HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 Tri-Vly Vision Project CITY CLERK
File # 0470-50
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 18, 2000
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Tri-Valley Regional Vision Project
Report Prepared by · Christopher L. Foss,
Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Tom O'Malley dated October 29, 1999
2. Tri-Valley Vision Project report entitled "The Golden Valley:
A 2010 Vision for the Tri-Valley Region"
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive staff repOrt
Receive presentation by Tom O'Malley, Executive Director of
the Tri-Valley Business Council
Direct staff to continue to work with the other City and County
staffs and the Tri-Valley Business Council on this topic and
report back on the Plan's applicability and/or effect on the City's
General Plan.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
DESCRIPTION: Beginning in the mid 1990's, the Tri-Valley Business Council has
invited nearly 200 public and private sector leaders to participate in the development of a vision for the
Tri-Valley region for the year 2010,
The results of the Business CounCil's regional vision project efforts were unveiled on October 21, 1999
with a publication entitled "The Golden Valley: A 2010 Vision for the Tri-Valley Region" (Attachment 1).
The vision project is a result of a community survey and dozens of meetings within the area to discuss and
prioritize issues for the region's future. The vision also included input received during meetings with the
Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon City Council (the Dublin City Council, as well as the
Alameda County and Contra Costa County Boards of Supervisors, did not receive a presentation of the
vision plan during the draft stages).
In a letter dated October 29, 1999, the President of the Tri-Valley Business Council, Mr. Tom O'Malley,
requested an opportunity to publicly review the vision with the Dublin City Council (Attachment 2). As
background, the 2010 vision defines seven broad, interdependent goals for the future:
K2/G/cc-mtgs/forms/form-as.doc
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
1. Economic Vitality: The Tri-Valley has a balanced and healthy economy supporting the
diverse needs of each community.
2. Enhancement of Open space, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality: The Tri-
Valley is a distinctive region achieved by enhancing the amount of permanent open space,
increasing the amount of highly productive agricultural land, and improving environmental
quality.
3. Vital Centers and Connected Neighborhoods: The Tri-Valley has vibrant, walkable
regional and city centers and connected neighborhoods where housing, jobs, cultural
activities, education, places of worship, shopping, entertainment, and parks are clustered
together.
4. Housing Choices: The Tri-Valley offers a range of attractive housing choices for people
of various incomes.
5. Regional Mobility: The Tri-Valley has a system of efficient, user-friendly options for the
mobility of people and goods within and through the region.
6. Educational Opportunity: The Tri-Valley has a lifelong educational system that is
accountable to the highest community standards.
7. Regional Collaboration: The Tri-Valley is a region of people and jurisdictions that work
well together.
Upon release of the document, the Tri-Valley Business Council announced a year 2000 Action Plan. One
of the first actions of that plan is to receive the endorsement of the vision by the elected officials at the
county and city/town level and an agreement to incorporate the vision as a regional element within each
city's/town's General Plan. and receive the City Council's endorsement of the document. The Tri-Valley
Business Council also plans to prepare a November 2000 ballot measure that would ensure that 70% of
the tri-valley region remains open space and agriculturally strong. The ballot measure would include such
items as the establishment of an agricultural irrigation district, and enhancement and protection of
agricultural and open space through land and development right acquisition. The initiative would also
include proposals to ensure the construction of healthy communities through the establishment of
coordinated development patterns and transportation improvements to retain the region's quality of life.
In December 1999, the City Managers of the five affected communities (Danville, Dublin, Livermore,
Pleasanton, and San Ramon) received a presentation from Mr. O'Malley regarding the plan. It was the
consensus of the City Managers that the plan would need further study by each community to determine
its ultimate effects and that the Tri-Valley Business Council should make a presentation of the plan at a
Tri-Valley City Council meeting. Arrangements are currently being made for that meeting to be held in
early February, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION: It is staff' s recommendation that the City Council direct staff to continue to
work with the other City and County staffs and the Tri-Valley Business Council on this topic and report
back on the Plan's applicability and/or effect on the City's General P1an.
Tri-Valley Business Council
RECEIVED
NOV 0 1 1999
CiTY OF DUBLIN
October 29, 1999
Mr. Rich Ambrose
City Manager
City of Dublin
PO Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Rich:
Enclosed is a copy of"The Golden Valley: A 2010 Vision for the Tri-Valley Region".
We have also enclosed additional copies for your Council Members.
We thank you for your financial and staff support of this project. The document is our
regional strategic plan for the future. It represents the efforts of 200 community
members.
The vision clearly states our goals and objectives but the hard work of developing and
implementing Annual Action Plans is only beginning. InCluded with your Vision
Document is a Year 2000 Action Plan. Our Action Committees will begin to meet over
the next few weeks to work on these plans.
As you will note, one of the first actions is to obtain endorsement of the Vision from the
County Supervisors and the City and Town Councils, and their agreement to incorporate
the Vision as a regional element within their General Plans. I will call you shortly to
determine the best way to initiate action on this item with the City of Dublin.
Please call me at 925-890-1892 if you have any queStions or comments regarding the
Vision.
Sincerely,
Tom O'Malley
President
P.O. Box 3258
· Livermore, CA 94551-3258
(925) 890-1892
ATTACHMENT !
· FAX (925) 447-3039 · www.trivalley, org
.
.
.
, "
<' ,~
<'
.,r, ~'"
~ ~ -', '
""' :~\..
, """
".. c~" ~ ..
p
.,
,-. ,
., '~"'.
.-
:IIJ
illWlID~IlD1GJra
~illW1tJID
)'.~
~..,-",^, '
I ,~.. .
,;' '....~..,-~-
."'~- .::~:~.~.
".-._~_ "', .. _.'""', c- ,
C"c..
'if f ptXD .:7" t/
ATTACHMENT 2
'-I/)O - 50
.
In October 1998, a diverse group ofTri-Valley leaders joined together to develop a vision for the future
of the region. We wanted (0 define a positive and achievable future based on the shared values ofTri-
Valley residents. We developed a set of interdependent environmental, social, and economic goals to
express tharvision. We also developed a set of specific measures of progress for each of the goals, We have
tested these goals with the residents of the Tri-Valley through a public opinion polL And, we have
convened a set of comminees to design and implement actions that will move the region towards the
positive and achievable vision of the future. Figure 3 illustrates the process.
FIGURE 3
Values Outcomes Measures Actions
- - ----.
What We Want For What It Would Mean How We Will Know How We Can Get
If We're
The Region ForThe Region Mak\ng Progress What We Want
..... - --..... - -.....-- - .......-
TRl-VALLEY REGION VISION LEADERSHIP TEAM
Dave Anderson Karen Kiernan Valarie Raymond
TazBramlene Chris Kinzel David Rice
John Chapman Marjorie LaBar David Rounds
Becky Dennis Mike LaLumierc Bob Sakai
Dennis Eloe Mike Madden Joan Seppala
Marcy Feit Karen Majors Bob Silva
Donna Gerber John Marchand Christine Smith
Jim Ghielmetti Adolf Martinelli Pete Snyder
Gail Gilpin Mike McGee John Sugiyama
George Granger Karena McKinley Mark Sweeney
April Gray David Merres Steve Tanner
Millie Greenberg Otis Nostrand Tom Vargas
Philip Gustafson Sandi Olsen Eric Wallis
Scott Haggerty Tom O'Malley Phil Wente
Guy Houston Frank Patimcci
Tim Hum Cynthia Patton
Marty Inderbitzen Michael Perry
Steve Kahhoff Ron Raab
.
