HomeMy WebLinkAbout0244.091•
. ,.,~
April 25, ~991
~ae Honorable city Council
The Honorable Planning commission
Palo Alto , California
Regional Goyern-pqa
/'
Members of the Co~~il and commission:
Report in Sriet
•
THE SU BJECT OF
THIS REPORT
ISA
COUNCIL PRIORITY
This staff report provides an overview of the leqislative proposals
and other efforts which a.re addressing the subject of reqional
qovernance~ The impetus for this statewide interest i~ regional
qovernance is the con.::ern that the present system for decision
aaking is not able to manage California's growth-related problems.
The Council selected Regional Governance as one of its priorities
for 1991., statill9 its intention to review, evaluate and develop
Council policy re1.ated to the "I"ariou$ regional governance
proposals. The purpose of this report is to provide background for
the April 29 joint study session of the City counci1 and Planning
Commiasion. The report suggests policy questions which may form
the basis for discussion at the study session~ No Council acti~n
is requested or recommended at this time. If the council wishes to
adopt ~~sitions on specific leqislation or other proposals I staff
viiI place the it~ on a regular council aqenda.
Efforts Which Address Regional GovernaDc~
Various efforts are underway throughout the state to address the
subject of regional governance. Several are highlighted here and,
where applicable I more de.tailed information is pro1 .. ided in
attacbaents to the report.
The League of California Cities, At its 1989 Annual Conference,
the League of ~lifornia cities adopted a growth management
strateqy proposill~ See Attachment A. The League has continued it~
work on this &ubject by ~eans of its Committee on Growth Management
and Regional Issues.
The Governor I s Interagency Counei 1 on Growth Jl!.a n a gemen t ~ To
address the qrowth management issue., Governor Pete. Wilson has
established the Governor's Interagency Council on Growth
Management.. The Council, composed of several of 'che Governor's
cabinet officers, is charqed with developing comprehensive
CMR:H4:91
o
page 2
recommendations concerning decisions which must be made in order to
aanaqe the economic and environmental impacts resulting from
California'a growth. The recommendations from the council l ~hich
1s staffed by the state Office of Planning and Research, are due to
the Governor by J'anua-:-y 1, 1992. .Attachment B provides further
1.nLormation.
The Growth Management Consensus Project is yet another program
currently under.~y which addresses state-level qrowth management
questions. The project is sponsored by the center for california
studies at calIfornia State University, Sacramento, and the
Asse.mbly and Senate Offices of Research. The research oftices have
agreed tha~ the project should be independent of the legislative
process. The project should inform the legislative process, but
not directly influence or be influenced by it.
The premise of the project is to bring together ·stakeholders·
representinq tbe state's diversity and from that broad perspective
seek to develop policy agreements among the stakeholders that can
provide a context for implementing solutions. The process involves
issue det"inition, the exploration of points of agreement and
conflict, and eventual consensus development or negotiated
comprollise~ The work of the Growtb Management consensus Project is
linked via the selected stakeholders to other organizations
throughout the state Which are addressinq some or all of the same
qrowtb-related issuos.
Tbe project's timetable calls ror it to complete Phase I of its
work and report to the Legislature by July 30, 1991.
BaY Vision 2Q2Q Commission~ The work and recommendations of this
body ia the subject of a companion staff report (CHR:242 :91)
prepared for this joint study session.
The §trt~ L-egislature's Interest in Growth Hanaaement and Re!ional
Goyernance
There was substantial interest in addressing issues of regional
governance and growth JlI.anagement in the 1989-90 session of the
state Legislature, but the major pieces of legislation introduced
were not enacted~ The authors of those bills have reintroduced
similar proposals this session.
Nucerous organizations throuqhout the state have been developing
recommendations on qrowth management issues. The Assembly Local
Government committee held an interim hearing on October 15, 1590,
the purpose of which was to obtain recommendations on bow the
/
Paqe 3
Leqislature IiIbould :tol"llulate 1.\1l1li to respond to the i_pacta ot
california's qrowtb~ A background paper, pcep1J-red for that
bearing, 1s Att .. chment c.
Several bills on the "ubject of reqional governance and qrowth
Jrumaqem.ent were introduced in the state Legislature durinq the
first months of the 1991-92 Le9islative Session. Although hearings
have been .at on many of th8ll, the Governor has indicated tha.t he
pre:fers action on this .ajar leqislation be deferred to 1992.
Following is a suamary ot the major bills Which deal with regional
qovernance ..
Assembly Elj 11 3.. introduced by SpeU£r of the Assembly Willie
Brown, establishes in each of seven specified regions of the state
a Reqional Developme-": a.ncJ In:frastructure A'Iency CRDIA) throuqh the
consolidation ot air quality aanaqement districts, regional
transportation planninq aqencies, regional water quality control
boards, and. councils of qove.rruaent. The RDIA Boards would consist
of 13 meabers and be selected from districts by the voters ot the
dist.:c lets. The RDIA wOUld be required to prepare, adopt, and
maintain a regional plan, consistent with a state plan, to cont8in
correlated elements relatinq to air quality, water quality,
transportation, housing; spheres ot influence, and capital
facilities. The bill cont-.ains an opt-out provision, wh'!;reby a
reqion may develop an alternative to the structural and governance
features of the RDIA if certain actions are accomplished. The
legislation also permits the creation of suhreqions within each of
the seven regional areas.
Assembly Bill 3 also creates a State Growth Hanaqement Commission
to review regional plans, resolve disputes bet'Weer: ROIAs, and
develop a procedure to resolve conflicts among regional aqencies,
sUbreqional authorities, and local governments. The Commission
would consiat of 19 m~s appointed by the Governor from lists
submitted by specified organizations. The Commission assumes the
powers, duties, and responsibilities of the existing Office of
Planning and Research.
Assembly Bill 76 {Farr) expands the state's role in planninq and
research. It repeals existinq law establishing the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) and creates an Offiee of Research in
the Governor's office. The bill also creates a new State Planning
Agency that would take over the planning duties currently held by
OPR and be responsible for developing state land use policies,
ooordin~tinq planning for all state agencies, and monitorinq local
and reqional planninq. The state Planning Agency would have
internal departments of permit assistance, environmental and plan
review, .ediation and conflict resolution, and an environmantal
data and qeographic information center. The agency would be guided
CMR:2H:91
•
,
c •.
o
Paqe "
by a state Planning Advisory Council and JDust prepare a State
Planninq Report. Regional planninq districts (existing COGs unless
otherwise desiqnated by the State Planning Agency) must adopt
reqional plans which integrate state and federal regional plans,
and local qeneral plana must: be cone1stent with these regional
plans. 5W:lreg-ic;nal plans are allowed.
