear 2020. However. the plan .oul~ ngt be a detailed land u~e plaD. but rather woul~ let standards for meetiDg xegional needs. In its planning~ the RC abould make the mazimum use of the geDeral plans adopted b7 cities and counties. Tbe new agency should encourage ·subregional-plannin9~ such as the establishment of congestion management proqr~ agencies in each county. Task Fgrce end Staff Recommendation There was general consensus with this proposal; especially with the emphasis on incorporating appropriate local general plan ideas and viewing 5ubregiocal planning as the core idea for preparing a regional pI~n. Although the specific eleme~ts of the regional plan would be further defined during the implementation committee review. s. Make-up of Intel'im Regional Board -BV20aQ Propose:,. For the initial four-year period. the interim regional board should be appointed. It Should reflect the racial, ethnic. social, end income diversity of tbe Bay Area. Each of the nine counties shOUld have at least one representative and representation should generally reflect the population in each county. It would be relatively large; a board of 3S-~O people would DOt be unworkable. Half the members 6bould represent local governments and half should be chosen from the public at large. Honorable RayoI .nd City Council Bay Vision 2020 Review Draft Report February 4~ 1991 P.~e -8- Task force .n~ St.ff Re~QmmendetiQn Thia ilaue pTomiaes to be ODe of tbe most controv~rsi.l of all re9ional government issues an~ should be deferred to the implementation phase yorkinq group for further ~eyelopment. However. there were 80me pQints on which tbe Task Foree and staff found consensus. These are: o Member5hip Ihovld be comprised of a stroDg majority of local government elected officills. o Kembership .bovld be proportioned on • popvlat1on b •• i. by county. In4 Ihould closely reflect those populltions. o ~rship should be aceount.ble~ representative I d~rat1c. and responsive. , .. --: .' • o Z ~ ~ o ~ eEl( JIFl('.\ IE OF ,\l'["III." II (I TI' and ending v.:ir_h 31 are accurale and compLete reproductions of __ . __ ~ as delivered to the undersigned In the regular course of bw;iness, fnr iTlicrcofihning accomplished ir. a manner, and on microfilm \'\o'tl1ch meets the rc-quirements of the Ameri-can National Standards fnsritllte. (ANSf) and the Associatjon for rnformation and Image Management (AL~1) Piace: .s._~_!Jnyva!e_l ___ ~--:A _~{086 City Slate Zip ~ o Q Z .~ · . . -".~". . Q '. "/ . IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1,1!. ,'.25 I L4_ II.~ 150mm 6" APPLIED IawGI 1653 E.I'IUN STREET R()O£STIR,. NY 14809 ra. C 11 .. 1 482-<1300 FA)( [ 71 .. ) ZBB-5!B9