PREPARED IN OCTOBER 1999 BY
COLLABORATIVE ECONOMICS
STRATEGIC ADVISORS TO CIVIC ENTREPENEURS
350 Cambridge Avenue, Suite 200
Palo Alto, California 94306
www.coecon.com
.
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction. . .......................... ... ............................................................................. ............. 2
Resident Values and Vision Goals ........... .......... .................................. ............. ...... .. ....................... 3
Map, Buildollto/Current General Plans.. .....................................'......... 5
W'hyThe New Economy Wants The Livable Community. .. ............................ 6
Measures of Progress to the Vision of the Golden Valley. .............................. ..... ..... 8
Economic Vitalif} .. ................................................................ ................................ ....................... 10
How Economic Vitality Contributes to Quality of Life. ....... .................. 14
Enhancement of Open Space, Agriculture, and Enviromemal Quality.... ......................... .......... 15
Map, Tri-ValleyRegioll! Asof/999 ... ....................... ............,...........,......... ..................................17
How Quality of Life Contributes to Economic Vitality ...... .......... . . 21
Vital Centers and Connected Neighborhoods. ................. ................ .. 22
Does Density Always Increase Traffic? .... ......... ........................... ................... ....... 27
Housing Choices. ...................... ...................... .................. ................................ ........................... 28
Expanding Housing Choices Has Many Benefits ......................... .................................................... 32
Regional Mobility.. .................................................... ...... ................ .................................... ......... 33
How Traffic Congestion and Community Design are Connecred .................... 37
Educational Opponunity.. ................ ........................................ ....... 38
Regional Collaboration ......... ...................... ..................................................... .......... ..................41
Conclusion ..... .................. ................... ............................................................... ..45
Seven Areas of Regional Vision & Sources ..........................................................................46
Acknowledgements. ........... .. ................. .... .......... ............................................ 47
~7fl~
~a~
-- ..,.".-'---
"Ti'i- Valley combines the
economic vitality of the Silicon
Valley with the quality of life of
the Napa Valley."
-Joe Gab bert,
Documentum Corporation
INTRODUCTION
A Shared Vision for rhe Future of the Tri- Valley Region
.
Our vision for the Tri- Valley region seeks to preserve the best of our past and our present.
We seek to preserve our heritage as lhe Valle De Oro as rhe early Spanish setders called the region-the beautiful
and bountiful "golden valley." We also seek to preserve our nC'W economic vitality and diversity, which have
brought us a high standard of living and high levels of satisfaction with the qualiry of life in our region. Ours
truly is a Golden Valley, one that is rich in both quality of life and economic opportunity, where people can live
well, pursue a career, engage in lifelong learning, raise a family, and build communities where their children can
enjoy these same qualities in the future.
By 2010, we will hdlle succeeded in pn'manently preserving our Golden Valley,
We will have maintained our economic vitality while preserving our most desirable open space, enh:lOcing our
most fertile agricultural land, and achieving a high level of environmental quality and beautiful and vital com-
munities. People will be able (Q travel smoothly throughom our region. Residents will have access to lifelong
educational opportunities. And housing choices will exist for people with a range of incomes.
l
~
~
The Vision sets a high standard-right where the residents of the Iri- Valley want it to be,
Most people are happy now with the region as a place to live and raise a family. They want to maintain that high
quality, while limiting negatives like traffic congestion. They value economic vitality, but not at the cost of
quality of life. Most residents believe elm both values can be served: 77% believe that the region can have
economic growth while preserving quality of life (Tri-Valley Community Survey, 1999).
The Vision identifies and integrates compatible, widely shared values.
The Tri-Valley Community Survey confirms that a large majority of residents hold these values, providing the
necessary foundation for the Vision (See page 2). Based on these values, the Vision describes a path to the future,
a set of criteria that future regional development must meet.
.
The fundamental premise of the Vision is to e1lSure that the regions urban core has a strong economy
and vital communities, while preserving opm space and mhancing agricultw'e beyond the core.
To achieve this outcome, the Vision calls on cities to complete the build-out of their current general plans in a
way that simullaneously achieves a high level of economic vitality, viral communities, good regional mobility,
ample educational opportunity, and sufficient housing choices. The Vision proposes that no less than 70% of the
region remain in open space and agricultural land and thar no more ,han 30% of the region be used for urban
development. And ir creates a framework for accountability: a set of specific measures has been established in
each of these areas so the residents of lhe Tri- Valley can monitor whether or not the region is progressing toward
this vision. In the future, if measures in one area go up while those in another area go down, we will know that
we must change our approach to get back on track.
.
(2 )
.
.
.
RESIDENT VALUES AND VISION GOALS
The Vision defines seven broad, interdependent goals for the ftture a/the region based on
the shared values of the residents of the Tri- Valley region, These IJalues and goals were
tested in an Aprill999 public opinion survey conducted by the Field Research Corpora-
tion. The vision gMIs are in italics, followed by the survey results:
Economic VlralilV:
Tri- Valley has it balanced and healthy economy supporting the diverse
needs of each community.
Among local residents, 78% say that it is "very importam" that Tri- Valley be a place "where
people can both live and work in the same region," and 56% say that it is "very important" that
the region "has growth in high-wage jobs and industries."
Enhancement 01 Open Space. Agriculture. and Environmental QualllV:
Tri- Valley is d distinctive region achieved by enhancing the amount of permanent open
space, increasing the amount of highly productive agricultural land, and improving envi~
ronmental quality.
Among local residents, 88% say that it is "very important" that TrirValley be a place "where
open spaces arc preserved," and 68% say that it is very importam that "agriculture is part of the
landscape."
Vnal Ceuters aud Conuecled Nelohborhoods:
Iri* Valley has vibrant, walkable rt!gional and city centers and connected neighborhoods
where housing, jobs, cultural activities, education, places of worship, shopping, entertain~
ment, and parks are clustered together.
Nine in ten local residents rate their neighborhoods as excellent or good places to live, and
more than half are active users of the downtowns and business districts ofTri-Valley cities for
entertainment, socializing with friends and neighbors, and specialty shopping.
Housing Choices:
Tri~ Vailey offers a range of attractive housing choices for people of various incomes.
Among local residents, 62% say that it is "very important" that Tri-Vallcy be a place "that has
a range of housing for people of various incomes."
RegIonal MOhililV:
Tri- Vailey has a system of efficient, user-friendly options for the mobility of people
and goods within and through the region.
Among local residents, 74% say that it is "very important" that Tri-ValLey be a place "where
people can get to work conveniently using transportation other than automobiles."
EducaUoualOpporbmllV:
Tri- Valley has a liftlong education system that is accountable to the highest
community standards.
Among local residents, 84% say that it is "very important" that the Tri-Valley be a place "that
has lifelong educational opportunities."
Regional ColtahoraUou:
Tri- Valley is a region of people and jurisdictions that work well together.
Among local residents, 89% say that it is "very important" that Iri-Valley be a place
"where people work together to improve living conditions."
(3 )
.' ~hf!