Senate sill 434 (Bergeson) creates incentives for regional
collaboration aDOnq local jurisdictions, raises public capital for
regional-scale infrastructure, and encourages compact development.
Bergeson's bill strengthens the role of the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) in policy making'. Land use decisions {,F,main the
responsibility of locally elected officials~
Senate Bill 43( allows local officials to form voluntary regional
fiscal authorities to pay for reqional-scale public works, to be
funded by new property transfer taxes vi th majority voter approval,
impact fees, assessments and other taxes. The membership of the
fiscal authority's governing body and the. size of the region are
left to the decisions of local officials. The authority must adopt
a regional fiscal plan which must be consistent vith the California
Growth Manaqeaent policies, developed by the Governor through OPR
and revieWed by the Legislature. The regional authorities also
~st designate -development boundaries· that separate developable
land. froa that which is not available for development. Project
approval for development inside the boundaries is guaranteed,
absent any health and safety problems. Landowners outside the
development boundaries have their property assessments and taxes
reduced. The lower assessments automatically trigger state
subventions to cities and cO\L~ties that partially offset the lover
tax revenues.
Senate Bill 929 (Presley) enacts eleven comprehensive state growth
llil.naqement goals. To develop guiding policies and coordinate state
plans to achieve these qoals, the bill creates a California
conservation and Development Commission consisting of 15 specified
members. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research 'Would
statt the new commission, assist in th~ preparation of the
California conservation and Development Plan, and prepare
guidelines for the preparation and revie'W of comprehansive regional
plans ..
tTnd'!'r sa 929, single-purpose reqional agenCies are required to
prepare by June 30, 1995 a single, coordinated comprehensive plan
that .... ust include a long-ranqe regional infrastructure program.
The bill specifically designates ABAG for this role in thE:: say
Area. other features of Presley's proposal include: reorqanization
CHR:244:91
II!!!"" .... '\"'--:--:-----" -~-·"---·-----.. · .. ) .. ·.' .... oo;;lKi ............ iiIIl .. ----
•
lj, ,
~J
Paqe 5
of ~ingle-purpose regional aqencies, creation of subreqional
associations to jointly plan and fund growth management programs,
and fiscal incentives tor reqional and local cooperation.
Senat. Bill 797. Ant!cipatinq that a leqislative proposal will
cc~ out of the work ot the Bay Vision 20~O Commission, Senator
Rebecca Morgan has introduced sa 797, a ·spot bill· entit~ad S~n
Francisco Bay Area Regional Growth Manaqement. ~tatinq that -The
nine-county San Francisco say area ne.eds a democratic, accountable,
responsive political structure to link and integrate the policies
of the many local governments... special districts, and sinqle
purpose agencies responsible for manaqing the reqion's development
and preservation,-SB 797 will be available to carry the Bay Vision
2020 proposal.
There are several other proposed measures which, if enacted, Yould
alter the relat.ions:hip between the state and local qovernment,
aff"ecting sta.te-imposed mandates, infrastructure financinq,
planninq policies, or fiscal arrangements. Two of particular
interest are:
Assembly Bill 6 (Farr and Hannigan) has been introduce~ as a ·spot
bill,· with the intention of developing it into a vehicle to reform
the state-local fiscal relationship. It yould create in tbe state
Treasury the partnership-in-Government Fund for the purpose of
providing full fun4inq tor the state's share of local proqr~ms.
Senata Bill 907 (MCCorquodale) allows for the creation of Regional
Fiscal Authorit.ies in the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern
california to finance reqional public works. The authorities Yould
be empowered to levy, with majority voter approval, a motor vehicle
tax, a regional development fee, a surcharqe on sewer and water
rates, a regional inco~ tax surcharge ... and to specify the uses to
which the funds raised shall be put. Senate Bill 907 would become
operative only if Senate constitutional Amendment 20 ~ere placed on
the eta te ballot and approved by the voters ~
At this writing, no action has occurred on any of the legislation
d.iscussed above. However, several of the bills are set for hearing
on April 24. Asselnllly Bill 3 (Brown) and AB 76 (Farr) are
calendared. for the Assembly Local Government Committee; AS 6 (Farr)
is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Ways and .Means Committee;
and SB 434 (Berqeson), SB 907 (MCCorquodal~) and 5B 929 (Presley)
will be heard in the Senate Local Government Committee. Staff is
monitoring activity on all of these measures.
CIIR:244:91
"'-=
.,
~----------~ -----
.,." .
page 6
PolIcy Ouestions
A review of the foregoing items suggests these policy questions
which may form the basis for discussion at the study session. More
questions will surely come to mind.
What role should the state play in local efforts related to
qrowth issues?
Are structural changes needed in the existing local ana
reqional institutions?
Should there be a link between loca1 6 subregional, reqiona1 6
and state planning efforts?
Shoul~ a state planning entity review subregional or regional
plans?
Should :!'eqional and subregional plans be required to be
consistent with state plans, policies, and goals?
What are appropriate incentives or disincentives to assure
consistency?
FUture PlODS
When this jOint study session was oriqinally proposed, the intent
vas to acldress not only reqional governance but a Iso certain
underlying' issues requirillg' reqional cooperation, i.e., air quality
and transportation planning-. Ho'Wever, the release of draft
documents (The 1991 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and the 1991 Regional
Transportation Plan) is occurring almost simultaneously with this
study session, makinq it infeasible to incorporate the most current
infor.ation. A subsequent study session, focusing on tbe
interrelationships of regional air quality, transportation, and
congestion manaqement planning, is tentatively scheduled for June
3, 1991# providing an opportunity for review ane comment on the
draft dOcuments.
Respectfully submitted, // p-f/~ i'~ __
Vlcel ROO
Assistant to the city Manager
~~~~
JllIIE FLEKING
Assistant city Manager
CMR:244:91
~---~~----.----~.
"
Paq8 7
Att..cIUIlents,
A~ Growth Manageaent strategy, League of california Cities,
1989.