~,".~
) ~Jlm;
'The Vision proposes
that no less than 70%
of the region remain in
open space and agricul-
turalland and that no
more than 30% of the
region be used for
urban development. "
"...62% say that it is
'very importantJ' that
Tri- Valley be a place
'~hat has a range of
housingfOr people of
.' "
vanous incomes.
f',':;'" ',;.,
.,.
. "y....,
!
-\ .-
.~j\:l
j.
"
..)~~,
;: ..:~ : "; I' ,
"
~,ff.,~l:L; "
~JBm
.,)~
(~..preser:vation ofTri-
Valleys natural environ-
ment will actually help
ensure that the region
remains an attractive
location for the New
Economy in the future."
"'-~. --
'/"
~L" ~"~,-
'~'!,
,~..,.,(-.,
"-'"':7<:-
- .~..-_.,.,
"-
,;i
\.
,<,~l(, ',I "':: ,- ,~_ ':i;.' ""Ii' ~.
.;I'f\!':"-+r'i. .,..;.s-"'''''~''
_~ W.:W.f';"~ f:::!~~"-.:~i'..,~.
./
.1
The Vision is ambitious, but reasonable.
The Vision supportS continued housing and commercial developmem, bur insists that it be carefulJy designed
to protect important regional values such as open space, agriculture, economic viralicy, vital communities,
regional mobility, and housing choices. It supportS the current general plans and planning boundaries of the
region's five cities, but asks that the cities and counties hold to those boundaries. In this way, the urban core of
the Tri- Valley region will never account for more than 30% of the region's landscape, leaving 70% for open
space and agriculture. Currently, developed land covers 16% of the region. So, the Vision allows for future
urban development, but insists that no more than an additional 14% of the region's land be converted to
residential or commercial uses. In addition, any new urban development should be clustered in and around
existing cities. The vision also welcomes any redevelopment of existing developed lands if it produces a higher-
qualiry urban use.
The Vision is optimistic, but also realistic.
It recognizes the economic reality that the Tri- Valley region has been and always will be a crossroads between the
coastal Bay Area and the Central Valley. As such, enormous growth pressures are constantly at work in the Tri-
Valley-especially to accommodate the broader regional need for housing. The Vision also recognizes rlw
Central Valley traffic to Silicon Valley jobs is a major reason for Tri-Valley's freeway congestion.
The region cannot change these realities by itself At the same time, doing nothing will make the situation
worse. IfTri- Valley refuses to create new jobs and housing, growing numbers of people will have little choice but
to take jobs where they are plentiful (e,g., Silicon Val]ey) and find housing where they can (e.g., the Centra]
Valley)-filling the freeways everyday with people traveling between home and work. A more realistic approach
for the Tri-Valley would be to expand jobs and housing options for local residents, so more people can live and
work closer together, while encouraging othcr regions to pursue a similar approach.
.
The Vision is also realistic in recognizing that open space and agricultural land do not ''protect
themselves"from urban development.
A vision of open space and agriculture surrounding a contained urban core is not guaranteed. We believe that
ollly "economically secure" land in the form of protected open space and highly productive agriculture are likely
to withstand the inevitable pressures of urban development. Today, 22% of the region's land is protected open
space. To grow this amount will require that addirionalland be permanently protected through private or
public acquisition or other means. Today, about 2% of the region's land is in irrigated agriculrure, almost
entirely in grape vineyards. To grow this amount will require significant increases in water delivered to areas of
the region that today have little if any irrigation infrastructure.
By 2010, surrtJuJJding the five Tri- Valley cities will be a complete ''economically secure greenbelt"-
a combination ofpermanent~y protected open space and highly profitable agriculture.
Expanding vineyard acreage and thar of other irrigated agriculture will be a key to the vision. The region is one
of the oldest wine-producing areas of California. The Vision is to build on that heritage as an important way of
preserving the rural character of the region, while also developing a homegrown economy of clean, high-wage,
knowledge-intensive industry. In fact, preservation ofTri- Valley's natural environment will actually help ensure
that the region remains an attractive location for the New Economy in the future.
r'-"
'.
.
(4 )
.
.
~
LJi
~ ~,
,
..
Buildout of Current
General Plans
."
., ...,
{oj 0
.....,~.\.~~
\~ ".~..;:: ."~-~":
> .
L
~
Boundary of Tn-Vallev Region
,V Future Study Area
N Sphere of Inrluence
of TVR Cities
" Urban LImit Line
' ..
D CityUmit&
N County line
D PUbflc/vAccesioible
Protected land
~ Other Protected Land
D Developed Area..
D Vineyards
D Potential Irrigated Agriculture
-0- Ca. Highways
. ~ Intet5tate Routes
~
o
~
G"""'~
N_~
(5)
p.,
1, \;.. :J
:~i
'~
o.
'.
" ~f" ~ i;....
\..ii;.n.;...;:,.,
WHY THE NEW ECONOMY WANTS THE LNABLE COMMUNITY
A strong, natural rie exists bet\veen lhe New Economy and the Livable Communities movements
of recem years with its emphasis on morewalkable town centers and neighborhoods, easier access
to public transir, and an integrated mix of housing, workplaces, shops, and civic facilities. The
New Economy is based on new ways that business operates and new ways that people work. The
post-World War II industrial economy was characterized by large, vertically integrated compa-
Ilies whose success was linked to high-volume, standardized, low-cost production by a large,
stable workforce working within a strong hierarchical corporate culture. The new ecollomy is
characterized by networks of specialized firms working together ro innovate and compete in fast-
changing markets. The emphasis now is on innovation, knowledge, quality, speed, and flexibility,
and nothing is more important to rhe success of individual firms than the skilled people they can
retain and attract.
The New Economy values:
Place
Place matters in the llew economy. The most creative, innovative work in the new economy
occurs primarily in face-to-face exchange within teams, where people live and work in close
proximity. Electronic communications are important, but arc not a substitute for the [fUSt,
shared experience, and imense interpersonal interaction essemial for the innovation process.
Vilal CenlerS
Vital city and neighborhood centers are increasingly important not JUSt as quality-of-life ameni-
ties, but as places for planned and spontaneous networking. Innovation is at its core a social
process. Instead of placing workers in isolated office parks or plants built on greenfidds, many
ne\v economy companies want to be in more stimulating, mixed-use environments.
Onnn Spaco/Nalurallnvlronment
The new economy values the natural environment as an important asset, because knowledge
workers value access to greenspace, outdoor recreation, and clean air. Increasingly, these workers
have more loyalty to a particular place~and its unique quality of life-than to a particular
employer.
Sneed and MobililU
The new economy comperes Oil speed and productivity. New economy companies put a pre-
mium on efficient movement of people, informarion, and goods. Congestion is no longer just a
source of frustration, but a significant, quantifiable economic cost and talent drainer.
Cboice: ProllimilU 01 Home and Work
Community design must accommodate the increasingly diverse work and life patterns that char-
acterize the new economy, providing people with meaningful choices of whete and how they live.
Not only is today's workforce more diverse by typical measures-gender, age, race, ethnicity-
but people no longer experience life in predictable patterns. The new economy argues for a more
integrated mix ofhollsing within communities~so that people can remain connected to places
and relationships a~ their lives change-and proximity of homes to workplaces.
(6 )
.