B~ ·state Will CrappIe with Growth,· Richard Sybert, San Jose
Mercury Nevs, MarCh 5, 1991~
C. Background paper 4 I%1.ter 1m. Rearing on State Planning and
Growth Management: Workinq Towards Consensus. Assembly
co .. ittee on Local Government, OCtober 15. 1990.
CMII.,2H,91
l. RESOlUTION RELATIN. TO A GROWTH MANA;EMENT STRATEGV
~: C .. rol Whiteside. M,r.yor of Modesto
ChoIr, Growth Tosk force
Referred to: All League PQT~Cl Committees.
WHEREAS. t~e league President Ipp~inted a GrDwt~ Tlsk Force t~ develop I
league polley to oddress the complex and !nterrelited public poliCY issues
reloted to growth; ona
WH[REAS. t~e Proposed Growth Management Str.tegy S!ts forth various options
~ich t~e state and cities and counties may considEr 15 a means of ~itigating
the impacts of tbe ~neYitabTt growth in thfs state in order to improve and
~intain t~e quality of life in our communities; and
WHEREAS t the Proposed Growth Management Strategy includes options for the
federal and state governments to assume a leaders~fp role in dealing with t~e
need for 1nf~astructure expansion and revenu~ options to provfde services and
facilities to accommodate growth; ind
WHEREAS, t~e Proposed Growth Management StratEgy stresses that any
reorganization of existing regional entities or ereation of new areawide
authorities must be initiated by local government; and
VNEREAS, the Propose<! Growth Management Strotegy reconmends th.t local
~oyernments assume a greater respons'bility fer plannlng for growth and
~ddres5ing the regional impacts of ~ew de_elopment; and
VNEREAS, the Proposed Growth Manige.ent Strategy stote. th.t the private
sector must assume a DOre respons1b1e Tole 1n .itigatlng the 1Rpacts of growth;
ond
WHEREAS, tne Proposed Growth Man.goment Strategy was developed by the
Growth Task Force and revised after it was reviewed by the League's eight policy
committees, CSAC1s Growth Task F~rce~ and tne league's Committee on 21 and t~e
Action P1an Task Forc!; now, therefore, be it
RESOlVED. by the Gener.l Assembly of the tugue of C,liforn;. Cilies
assembled in Annual Conference in San Francisco, December 19. 1989, that the
league Idopt t~. ottached Proposed Growth Management Strategy.
1
•
~ -~-~--~-----------
BACKGROUND
. ~'-
. ~,,:~':~_~f>:":
··,;j~f, ,,-,' -"-, ~J>:;..~t:
'.~-".C
~~'~ --~,
o
le.gue of C.llfo.nl. CitIes
PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEG~,
The tremendous growth which California is experiEncing in its urban areas has
produced. set of eomplex and interrelated public polic) iS$ues~ The ~ote~s
frequently :xpress their increasing dissatisfaction with urban congestlon and
deteriorating pub';c s~ry;ces.
Citles Ire no longer self-tontlined commun~ties~ The impacts rt11t~d to g~owth
fa clties, IS well as in the unfn(orporated territory, extend beyond po1itica1
boundarfes~ The traditional concept of home rule ~2S to be expanded to include
issues beyond local borders which have an 1mpect on 10,,1 communities. Cities
and c.c-untles need t~ do • better j<>b of mitigating the re9iona1 effects of
"'9rowth4 In addition1-the role (If tI(lme rule must be expanded to authorize the
part1tipation of local government in regional decision-making.
lhe state, in ~irtner$hip ~'th 'ocal gD~e~nment. ~ust seriously conside~ the
modificltion of the governnlental structure tt) give cities and counties authority
to ~ddress the public's growing ,oncern over the deterioration of the qualitJ
of life in California. Strong leadership is needed to accommodate these 9~als.
Any legislation adopted on this issue lIlust rec.og.lize the diversity of cUies and
acknowledge th~ need for flexibility.
The s~~e.st fons contained in thfs. paper are intended to serve as policy
positlons to place before the legis1ature, the Governer and local governmer.t in
d .. ling with this most difficult public policy pro~l.m. -',e definition of
g.owth management as .sed In thIs document Is .s follows:
Growth .anagement is the lIIitigaticf'l of tflf impacts of growth in order' to
f6Jf)rDVe anrl • .tint.fn the qua1it.T of Iife in the cQl1PUnit,.
ASSlIIIPTI ONS AND GOALS
There are sevenl u.sumpt."iO'1S which undoerlfe the deve10pment of this pol icy
document. These .ssumption~ are outl1ned below.
1. Local Approach -local governments (i.e .• c1t1e5. counties and special
districts) Ire t~e cornerstone ~n determining the structure of a planning
process to address the growth problems of Clliforn'~> A local approach
to regionalism does net fiecessarily mean I new layer of 90vernment~ Each
'itf should retain the opticn of choosing I 9rowt~ managem!nt strategy
which ref1l!'c:ts the needs and' preferences of the local cOlllilunity. A
govt.rr.ing struc.ture developed lotally ..,,11 ens,lJre the necessary ~rassrcots
and c:onmunity support to lIake the policies and st,"ategies adopted
succ!ssful in meeting the challenges of growth fn ta1ifornil.
2
•
.\
. -.'
'S' }.: ,..:
2~ Solutions· While ." CC\m','Jnities. should seriously exa.mine t"'!
development of their local comm~nities and p1an for tts order1, grcwt~~
the east sevett problems ~it~ growt~ i~ California are o,curring fn urbtn
and urbanizing Ireu~ It;s recognfz!d that the options olJtl ined will m,t
work f~. e~er~ c~unit1. In addition. communities w~ich Ire essentii1'y
·bui,t-Qut-may need to expand the~e strategies to address their unique
fleeds.
3. Authorit1 -Authority over land use decfsions should remain It t~e
loti' le'Wel. ImprDvements shou1d be .ade in the current system te assist
local governments in deilin9 with land use and environmental issues which
transcend 10ca1 boundaries.
4~ Ar~a..,'de Cooperation • An areawide {i .e. r cit),-cour.ty/slJb'-i!9ion.\\1}
approa,h to land use decisions will assist local governments in resolving
.in~ of the t~rrent conflicts amon9 local jurisdictions and wi)l help to
coordinate hnd use decisions. Neither cities nor the county should
d~i~ite or control an areawide organization. A ~aningful opportunity
for rrv;ew of the pllns of neighboring jurisdletions should be provided.