.
.
.
.
The visioll is multidimensional
We know that open space is only one indispensable ingredient. We must have viral communities. We must
ensure that people have choices-in transportation and housing. We muSt ensure that residents have educa-
tional opportunity from children in school to adults going back [0 school to keep pace with the New Economy.
we must move all these goals forward together (Figure J).
If we fall behind on one or more of them, our region will sufTer. If we lose our open space and environmental
quality, we will lose our attractiveness for people and companies in the new economy that are creating jobs for
our residents.
FIGURE I
Open Space,
Economic Agriculture,
Vitality and Quallty
Environment
Educational Regional Vital Centers
and Connected
Opportunity Collaboration Neighborhoods
"-
RegIonal Housing
Mobility Choices
By the same token, if we successfully
protect open space hut undermine our
economy, we will not have the funds
to invest in our communities. Com-
munity services wil! have to be CLlt
back; investment in downtowns and
other commercial centers will decline.
If we manage to preserve open space
and maintain our economicvitaliry but
fail to build housing For people with a
range of incomes, we will force many
of them (0 commute long distances to
wotkherc.
Where we Stand TOday: W7e Enjoy a High Quality of Life, but Pressures Are Growing
For each goal of the Vision, several measures of progress have been chosen. These indicators will be examined
annually to chart progress and shape actions that will help Tri-Valley achieve its positive future (See Figure 2).
Across these indicators, the inescapable conclusion is that we enjoy a high quality of life. It is also clear rim
pressures on that quality of life are growing-from traffic congestion to air quality to housing affordability.
Fears are growing that we may not be able to maintain our quality of life-that if we don't do things differently,
we could lose what we value most. These fears arc legitimate.
. Also no guarantee exists that our economic vitality will continue indefinitely if we do not ensure that
our region provides adequate educational opportunity, housing choices, and environmental quality.
. No guarantee exists that traffic congestion will cease, unless we take steps to stimulate more transpor-
tation options and design our furure development to allow more people to choose other ways to travel
III our reglOn.
.
No guarantee exists that urban development will not consume the rural landscape, unless we take steps
to enhance permanent open space and agriculture.
We must attend to each part of our Vision, monitoring progress in each area. We must take action that pulls all
the pieces together, emuring alignment of the widely shared values of the residents of the Golden Valley.
The following sections of this document describe the Vision Goals and measures the progress in more detail,
with a list of data sources at the end. The document concludes with a call to action for the region.
.
(7)
"Fears are growing that
we may not be able to
maintain our quality of
life-that if we don't do
things diffirently, we
could lose what we
value most. These fears
I .. "
are egltzmate...
o.
{:
" ~/Ie
/JtoiBm
~~
FIGURE 2
MEASURES OF PROGRESS TO THE VISION OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
.
SEVEN GOALS OF REGIONAL VISION 1999 STATUS & DIRECTION
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Local Jobs for Residents
Economic Diversity
Job Quality and Career Opportunity
Good Place to Stan a Business
ENHANCEMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURE,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Acreage of Permanently Protected Open Space
Acreage of Highly Productive Agricultural Land
EfEciem Use of Land and Resources.
Connected Open Space (miles of connected trails)
Outdoor Recreation Uses
Air Quality (violation of ozone standards)
VITAL CENTERS AND
CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
Resident Satisfaction with Region and Neighborhoods
Regional and Neighborhood Safety
Neighborhood Connecredness (access to community
amenities, such as stores, schools, parks, restaurants)
Neighborhood Connectedness (interactions among neighbors)
Resident Use ofTri-Valley City and Regional Centers
Clustering of New Jobs, Housing, and Transit
Strong Performance,
Needs Ongoing Attention
48% to 59% since 1980
Strong, sustained growth
Growing opportunities
Strong entrepreneurship
Mixed Results,
Much Progress Needed
22% of total region
Low amount, but growing
Development consuming
Fewer acres per capita
Very little progress
Frequent use of outdoors
Worsening trend
.
Strong Performance,
Some Progress Needed
High satisfaction
Excellent
Access to key community
amenities for most
50% actively interact
with neighbors
Most use centers across the
region, half actively
Most new jobs, no new housing
close to transit
.
(8)
.
.
HOUSING CHOICES Limited Choices,
Much Progress Needed
Regional Jobs/Housing Match Growing mismatch
Availability of Housing Choices Limited bUl improving options
Workforce Housing for Critical Service Professionals Many cannot live in the region
(e.g., teachers, police officers, firefighters, child-care workers) where they work
Expansion of Housing for Moderate and Low Income Residell~ Very little expansion
REGIONAL MOBILITY Serious Congestion,
Much Progress Needed
How Long It Takes to Get to Work Getting longer
Freeway and Street Congestion Freeways much WOfse,
Streets are okay for now
Expansion ofTransponarion Choices Growing llse of alternatives
to driving alone (now 20%)
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Mixed Results,
Progress Needed
Public School Capaciry Close to or exceeding capacity
in some areas; expansion is
under way
Student Performance Good results overall,
(elementary school level, high school level) but one-third of third~graders
score below national average
Student Access to Pomecondary Education 41 % of HS seniors meet
(Percent meeting University of California UClCSU requirements
and California State University course requirements)
Access to Lifelong, Continuing Educatiori Strong access
REGIONAL COLLABORATION Good Foundation Ltlid,
Mon' Progress Needed
Regional Identity Half of residents strongly
identify, and half do not
Citizen Engagement' Broad base of giving
and volunteerism
Commitment to Regional Collaboration Strong citizen support;
Growing cooperation
among jurisdictions
.
(9 )
1~'
~~.~
~j..
'j
..,
p fifD~....,\.,
'~~:~
. '.. '..;\i"',
.1 '':., \{W-j !l,
,..I " ,,' "':...~.~,..,J_l.';.,ll. ,':
, .j~ 'r.. ~\"'\ J, ,"
~/Il'
~mm
'W~
HIVe wa1lt people to be
able to choose to live
close to work, giving
tbe'm more time with
their pmilies a1ld less
. l {;. "
tune on tJe l,eeways.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
.
Vision
We maintain a balanced and healthy regional economy stlpponing the diverse needs of each community. Eco-
nomic vica[iry makes all other dements of the regional vision possible. It generates tax revenue and developer
fees that help pay for high-quality public services and parks. It provjdes incomes for local residents so they in
rurn can afford local housing and can suppaH local downtowns and business districts. If we ensure that our
economic vitality includes agriculture, it can also preserve our rural landscape. Economic vitality gives liS
choices, including the ability to acquire and permanently protect open space that is highly valued by the people
of our Valley.
We want a vital economy that creates and sustains healthy businesses-firms that are continuously improving
their products and services, seeking new markets, and acting as good corporate citizens. Our economy will
continue to be driven by a diverse set of expanding industry dusters that provide a range of employment
opportunities. Clusters are a geographic concentration of interdependent firms that provide a region with a
competitive advamage. These dusters of healthy businesses will grow and support high-quality community
services through tax revenues. They will produce homegrown company headquarters to complement branch
plants of firms based elsewhere. We will leverage our national laboratories and technology companies in terms
of entrepreneurial spin-offs.
Businesses in these clusters will be supported by competitively priced and readily available infrastructure and by
dose working relationships among all sectors of the community. We recognize that to keep our economy vital,
we must provide water, electricity, telecommunications, and other essential infrastructure. For example, ac-
cording to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the demand for electricity in the region is likely to
exceed the capacity of the region's electric power sysrem by 2002. PG&E is currently working with the commu~
nity to develop plans for upgrading the system. Given the region's strong shift to technology- and elcctricity-
intensive industries of the New Economy, the outcome of this process is extremely important.
.
We want to give coday's Tri-Valley children the opportunity to live and work in the region as adults in 2010.
Measures of Progress
Measure #1: lOcal Jobs lor Residents
We want our region to be economically strong enough to provide employment for our residents. We do not
want to be predominantly a bedroom community that requires people to commute long distances to work. We
want people to be able to choose to live dose to work, giving them more time with their families and less time
on rhe freeways. The measure we use is the percentage of residents who hold jobs in one of the five cities of the
region, taken from the 1999 Tri-Valley Communi[y Survey and the U.S. Census.
How Are W'e DOirlg? Our Region Is Increasingly Providing Jobs for Local Residents
. A much higher percentage of residents arc working in the region, despi[e a huge population increase in the
pas[ cwo decades. In 1980,48% of residents worked in the Tri-Vallcy. Between 1980 and 1999, the
region's population grew by 200%. However, by 1999, our economic vitality has enabled us to accommo~
date a growing proportion of residents in local jobs. Today, 59% of residents work in the Tri~Valley.
.
(]O )
.
.
.
Maasure #2: Economic OlversllV
We want our region to offer a growing diversity of jobs and industries and avoid being dependent on a narrow
industry base. Diversification is our insurance against decline in any particular industry or cutbacks by a large
employer. It also provides our residents with more regional choices for employment and less need to commure
outside the region for jobs. We measure economic diversity by how well we develop the key, driving sectors of
our economy: scientific and biomedical devices and materials, communications services and suppaH, and soft-
ware services and suppOrt.
How Are we Doing? Our Region Is Rapidly DiversifYing its Economy
. The region added morc than 37,000 jobs in the six years between 1992 and 1998, representing a total
growth rate of 32% and an average annual growth rate of 4.8%.
. The region has three industry dusters that drive its economy and that are very strong for a region of this
size. Employment in scientific/biomedical devices and materials is 14 times more concentrated in the Tri-
Valley region than in the nation; likewise, employment in communications services and support is 10
times more conccmrated in Tri-Valley than in the nation. Employment in software development and
support is almost twice as concemrated as in the nation.
. In 1998, these dusters together employed 23,697, an increase of 10% since 1992. In 1998,421 firms
were in these dusters, an increase of77% since 1992. The three dusters added 2,148 jobs between 1997
and 1998, with scientific/biomedical devices and materials leading other clusters with a job gain of I ,395.
.
In 1998, total jobs in the three indumy dusters represetHed more than 15% of the jobs in the region, but
accounted for more than 18% of total job gains in [he region. Between 1997 and 1998, the region gained
12,006 jobs, with 2,148 of those jobs in the region's industry dusters. ]n addition, the dusters create jobs
in the reSt of the economy (e.g., retail, services).
Number 01 Iri-Vallev Jobs, 2nd Quarter 1992tbrough 1998
Source: Employment Development Department
Significant Job Growth During the 19905
175,000
150,000
.
"
~
, 125,000
i
E
.
z
100,000
75,000
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
(11)
"we want reside1lts to
experience real increases
in their wages. "
.~~
~JJ
....~~
.".'" -!
ll'>t:,.\ ...
)rt'~-
CL
Size, Concentration and Growth Rate of Tri-Vallev Cluster Indnstries
.
Source: Employment Development Departmenl
Regional Economy Becoming More Diverse
c
.2
~ c-
o 0
~ Ii
c .
o 0>
o ~
.
c >
. .
E "
~2.
0.
E
w
, / :'cienrt~Biomedlcal
,t Devices ,nd Materials
~': /
(
~::t Ions
SelViG
Software
Development 0.-
Support
\ )
~
-0.05
5%
30%
10%
15%
20"/"
25%
o 0
Average Annual Growth Rate. 1992 to 1998
Measure #3: Job QualllY and Career Opponunilv
We want nO[ only a diverse mix of employment opportunities for residents, but improvement in job quality and
career opportunities over time. We want residents to experience rral increases in their wages. And we want
them to have [he choice to se. down roms and build a career in the Colden Valley, and nO[ have to leave the
region to seek a better job as their career advances. To assess job quality and career opportunity, we examine .
wage rates and survey results.
How Are we Doing? Our Region Offirs High, Growing wages find Good Career Opportunities
. The average wage for all Tri-Valley industries is 540,945, which is comparable to the Bay Area average
wage. The average wage of the three cluster industries was $60,877 Software leads all cluster industries
with an average annual wage of570,759.
. Three-fourths of ]ocal residen[s me the Tri-Valley region as an excellent or good place to "advance ones
career.
THI QUAlITY-Ol-llFl CLUSnR
!WINI. UFISTYll NOSPITAIITY SIRVICIS)
Tri-Yalley has another cluster that contributes to the region's quality oflife in a different way than do its
other dusters. The region has a duster of wine, lifestyle, and hospitality services that are importam for
both local residems and visitors. The value of the cluster is less in job creation (the average wage is below
the regional average) than in supporting a highly attractive quality oflife in (he region. Growth in this
cluster will further enhance (he natura] and commercia] amenities amacrive to ]ocal residems, especially
those highly skilled wotkers who would like to live and work in a region rich with quality job opportu~
nities and qua]ity-of-]ife amibures. This cluster also helps generate new revenue for the region from
visitors, including customers of companies in the other clusters. And in terms of wine and other highly
productive agricultura] uses, growth in acreage means preservation of rural landscape as a comp]emem to
the region's urban core.
.
( 12)
.
.
.
Average pav Per Emplovee, 1994-1991
SOUfce: EmploymenlDevelOpmenl Department
Regional Wages Growing
80000
~
.---" .
:::-- -
~
>
..-----------
;1
70000
60000
50000
__ Software Development &
Support
__ Scientific/Biomedical Devices &
Materials
-.---4-- Communications Services &
Support
~ Tri-Valleyaverage
40000
30000
zoooo
10000
o
1994
1995
1996
1997
Measore #4: Good Place 10 Stan a Bosloess
We believe that constant innovation and entrepreneurship is critical (0 our economic vitality. We want our
region to be a good place to start a business-people with marketable ideas should be able to find a welcoming
environment and support in the Golden Valley. If we are an entrepreneurial center, then we will be consrandy
reinventing our economy, expanding economic opponuniry, and keeping pace in the global marketplace. To
evaluate how good our region is for starting a business, we measure the net growth in business establishments,
with particular attention to our three industry clusters.
How Are we Doing? Our Region Is a Growing Hub of Entrepreneurial Activity
. The number of business establishments in the Tri- Valley increased from more than 6,000 in 1992 to
7,659 in 1997, an average annual growth rate of 4%. In comparison, in the Bay Area, average annual
growth in the number of business establishments was 2% between 1992 and 1997.
. In 1992, there were 18 new business formations across the three industry clusters; by 1997, there were 52
new business formations. Most new business formations occur in the software development and suPPOrt
duster. Since 1992, the dustet industries have created 233 new businesses.