Community service districts should be discouraged if an existing ,ity can
s.rve the arta.
5. Revenuel· Serious proposals to Iddress growth problems i~ C.lifornia
should recognize the n!.e-d to secure changes to tfle current relll!'nue a:,d
taxation structure for the maintenance and rehab111tation of e.xBtir:g
public facilities and to l'Ieet the demlnd for new public facilities from
anticipated growth. New deve10pment should: be required to P1)' its hir
share of the costs of both existing and new pub1ic facilities.
6. Inter-Count,Y/Reilon.1 Agency Coope.ation Exht ing multi
Cou.fl.tyfregiona1 ph.n'Ring i9'encies in. CalifQT'nia sf\o:i~d be reexamined by
the ~ember 10,,1 governments ta determine if there are struct~ral changes
which can be made to 1mpT'ove the operation of these organizations and to
de.el,p effective growth •• nag_nt strategies. Cent.,l 1n this
assumption 15 t~e need to estab' ish a process ~~." resolving di sput!S
between or among these agencies.
7. State's Role -The State of Colff,rnio's rol. is to be .esponsive to
local 90vernment needs~ It r.ust reassume responsibility for deve10pment
of inter-regional infrastructure (t.t .• water. transportation) and
preservation of genera1 benefit lind USei (i.e., agriculture, open space).
local government most be given grea'er revenue authority a'Rd resour~es by
the state to provide the facilities and services needed to accommodate
growth.
a~ feder-a' ROole -The federa' govel"fl.ment ... ust renew its commitme.nt to
provide funding for regiona~ infrastructure (i.e .• transportation. se~ert
etc.), .affordable hou.sing and ather soch.l service and facllity
improvements. In addition. the federal government lIIust financially
assist local gDvernment fn their efforts to meet the needs of immi9rants.
3
,
o
. -
~--,
:
.. ':"
,. Private Sector Ro1e -l~e private sector ~ust accept res~onsibtlity
for its role fl"l tile management of growth in Calir~rn;l. The private
5~ctO~ will be Invited to join in I ~artner5hfp wit~ local governments in
order to dt~eTop I consensus on the proper ~anZgement ~f gro~th.
OP!NNS
T~e l~ague'$ Growth Tlsk force present5 the follow:ng organizational options for
solving the growt~·reTlted problems now facing Ca'ifornil~
Loc" §over~mtnt Actfp"s
local governments need to develor"lllOre cO,'Drehens;'IIe, integnted and up-to-date
plans taking J multidiscfplinary Ipproach to address growth and the comm~nity's
future. At I minimum, the following changes are needed:
I. General Plan -Thoe 'eneral Ph" should rema!n'l.$ I basic t.ool for land
use p1anning. G~n!ril Plans must take into account th! cumulative impacts
of local planr.ing decfsi(ms on neighboring jurisdictions. It is the
responsibility of local government to update all of the fiements of a
Genera' Plan as necessary to keep current with gro~th. It is a goal to
flave this review take place at leut once every five ytars. In this
manner. t~e General Plan will function IS a long-range f~recast of gro~th
in the ~ommunity.
2. Public Faci1itl.s Financing Plan -A separ.te plan to identify .11 of
the infrastructure ne!ds of the community, revenue sources, methods of
financing and a" Imp1ement.tion scnedule should b. developed by .11 loc.l
governments.
3. Srowth filanageme-nt Plan -A separite growth lIanagement plan or i
summation of the plans and policies related to growth, intludi~9 defining
level of service and perfonlanc:e standards for botn faell ities and
servfces, should be prepared 1~ order to address maintenanc~ and
improvement af the quality of lift in each community.
Areaw~de A~tJDn$
Establish jOtbt areawide luthorities for development of I subregiGna' growth
management plan or an areawide urban development strategy based on the
individual member jurisdictfons' General Plans. The bOLlndaries of this
luthority should be established locally based on the area of impact or ~enefit
from growtk. It lIay include only ~arts of .. single ccur.ty or lIIultfple counties.
Tbis Ireawide authority sh~Llld be empowered to review development projects Df
regfonal signifio;ance to ensure tkat its interjurisdictional impacts Ire
.itigated. Such mitigation ~ay include the imposition of regional impact fees.
T~i •• uthority should .1'0 Dedi,te int.rjurisdictional growth-related disputes.
The ,reawide plan should Include the following element.:
4
-."
, "
,,go" 0
II!'
1. Level of Serv1ce/hrforaance Sundlrcts -lev!' of ser'Wic:e and
performance standards should be adopted f~r the subregion and methods for
quantifying and lH!uuring such shn.dards should be developed to ensure
arelwide consistency.
2. Public racilities/Transportation Element -A plan whi'~ identifies the
public faell it}' improvements needed to ac.commodate growth in the subregion
sho~ld be prepared. Tnis plin should encompass all types of
transpDrtat~Dn facnitfes. ffiC-lu~fng Itrports. rli Troads and harbors,
aethods of better ut 11 i z; n9 ex" stfng roadways. highways and trans it
servicE'S (i.e .• transportation systems management measures). water supply
and reclamition, se ..... age trutment, salid waste disponl faei1 it ies,
schools and all other public facility n •• ds.
3. Affordable Housing -The plan should address the affordable housins
needs of the aru fn relation to the !vai1able job opportunities.
4. Afr ~ullity Element· For each subregion ~ithfn a non-attainment area,
an .1r quality element should be prepared.
5. Agricultural LInd Preservation/Parks Ind Open Space -The plan should
include policil$ and lIethods for preserving productive agricultural lalld's
and environmental1, sensitive open space, as well as address the need for
rEg; Dna 1 parles.
6. Financing Element -.Methods and revenue-SDurces for funding publ it
facllities and services needed to acc::o!llllcdate growth within ttle area
'S"ouTd be identified ind if1_cluded as an: element of the plan. fi scaT
capability shou1d follow fiscal responsibility.