. These businesses are finding places to locate across the region. In addition to zoned commercial and
industrial locations, there are 4,925 licensed horne-based businesses within the Tri-Valley.
(13 )
gp//IJ
/J;p..~ .~~
~~
'~..people with market-
able ideas should be abk
to find a welcoming
enl!ironment and support
in the Golden Valky."
, ~!tr
~.~tBtm
~~
r..-.~ _.__
lL
';';J,
Total Cluster New Business Formations bV Year, 1992 thron9h 1991
.
Source: Employment Development D8pa~m8nt
Slrong Clusler Enlrepeneurship
60
so
.
0
~ '0
"
e
0
.
.
. 30
~
~
.
"'
.i 20
j
z
10
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
o Software Development & Support . Commmunication Services & Support 0 Scientific/Biomedical Devices & Materials
HOW ECONOMIC VITALITY CONTRIBUTES TO QUALITY OF LIFE
The Tri-Valley has been fortunate (0 aman a diversiry of growing and competitive businesses. These
businesses contribute to the 'Jri- Valley's gualicy of life in several ways-through the payment of taxes
and fees (including sales [ax, property tax, and connection fees), through mostly higher-thall-average
wages paid to local residents, through charitable contributions, and through volumeerism 011 local
commissions and in the schools. As local businesses become more productive, they pay higher wages
and purchase more products from local suppliers. As they grow, they increase the property tax base
within the region.
.
Cities receive revenues from five major sources: sales tax; property tax; transient occupancy tax
(hotds); otht.'r taxcs, fines, and pcnalties; and service fees and permits (building permits, business
licenses, etc.). The most significant source of income is the sales tax. Also, local businesses are the
source of wages for about 60% of residents, which allows households to buy goods and services on
which they pay sales tax, as well as homes on which they pay property tax. As. such, the ability oflocal
government to provide fire and police safety, maintain and improve roadways, and maintain and
operate recreational services and facilities and libraries is strongly tied to the economic vitality oflocal
businesses.
Special districts, such as BART, EaSt Bay Regional Park District, the school districts, the se\ver and
water districts, and the transit districts and transportation authorities are also runded by either sales
tax (including gas taxes) or propetty tax in addition to state and federal funds. These districts provide
specialized setvices outside the control of city or coumy government. Their ability to fund their
services is also tied to the economic vitality ofloca! businesses.
.'~
Since the mid-1980s, cities have been assessing the COStS of new development onto developers. The
purpose of these a.~sessmenrs is to pay [or the extension of public roadways into the development, and
to pay for that de\'e1opment's fair share of any ne": schools or parks required asa result of the contruction
of new homes. These "impact fees" are then added to the COSt of a new home and can add 10% to the
purchase price of lhat home.
.
( 14)
.
.
.
ENHANCEMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Vision
We wam a distinctive region, achieved by enhancing the amount of permanent open space, increasing the
amount of highly productive agriculmralland, and improving environmental quality. A combination of perm a-
oem open space and highly productive agriculture will preserve our rural heritage and landscape by 2010 and
beyond. It will ensure that residents in our urban core can enjoy the visual, recreational, and other benefits of
(he surrounding rural landscape. And, by including an emphasis on environmental quality, we will ensure that
urban and rural uses complement rather than detract from one another. In faCt, our urban, open, and agricul-
[Ural spaces will be connected. woven into an overall regional fabric.
We also believe that by preserving the rural character of the region, we will also encourage a homegrown economy
of dean, high-wage, knowledge-intensive industry. Preservation ofTri-Valley's natural environment will help
ensure that the region remains an attractive location for the New Economy in the future-an imponant asset
for attracting and retaining a highly skilled workforce.
We want to enhance the special attractiveness of our region for residents and visitors alike. We want to ensure
that our urban dwellers have the opponunicy to remain connected to our rural, agricuhurallandscape and
lifestyles. We want to preserve our unique natural features, such as our special terrain, sensitive habitats, wildlife
and riparian corridors, and biodiversity.
We believe that only "economically secure~ land in the form of protected open space and highly productive
agriculture is likely to withstand the inevitable pressures of urban development. Today, 22% of the region's land
is protected open space. To increase this amount will require that additional land be permanently protected
through private or public acquisition or other means. Today, about 2% of the region's land is in irrigated
agriculture, almost entirely in grape vineyards, To increase this amount will require significant increases in
water delivered to areas of the region that today have liule if any irrigation infrastructure.
In achieving all these ends, we recognize the importance of private property rights, the current general plans of
the cities, and the values ofTri~V:llley residents. We hope that wide acceptance and implementation of the 20 I 0
vision will provide :l higher level of certainty for residents, landowners, investors, and those responsible for
planning and delivering services. We expect that it will stimulate creative thinking and action to enhance open
space, agriculture, and environmental quality, while making progress on other aspects of the 2010 vision for the
Golden Valley,
(151
"jl7" believe that only
'economically secure' land
in the fonn of protected
open space and highly
productive agriculture is
likely to withstand the
inevitable pressures of
urban development. "
\'XO'
,.
~"":'.< :.
~";'<
-,:_' ;';',
o
.,
!.,fj'.l!';::T" ':.~"~'
~/'l'
~~
-Ad~~
Measures of Progress
Measure #1: Amount of Pennanent Open Space and Highl, ProduCOVe Agriculture
Two kinds of rural land uses will be critical to providing a realistic ahernative to the pressures of future urban
development. The entire regional vision is at risk if the acreage of permanently protected open space and highly
productive agriculture is /lor increased significamly in the next decade. Without effons co enhance these rural
uses, namral market forces will inevitably lead to the expansion of urban boundaries. Polirically determined
urban growth boundaries have proved permeable without strong countervailing economic forces. Our vision is
to creatc these economic forces by removing land from possible purchase for urban use and shifting land imo
higher-value agricultural uses that can compece with urban developmem in the marketplace,
How Are we Doing? Only a Small Fraction ofOllr Region Is Pennanent Open Space
or Highly Productive Agriculture
. Twemy~two percem of the land of the Tri- Valley region is currently permanently protected open space.
Some nOllurban, nonagricuhuralland that is open for recreationalllse (e.g., urban parks and other open
spaces under five acres, golf courses, public school fields) is not included in this percenragc-making the
(Otal acreage likely (0 remain in nonllrban use somewhat higher than 22%,
. '1".'0 percent of the land of the 'Ii-i-Valley region is currently devoted (0 producing grapes.
( 16)
.'
.
e
\
\
,V Future Study Area
N Sphere of Influence
of lVR Cities
:',,/ Urban Limit line
D ClryUmlh;
N County line
D Publicly Acce&/loible
Protected Land
FiJI Other Protecled Land
D Developed Area.
D Vineyard&
D Potential Irrigated ~riculture
-0- Ca. Hjghwa~
.fir Inlel"6tate Routel>
. G;.. /;::\
.
"
Tri-Valley Region
As of 1999
"
'-
.