Regional Actions
Existfng institutions for regional (i.e .• fnt~r-county) cooperation shOUld be
reexa~ined by the lIember lota~ governments to identify structural imprOVEments
which can be !IIad~ for better cocrdi.,ation and impleme-ntat1on of growt~
management strategies. The following approaches ire offered for thesf regional
agencies:
1. ConsolIdation -Exi.tlng regional asencies should be prOVided .it~ the
option to conso11dat~ several Single purpose agencies (1.~ .• COGs, RTPAs,
Air Boards. etc.J into a comprehensive organization to deal with regional
planning and gro.th management strltegies. Consolldations for efficiency
and better coordinated planning s~ould take place with t~e iutnority of
t~e organization detencined by t~e member jurisdictions. The membership
of I consolidated regional agency should be locally elechd (iff; c1415
rather thar. a separately elected board.
2. Federlt10n -~xisting 1nter-county agencies should be permitted, as
an alternative to consolidation, the authority to -federate-on i,sues of
growth .anagement. The authority to federate should apply only to
5
•
planning letivtties and/cr the resolutfon Of conflicts between or amo~g
e~fst;ng single ~urpo5~ inter-county fgtnciEs. the federltion can occur
.;t~er on I pe~nent or .d-~oc basis, depending upon t~e app~opriate
organln.tional needs Dr growt~ problelll. The federation would (lperate
through agreement by the exht1ng fnter-county Ofsanlntions, but the
hlter-count)' organin.tions wo1JTd continue to be governed' by their existing
goveyaing boards.
Stlte Actions
!he state needs to relssume its leadershi~ rale in facilitating the inevitable
growth ia C.1ifornii. At the same timet the state ~ust Issist 10,,1 governments
in their efforts to accGmmodate growth and mitigate its impacts on an area's
quality af life. The state needs to form I partnershfp with lacil go~ernment
and the private sector to accompllS~ this task. For example, the state ~hou'd
participate in tne. development of I growth lIanagernent plan by an aru .... ide
author~ty. In particular, the stlte sho~ld consider the fo'lowi~g options:
1. Revenul Options -The existing reven~es distributed to local
government must be incrused fn order to cort~.:ct the added planning
requirements and to provide pL!blic facility Ind ser-vice improvements
needed to i.ccoiTll1odate gro..,UL This can be Icc:ompl ished either by
increasin9 the l.'IKlunt of distribution of stitt revenues (IT autl1or-iZing fee
and reventJe sources It the lac" level. New development shou1d be
required to pay its fa;:r shari? of the costs of bot" existing and new
public facilities.
2. Existing State Plans and Pellcles • The state should update its
existfng state .... ide plans and policies, 1nc1uding its water plant fnter
regional transportation plins, Igricultural preseTllation and genera.l
benefit land use (i.e., parks and apen space) policies. to ensure
consistency and to properly p1an for the needs and impacts of 9rowth~
3. Stat. Facilities -The stote needs to recognize the growth-related
impilcts of new and expanded state facilities (including colleges. prisons,
freeways, etc.) and ~ust mitigate the iro~a'ts of ;ts activities at the
local Tevel.
4. State 'Tan • Tne shte .hould consolidate .11 of its pol itits and
facility pTans to ensure conSistency and coordination of its decisfons.
Thfs state plan shou1d be coordinated with. ratfier than preempt, loca1
growth management plans.
CONClUSIOII
Tbls polic:y document is intended to stimulate discussion at 111 lfvels of
government in order to f"cus on the need to develop strategi~s for better
unagement of growth in this state.
6
•
•
_________________________ ~~.:.J~~rA:c~HMENT::~~B~ __________ ~I~san Jose Mercury News, ... L Y:--ch 5, 1991)
There is no ~\f11
monopoly on good
ideas, noc 00 bad
ones, and we will
not let ;ride of
authorship or
politics get in the
way.
1'------
State will grapple with growth
.....-.. crowth manacement
Tbe COQDcil'! dlBrge is to oornptebeD-
lively. inclusively .... ooo-pnojud£melltal
b .addrelI tbe isso!s of .pvwth in Cali-
forma. Our wort wID be 'based c.a clear
pls, set forth in the ~'s order:-
... Emplp";. local __ maJdng ..
pvwth bsD!s. <:ODSbteot: with state, re
pmaJ: aDd ~ eun.mWlitieg' lD...-.
"" Treatmeol of both current l"e5ident:&
aDd oeweomen, .and aD 50Cial aDd ~
c:mmmni'ieao €airly aDd OCI ,I DlXH!'Xclu-..,-
." Presen1ltioEl aDd pI'O'ri9ioD of Dpe:n
space, pub and rec:reatioD areas.
V' PnJtectioo of CaliIOI1Ila'. air, water,
aod C!'tbe! natural r'!!IOOl'CeL
..... ~ statewide pWminc lor
DeC.'eSIIU"y lnIt.er' aDd energy suppUes aod
..... diopooaI.
... AIIardabIe t.oozsiD&.
..... O:mp:thensIlit-nMew rA. State and
Ioc:aJ fiD:ux:iae """""a"'sms as they affect. looa1 _ decisioas.
." Effective regional .and statewide .......... -.......... ..... )fainfenarre of a favorable busiDe:ss -..
" Use of cooperation and inoentilles
rather tbac coertioo to achieve growth
manac=eat goa1s.
Our-oaJy bias is fbaL we ~ committed
to. "'bcJUoms..q." approadl. witb cledsiODS
b!bo lint by tbolocal people who have to
live witll them Where an issue tramceDds
local ~ as with air poDlltioa or
water ~ or transportatico Del_ods,
tbea the-stale bas a ~tlmate mt.erest..
The poiDt is that these issues .slJould be
decided: witb a rapier, not • broadsword..
There .is DO lICl'QS:!.--the-boara nostnao that wm wort. sud! as 10cal C'Olltrol" oc "re
pooaI governmeat" Instead, we wiD be
..