~~
o
~
G,eenlnfo
Network
( 17)
/Jmm
~~
we must be particularly
creative about how we use
our current urban land
and land designated for
fitture urban development
under city general plans. "
Measure #2: Enicient land and Resource Use
Because the vision ends the unlimited expansion of our urban core into the mrallandscapt, we must be panicu-
larly creative about how we use our current urban land and land designated for future urban development under
city general plans. In short, we must be efficient in our use oEland. One way (Q keep track oEhow efficiently we
develop in the future is to compare our population growth rate and the rate at which we consume our previously
undeveloped land for urban use. In other words, we will monitor how many new people we add per acre of
newly developed land. We also want CO be mindful of how efflciently we use other important resources. As an
indicator of resource efficiency, we will monitor our per capim use of water.
.
How Are we Doing? Our Region Has Begun to Use Land and water More Efficiently
in the Past Decade
.
The Tri-Valley region is consuming fewer acres per person in 1995 than it did in 1985. In 1995, there
were 4.8 people per acre, and in 1985 there were 4,2 people per acre,
.
Water use has increased steadily between 1990 and 1998, increasing at an average annual rate of 1 %,
though at a lower rate than population growth. The region's population has increased 24% in the past
eight years, so per capita use of water has actually declined.
Water Use, Population Growth. and Housing Inventorv.199o through 1998
Source:Zone7,EBMUD.CalilomiaDepartmentofFinance
Region Using Water More Efficiently
300,000
.
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
1990
-+-
1991 1992
1993
1994 1995
4-Population
1996
1997 1998
~Housin9
Water Use in Acre-Feet
,
(18)
I
.
Measure #3: Cenneeled Onen Soaee
The 2010 vision calls for no urban core surrounded by a connected greenbelt comvosed of permanent open
space and highly productive agriculture. One important measure of progress toward the vision is how well we
afe connecting our open spaces-both to protect our rural landscape and to ensure that the people of the Tri-
Valley have wide access co open space. An indicator of connected open space is (he number of miles of trails and
how the amount and location of these trails changes over time.
How Are U7e Doing? Our Regions Open Space Is Not Well-Connected by Trails
. Currently, there are a cora] of 126 miles of trails in the Tri-Valley region, with only eight miles having been
added in the past ten years. In addition, Zone 7 has, wherever possible, worked closely with cities and
park districts to allow trails on access roads and even bridges over arroyos.
Measure #4: OOldoor Reereadon Uses
We value our open space for many reasons. One important aspect of our quality of life is outdoor recreation.
We want beautiful scenery, but we also want people to be able to experience the region through their choice of
outdoor activities. Ifwe achieve our open-space goals, but do not adequately maintain and enhance our outdoor
recreation for the residents of the Golden Valley, we will not have succeeded. We wam to ensure and encourage
wide access and use of our open spaces (including parks and athletic fields). A:; a measure, we surveyed residents
about their outdoor recreation activities.
How Are we Doing? Tri- Valley Residents Value Outdoor Recreation and Use Local and Regional
Parks Frequently
.
Overall, about four in ten residems could be called "active" users of open space. Most users visit neighbor-
hood parks (62% of residents visit such parks at least once per month). A smaller percentage actively use
a bicycle or jogging trail (47%), visir a regional park (39%), use a hiking or horseback rrail, or use athleric
field (33%). A fifth of residents use a public golf course at least once a month.
.
% Tri-Vallcv Residents Engaging in the Following Outdoor Activities
At least Once a Month
Source: Tri.Valley Communily Survsy
Many Residents Active Uses of the Outdoors
70%
62%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Visit a
neighborhood
park
Use a bicycle or
jogging trail
Use an athletic
field
Use a public golf
course
Visit a regional
parkin Alameda
or Contra Costa
County
Use a hiking or
horseback trail
t
(19 )
< r&ha
/J;~
~-1J
':.. w" want beautiful
scenery, but we also
want people to be able
to experience the region
through their choice of
outdoor activities. "
~IB
~Bm
"'W~
. n"'~,__
"~I, j
,.~'!<~ '
F'IO;:, '~
~~
~.__ I
\ "}---~'~~:' 0
1ij\1fl~",
J.;~...
Q.,
,
,
Measure #5: Air Quain,
Our vision is one of maiIHaining or improving the level of quality in urban and rural settings in the Golden
Valley-the quality ofborh our urban and rural environments. Air quality is a filOdamemaI indicuor of bow
well we are achieving our goal. It is a measure of how well we are managing to address (he sources of poor air
quality: auwmobile traffic, including congestion caused by traffic originating outside the region. Whereas we
are not solely w blame for our air-pollution problem, we will have to take responsibility for solving it, \vorking
with surrounding regions, or allow our region to suffer the consequences.
t
How Are \.fie Doing? The Region E\:ceeds Ozone Standards More Often) Even Allowing
for Climate Vtlriatiol1s
. Whereas climate variations have caused significant year-w-year fluctuations in the air quality of the Tri-
Valley region, the long-term trend in the past decade is wward increasing violations of state and federal
ozone standards. The region typically exceeded federal ozone standatds less than three days per year in the
early 19905; after 1995, the region exceeded these standards about rwice as often-six or more days per
year. The exception was 1997, when rhe region met dIe federal standard every day of the year, thanks to
beneficial weather patterns. With changing climatic conditions, 1998 resumed the long-term trend of
increasing violations of ozone st<lndatds.
. The Tri- Valley region tailed to meet California's more stringent ozone standards on 20 or more days
during three of the pasr four years. Before that time, the region exceeded the California standard mostly
in the range of 5 to 15 days.
"
.
I,
Source:BAAQMD
Ozone Pollution Increasing
18.00
1600
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
-+-- C~lifomia
.......... F"!d"!r~1
...... Linear (Califomia)
.....Linear(Federal)
'B",.donthrecycaraverag.
.
(20 )
I
.
.
.
HOW QUALITY OF LIFE CONTRIBUTES TO ECONOMIC VITALITY
Quality of life is the product of continuous collaboration benveen the economy and community.
Businesses rely on the community's assets-skilled workers, information networks, quality of life,
responsive government-for their competitive advantage. The community relies on businesses ro
create opportunities for people, invest in infrastructure, and share responsibility for improving the
region. Understanding the link oCf1.veen a region's economic vitality and quality oflife is an impor-
tam foundation for the collaborative effort among the region's business, government, education,
and community leaders to move toward the vision of the Golden Valley.
In the New Economy, quality of life is an increasingly important facror to businesses, because
people are their most importam asset. People-particularly skilled workers and enrrepreneurs-
choose to live in places that offer both attractive career opportunities and an attractive lifestyle.
Companies increasingly move to, start up, and grow wherever the talent for the New Economy
wants to live. Firms in technology businesses-communications, sofrware or scientific/biomedical
devices, and materials-ot that employ highly skilled workers place more importance on quality-of-
life facwrs when making business location decisions. And once setrled in a community, they work
hard to main their skilled workers; if their workers perceive the quality oflife to be declining, they
will leave.
New Economy workers are attracted TO economic regions that have a distinctive quality oflife. Few
economic regions can compare with the Tri-Valley's pastoral, small-town ambiance-its rolling hills,
hidden valleys, meandering rivers, fields of vineyards, and unique, historical downtowns. In the
Tri-Valley, New Economy workers can live within minutes of outdoor recreation, historic inns,
wine tasting, and the countryside. Agriculture, especially vineyards, and natural areas are a unique
asset and provide economic valuc to thc companies located in the region in rim they attract skilled
workers to the region and to the companies.