-~---,--~-
• A'l"'l'ACliitENr c
ASSI!KBLY COlillITTEI< Oil LOCAL GOVElUIIll<IIT
SAIl FARR, c:a:AIR
1lACEGR00ND PAPER
IIII'1EIU!I Bl<ARING
011
"S'l'ATE I'loANIIING AND GROW'1'B IlANAGE!IENT:
W()IUaNG 'roWARDS COIISEIISUS'
OCTOBER 15, 1990
9 A.lI. - 1 P.lI.
ROO!! 431, STATE CAPITOL
SACl\A!I1!:N'l'O, CALIPORNIA
. ,.,"
OP COIlTENTS
PAGE(S)
nm<OIXICTIOl!l. • • • • .. .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. .. .. • .. • • • • • • • • • .. .. • 1-2
I. STA'l'DS OP STATE PLANNING
Background........................ ... . . . .......... .. .. . . .. . ..... . . . ...... .. .. .. .... 2-4
polLey Quest-ions................ .... .. .. .. .. ... .. . . .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 4
Conflicting State Legislative Intent..................... S
P<llicy Question............................ . . . . . . . . • 6
The • State Plan·................................................................ 6
Policy Questions.................................... 6-7
Legislative Responses................................................. ,
II.. STATQS Of REGIONAL pLANNING
Background... . ..... . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ................ . . . . . .... . . ......... 8-9
Policy Questions................................. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 9
Single-parpose Regional Aqencies........................ 10
Policy Questions................................... ..... . . . . . 10
Legislative Responses .................................. 10-11
I I I. STAms Of H'C!L PLANNING
Background ............................................ 11-12
pol.icy Quest-ions..... . . . . ....... . . . . . ...... . . .. . . . . . 12
141
,
'.
....
1
.-... ---""""" .. -_c ........ C!!alifurnia 1E.I!gislatun
~ss~mh1v C!!mnmitb~
xm
""f....u-.,~I:;'O .... :10
"""'"'
~...a''"'fS·C''
~-~ .,,0...0, _ DEcq_
""'... --"'------_. --..
1lln:caI ®.ott.ernm.etd
SAM FARR
""""""""
BACXGROOlID PAPER
-"'"---,..·"c-CJ
"0011:"_ ---
STAT!: PLANNING AND GROWTH JlAJlAGEIIENT: WORXlBG TOWARD A CONSENSUS
October 15. 1990
9 a.a. -1 p.m.
Room 437~'State Cap~tol
Sa=ramento l CalifornLa
Ilfl'RQQQCTIQN
On OCtober 20, 1.S8&, the A5sembly Local Government Committee
held an interLm hearLnq on issues related to growth. The
Committee report -Growth and Development Issues Facing Local
Gov~rnment5· summarized the testimony. Growth-related problems
identified included density and lo!s of open-!pace, transporta
tion, air quality, fiscal constraints, state environmental
~oals/policies, compliance with project mitigation measures, and
local qovernment planning.
On February 7, 1990, the Committee held an informational
heaririq regarding the structure and functions of regional
institutions and their role in growth management. Alse, on
April 2, 1990, the Committee held a joint informational hearing
-1 -
';:<~--------,---
I
!
----------~~-~ -----<-----.,.-----...:.----~-:>,--• -'----
focusinq on four zajor bills that were being considered at the
time: AS 4235 (Farr) creat1nq a State Planning AgencYI sa 1332
(PresleyJ enacting the Subregional Planning. Act, AS 4242 (Willia
Brown) creating reqional developmen~ and infrastructure agencies,
and sa 969 (BergesOn) enacting the Southern California Association
of Governments Act. These were ameng mere than 50 bills related
to qrowth ~naqement introduced in the 1989-90 session.
Numerous organizations throughout the state have ~e6n
developing recommendations on gro~h management issues~ So~ of
these groups yere unable to mak~ detailed recommendations at
hearLnqs the Local Government Committee held in the past because
the orqanizations' particular proces!es for devaloping con~~nsus
had not sufficiently prosressed. Many of these groups also
suggested that the Legislature defer acting on growth manaqement
problems until their own draft or final recommendations were mad=~
The purpose of this hearing is to ob~ain recommendations on
how the Leqislature should formulate laws to respond to the
impacts of California's rapid qrowth. The major question to be
answered. is: "Bow can C . .a..lif:jrnia best achieve a balance betlieen
population, a healthy economYI houling, and Our precious
resource s ? ..
:I. STATUS Qf $'tATE FLANN INC
Background
The Office of Planning and R~search (CPRl was created by the
Legislature in 1970, and serves the Governor and the Cabinet ""as
- 2 -
-~.-------
steff tor long-range pl~in9 and research, and const~tutes the
comprehensive state planning agency.-A Planning Advisory and
Asaistance Council (PAAC) consisting of local agency repreSentA
tives Is required to assist CPR with certain functions, including
preparation of the state environmental goals and polIcy report
(EGPRJ vh.1ch is .intend.ed to guide certain sta'te f5Cility deci
aions. There is concern that while the Office is currently
servinq the Governor's research needs 6 there has been a lack of
long-range state planninq. During the current administration
there have been no appointments to the PAAC, nor has the required
EGPR been prepared. Furthermore 6 the EGPR vas only prepared in
1972 and U7B.
In California, the state has delegated responsibility for
land use de~i5ion5 to its citie! And counties. They are required
to abide by the procedures and requirements in the Planning and
Zoning Law and address environmental concerns as req~ired by the
California Environment~l Quality Act {CEOA). However, they are
generally free to make these deCisions without outside
interfarence or direction under our doctrine of -home rule.-
xany states are taking a more active role in plannin9~
including vermont, where Act 250 requires state.permits for
·substantial developments· And provides that local entities
without confirmed plans cannot adopt impact fees cr receive
planning Assistance f.lnds. \ .. ~e 5tates of Maine, vermont, and
Rhode Island enacted legislation in 19S8 requiring local
governments to adopt plans which are consistent with state
- 3 -
..... "
,./_ "r: ".~
<------
plannLng qoals~ Florida has a comprehensive state, regional, and
local planninq process. And New Jersey's st6te planning process
provides guidance for state actions, including capital faCility
funding.
Po~i~ Questions,
l~ Should the .tate prov~de quidance on planning ~atters?
2~ Should any state planning be consolid~ted within an existing
agency (~, Resources Agency) as a Dep~ent of Planning,
or should there be a new agency where planning efforts of all
other departments Can also be coordinated (~, Caltrans,
University of California, Water Resources), while still
leaving an Office of Research under the Governor?
3. Should there be a separate Office of Planning within OPR?
4. Would a Planning Aqency provide more consistency in lor .. g-ranqe
.tate planning efforts?
5. Should there be a link bet~een local, state, regional, and
8~regional planning effo~s?
6~ Should there be legislative over5ight of state planning
require%!lents?
7. Should a state planning-entity review existing regional
boundaries and have a role in revising those boundaries?
B~ Is a PAAC with broad representation needed for input on the
development of state goals and policies?
9~ Bow can the Legislature ensure ~hat future Governors will
appoint members to the PAAC?
10~ Should the RAAC include more representation "from regional
entities?
11. What role should the state play in local efforts related to
growth issues?
12. Should a state planning entity review subregional or regional
plans?
- 4 -
~' / '
Conflicting State Legialative Intent
Several state lavs have &dmir&ble leqisla~ive intent
re9arding .t~te policYI but they 8omet~es conflict or lack a
~echanism ~or implementation. Fo~ ex~ple, there is legislative
intent -t!1at the diversity of the state' s communities and their
residents requires planning eqenc:ies a.nd legis'la.tive bodies to
implement [general plan law] in ways that accommodate local
conditions and circumstances There is also intent -[t]ha&
continuing qrovth of the State, and pa.rticularly urban areas
within the State, present problems: whici". are not ccnfined to the
boundaries of any sinqle county or city."
·The preservation of open-space land is necessary not
only for the maintenance of the economy of the state, but also for
the assurance of the continued &vailabili~y of land for the
production of food and fLbe~, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty,
for recreation and for the use of natural resourcee.~ Also, [t]he
availability of housing is of vital statevide Lmportance, and the
early attainment of decent housing and a sui~able living
environment for every California family is a priority of the
hiqhest order.~ Furthermore, SB 2011 (Leroy Greene) Chapter 1439 r
Statutes of 1990, provides that -[4] local agenCy shall not
disapprove ~ housing development project affordable to loy-and
moder~te-income households or condition approval in a manner ~hich
renders the project infeasible for [that usel-unless cer~ain
findings can be made.
-5 -
J
:-'<~ '-.",.,
"
o
Pol~CY Questions:
l~ Should conflicting legislative intent be addressed by a state
planning entity making recommendations to the Legislature?
2. Should the -intent-be required to be implemented?
~ "Stata Plan"
The Environmental Goals and Policy Report lEGPRJ must contain
a number of items ,~, overviey of state growth for 20-30 years;
goals and objectives for land use, ~ulation growth and d~stribu
ticn~ development, natural resource conservation, air and water
quality, human resources, transportation; and, intermediate-range
plans and actions). The EGPR is intended to be a basis for ~~jor
public programs, capital projects and other actions, including the
allocation of state resources for environmental purpose~ through
the ~udget and appropriation process.
There is currently no apparent coordir~tion between the
planning processes of the various state agancies or betveen the
d~fferent levels of government. Each public agency has been
allowed to site its facilities and decide how to use its land
independently, without necessarily considering the pl~n5 of or
impaCtS on other agencies.
Policy Questions:
1. Are the current information requirements for the EGPR
sufficient?
2. Should the &GPR establish a land use policy for all of
California?
3. Should the EGPR also serve as an inventory of state plans?
Should these various plans be combined into a state
comprehensive plan?
- 6 -
""
«a Should the .tat.. review .:egional and subregional plans for
ccnsis~ency with !tate pl~ns, goals, and policies?
5. Bov regularly should the EGPR be prepared?
Leq181.ti~ ~e8ponses
To ensure that the Governor continues to have re~ponsLbility
over the entire OPR, while a150 providinq more continuity and
focus in the statewide planning process, AS 2200 (Cortese) of 1989
would have provided that the planning requirements of existing law
rest with an Office of Pl~~inq vithin OPR.
The Governo~ vetoed AB 2200, s~,atinq: -I am disturbed that
this bill implies legislative oversight of my own research staff.
The Office of Planning and Research is the Governor's research
office 6 similar to the Assembly and Senate Offices of Research.
It is available at my request and direction. Statutory changes to
the office are unnece5saryJ since I h4ve the 4utho~ity to
structure the office to focus on issues of importance to my
edm.inist.ration.'"
AB 4235 (Farr) was introduced in 1990 to create a State
Planning ~gency to perform planning functions which currently rest
~ith the Office of Plann.inq and Research4 The bill would have
created a new Office of Research under the Governor to perform
research for the Governor~ It would have also established a State
Planning AdviSOry Council, with specified members, responsible for
a Statewide Planning Report
-1 -
,
; ;
•
'.' .
"
o
Il: ~ STAT'l1$ OF REGIONAL PLANNING
Background
~he Cal~tornia Legislature created the Reqlonal Planning
Dis~rict L4v in 1963, but provided that no Qis~rict could transact
busines~ or exercise powers if its cities and counties are
participating in reqional planning pursuant to the Joint Exercise
of Powers Law. Under the Joint Exercise of Powers Law, tvo or
~ore publiC agencies ~ay enter into an aqreement to jOintly
~xercise any common power. There are 20 cOwncils of governme~t$
(COGS) in California formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers
Law---voluntary aSsOCiations vit~ joint powers ag~eements.
COGs in California perform certain regional plafu~ing
functions, but have no direct contr~l of local land use by their
member entities. While many California COGs a~e single-county,
some cover several countips. These include the Aszociation of Say
Area Governments (ASAG) covering nine Say Area counties and 92
cities, and tha Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), covering six counties and over 160 cities.
COGs play a k~y role in certain plannin9 processes,
especially those regarding transportation, housing, and growth
issues. Most COGs have also had a reviev and comment
responsibility for federal grants, beginning with the so-called
-A-95 Revie .. ·" process. With shrinking-federal assistar,ce,
however, this has become a smaller role for COGs. COGs can 41!,;0
provide numerous services to local governments by providing, for
example, ·circuit-rider p14nning~ assistance for cities, credit
- 8 -
~ . :
..
. ,
" "
pooling, health-beneti~ cooperetives, master lease-financing
programs, pooled qeneral-liability programs, cost-benefit studies,
and various types of technical support.
Recently, there haa been increasing interest in 50-called
-aubreqional planninq,· and the development of a ~ore comprehen
sive and coordinated planning process for local aqencies and COGs,
ThLS is evidenced in the major leqislation introduced this session
which is outlined on pages 10-11.
Policy Questions:
1. Because COGs have been invoh"ed in regional planning for
several years, should COGs be required to prepare regional
plans, as well as subregional plans guided by subregional
bodies?
2. Should consistency of local, subregional, regional, and st 3 te
plans be assured1
J~ Because OPR is responsible fer preparing the Environmental
Goals and Policy Report, should there also be a determination
regardLng consistency of local plans with that report {if it
is prepared on a timely basis as currently required}
4. Should incentives (-carrots·) for regional and subregional
planning be included in the law? If so, then what programs
and fundLng opportunities should be used {~., sales tax
authority, preference for &t~te bond/lo3n programs, increased
vehicle license fee revenues)?
5. Should disincentives (·sticks-) be included in the law? If
so, then what programs and funding alternatives should be used
(~, conditioning qasoline tax reve~ues~ penalties~ mandated
revenue transfer to affected entities)?
6. Should any lay creating or aSSigning new duties to regional or
subregional entities provide specific And a5sur~d funding
sources?
-5 -
•
i
o
Single-purpose Reqional Agencies
Current law establishes local agency formation commissions in
each co~ty, a~r pollution control districts, and regional vater
quality control ~&rds, and provide5 for regional transportation
planning aqencies. Each of these agen~ies has distinct and
aeparate functions. There is concern over the inCre4!ed potential
for planninq conflicts between these entities, elpecially since
some of them have been given new responsibilities~
policy Questions:
1~ Should regional entities (~, existing COGs t consolidated
si~qle-county COGS) prepare and maintain comprehensive
reqional plans, with single-purpose reqio~al agencies
continuing their responsibilities pursuant to these plans?
Should new regional boards replace the single-purpose entities
or should there be separate boards for each issue (~, air
quality, water quality} vith actions appealable to an aqency
board? Should there be a -superagency· vith existing
sinqle-purpose aqencies operating within that entity?
1. Should a reqionBl agency ensure consistency betyeen the local
plans and those of single-purpose aqency plans or a
comprehensive regional plan?
3. Should a r,qior.al aqency board be composed of a mixed
representation of local, regional, and state interests?
4. Shculd the regional plans be consistent vith state goals and
policies?
Legislative Responses
SB SJ8 (Bergeson) and SB 969 (Bergeson} ~ould have created
the Orang~ County ASSOCiation of Governments Act and Southern
California Association of Governments Act, respectfully. SB 1332
(Presley) would have created the Subregional Planning Act and
-10 -
• --
•
,
I
j
o
AS 4242 [Willie Brown) attempted to ~li5h sinqle-purpose
regional agencies and create eeven regional development and
lnfrettructure agencies~ None of these meas~es was approved by
the Legislature.
III. STATUS OF IOCI.! PLANNING
Current law requires every city and county to adopt a general
plan which includeE the followinq seven mandatory elemsnts: land
use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space. noise, and
safety. The general plan may also address other issues which, in
the opinion of the legislative body, relate to the phYSical
development of the county or city. Under the so-called ·shoe
fits· theory of planning, a jurisdiction need only address an
issue to the extent it is appropriate in the community.
The housinq element is the only element which mU5~ be revised
on a regular basi$~ every five years. AE 35 (Eas~in) would have
included a schedule for adoption of a transportation ele~ent and
replaced the current Circulation element~ SB 965 (Bergeson) would
have provided a schedule for amending the entire general plan, and
required that subsequent revisions be completed.at five-year
intervals. AS 35 died in the Senate Appropriatio~s Committea and
Senator Bergeson did not ~ove sa 965.
The housing element is reviewed by the Department cf Housing
and community Development and the safety element is revie~ed by
the oepartment of Conservation. No ether general plan elements
are reviewed by $~ate entities.
-11 -
Current law provides a process for the referral ot 4 city',
or county'. qeneral plan amendments and propos4d actions to
neiqhborinq entities for revie~ and commen~, except there ere
major gaps in this proces!: only ·sub5tanti~1· amendments must be
referred and failure to refer a proposed action does not affect
the validity of that action. Therefl""~e, there is no consequence
for ignorinq the law, Furthermore, the local agency proposir.q the
chanqe is not required to act on the comments of its neighbors.
polIcy QuestiOns,
1. To encourage consistency of the general plan elements ar,d
ensure that a plan reflects current conditions, should the
qeneral plan, rather th~n only the housing element, be subject
to a five-year revision requirement?
2. Sho~ld the general plan be consistent with reqional and ftate
plans, qoals, and policies?
3~ Should the entire general plan be reqularly reviewed by a
regional or state entity?
4. Should the interagency referral and review process be
atrenqthened through involvement of a regional or state
entity?
5. Sho~ld a land ~se mediation process be established at the
regional and state levels?
-12 -
•
May 2, 1991
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
-
status Report on Public OUtreach Efforts for the stern Drainage
Nanpoint Source. Pollution Control Program
Members of the Council:
Renort in Sri ef
This is an informa~ional report on the status of the City's public
outreach efforts for the Storm Drainage Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control program. No Council action is required~
Background
Nonpoint source (NPS) po~lution, consisting of oil/grease, heavy
me~als, suspended solids, and other pollutants which enter the Bay
via urban storJD'Water, is a qrowinq concern in the Santa Clara
va11ey. In response to this problem, Palo Alto has joined with 12
other South Bay cities, the County of santa Clara, and the Santa
Clara Valley Water District to form the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint
SOurce Pollut.lon Control Program (Program). The Program has
deve-loped a five-year stormwater "Management Plan to reduce. the
detrimental effects of NPS pollution on San Francisco Bay~ The
Plan includes provisions for new regulatory controls., increased
maintenance, recycling, and hazardous waste disposal activities by
public agencies, and a public education/outreach program.
Discussion
T~e Program has developed a NPS Pollution Fact Sheet and a qeneral
Anformational b~ochure for use by the individual cities. in
conducting their public education/outreach efforts (~ee attached).
These documents describe NPS pollution in general, simple terms and
offer practical suggestions on how the public can help to reduce
this problem4 st3ff has placed the brochures at literature racks
throughout City Hall, libraries, community centers, interpretive
canters, and other public facilities. In addition, they ~ill be
distributed at household hazardous 'Waste collection events, the
Annual Fire & Safety Show, and 'When tours are conducted of fire
stations antl the Regional water Quality Control Plant4 The fac~
sheet has been sent along with the brochures to the Chamber of
Commerce, the Peninsula conservation cente.r, local schools and
various neiqhborhood qroups.
-1-
CMR:245:91
.--~-----.---
\ , .,