The Tri-Valley's wine, lifestyle, and hospirality industry plays an integral part of the Tei-Valley's
quality of life. The wineries are both an importalH part of the quality of life of local residents and an
anracror for visitors. The global market for wine and tourism is growing, and other California wine
regions have enjoyed signil1calH growth in visitor spending. A5 the number of highly educated,
younger households grows in the Tri- Valley, so will the local demand for wine, lifestyle, and hospi-
tality services. And, as the number of wineries grows, so will the number of visitors to the tegion,
adding ro the regional economy and further supporting irs quality oflife.
People have always been attracted to places of natural beauty. Increasingly, the New Economy
recognizes that protecting the natural environment is in its long-term self-interest. Quality of life
has become a community's most valuable asset. Quality-of-life resources need to be managed for
theit long-rerm contribution to the community. Just as companies now compete on quality, so too
will communities compete on quality of life.
(21 )
~ ~/Ie
~~
'~
,",'
i~~:
."'~:il
,
,<', ~ :-
1i\QI
(1-
':.1.,."..'\<,
,,]i'i ;ji,,;,'
"Vital centers and
connected neighborhoods
create a distinctive
identity for the region. "
1
VITAL CENTERS AND CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
.
Vision
We want a vibrant urban core, where people aft strongly satisfied with the neighborhoods in which to live and
the downtowns, business districts, and other centers in which thr:y SOC~'dh2e, shop, and enjoy a range of commu-
nity arnenities. We wall[ vibrant, walkable regional and city centers, and connected neighborhoods where hous-
ing, jobs, cultural activities, education, places of worship, shopping, emenainmem, and parks are clustered
rogether.
Vital centers and connected neighborhoods create a distinctive identity for the region. Together, they tell the
story of the region's history and culture through its buildings, plazas, events, and monuments. They are places
where distinctive amenities are found-such as performing arts cetHers or botanical gardens. And, they are the
incubators of its futute, places where people mect to cxchange ideas, initiate new projects, and stan new ven-
TUres.
Vital ceruns and connened neighborhoods have many benefits-helping achieve many aspects of the overall
2010 vision of the Golden Valley. Vibrant centers are places for people-to walk, shop, socialize, play, and
conducl business. Investment in vibrant centers encourages social activity, through attention to the scale,
design and use of its buildings, the design of its streets, and the mix and proximity of uses.
When places to live, work, shop, and socialize are close to one another and designed to create a sense of safety
and facilitate interaction, people have more choices for meeting their needs. Mobility is easier because walking,
biking, and using public transit are safer and more convenient. Public resources are conserved because infra-
Structure is used more efficiently. People drive less, so less pressure is put on air quality. Urban deve10pmeru is
focused within regional and city centers instead of at the peripheries, allowing agriculture to remain
economically viable.
.
Measures of Progress
Measure #1: Resident SaUslaction with Ihe Region and Neighborhnods
The bottom-line measure for whether or not the region has produced a mix of vital centers and connected
neighborhoods is simply how residents feel about where they live. We want people to feel strongly positive
about their region as a place to live. We also value this region as a place to raise a family and want to ensure that
we stay strong on that measure as we progress toward our 2010 vision.
How Are W7e Doing? Almost All Residents Believe That Our Region Is a Good Place
to Live and Raise a Family
. Mote than 90% of residents rate the region as an excellent or good place to live (95%) and raise a family
(93%). In each case, 55% rated rhe region as "excellent," the highest level of sarisfaction. Although
survey results suggest that virTUally all residents feel good about living in the tegion, at least 45% or more
presumably believe that room still exists to improve-to enhance the already "good" quality oflife of the
Golden Valley.
. Similarly, 95% of residents rate their neighborhood as an excellent or good place to live. In this case, 60%
say [heir neighborhood is an "excellent" place ro live,
.
(22 )
.
.
.
Measure #2: Regional and Neighborhood SlIfe"
Another basic measure oEvital centers and connected neighborhoods is safety. When measures of safety are low
or decline, we believe that it is an indicator of disconnected neighbors and a lack of broader regional cohesion.
We believe that safety is barh realicy and perception-and that both aspects are important. We will monitor
both actual violent crime rates and how safe people feel in their neighborhoods to get a fuller picture of regional
and neighborhood safety.
How Are we Doing? Residents Believe That Their Neighborhoods Are Safe and
the Regions Crime Rate Is Low
. Tri-Valley residents were asked in a survey how safe they believe their neighborhood is for children. We
asked this question assuming that if a neighborhood is safe for its most vulnerable members (i.e., chil-
dren), it is safe fot othets. Almost evety survey respondent (96%) agreed that their neighborhood is safe
for children. About seven in ten residents said they "agree Strongly"; about three in ten residents felt less
strongly, saying that they "agree somewhat" that their neighborhood is safe for children.
. Relative to the state, the Tri-Valley region h~s a low crime rate. In addition, violent crimes dropped 11 %
bef\.veen 1990 and 1997; crimes per 100,000 population dropped from 240 to 156 compared to thesrate's
highet tate of 1 ,050 to 790.
Violent Crime Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990 through 1991
VIolent Clime- Willful Homicide. Forcible Rape, Aggravated Assault
Source: FBI. California Dept 01 Justica
Low Crime Rate
12DO
1000
~
800
.,.
coo
<00
-
200
-
1990
1991
1996
1997
1992
~California
1993
1994
1995
_Tri-Valley
(23 )
r/?) C@/le
~tB~
I~~
<i~,1!!l~12 ...it~"
. rlJ)he
fj;ol>>m
~a#~
"Residents are more
likely to report that their
neighbors are active in
putting together orga-
nized activities if there is
a place in the neighbor-
hood where neighbors
can meet and socialize. J)
Measure #3: Neiuhborllood Connectedness
We value mong, connected neighborhoods, where residems have opportunities to get CO know their neighbors,
socialize with them, and work together to make their neighborhoods bener. We asked residents several survey
questions to evaluate the level of neighborhood connectedness-focusing on the level of neighbor-to-neighbor
interaction,
.
How Are we Doing? Neighborhoods Are Loosely Connected, but Not Isolated
Most residents believe tha.t their neighborhood achieves at least a basic measure of connection. A totaJ of
82% agree that "my neighbors talk and socialize with each other"; 73% disagree that "my neighborhood
feels isolated from surrounding neighborhoods."
.
However, on a measure of broader and deeper neighborhood connection, only 50% of residents agree that
"people in my neighborhood are active in putting together organized activities such as picnics, block
parties, and volunteer effortS." People certainly do look for and make deeper connections beyond their
neighborhood (e.g., sports leagues and a variery of clubs and volunteer opportunities on a city or regional
level), bur it does appear that the level of neighborhood connectedness in the region could be enhanced.
.
Residents are more likely to report that their neighbors are active in putting together organized activiTies
if there is a place in the neighborhood where neighbors can meet and socialize. 65% of the survey
respondents who have a place in their neighborhood where people can meet and socialize agree "strongly"
or "somewhat" That neighbors are active in putting together organized activities such as picnics, block
parties, and volunteer efforts. On the orher hand, 40% of respondents who did not have such places in
their neighborhood agreed "strongly" or "somewhat" that neighbors are active in putting together orga-
nized activities.
NeighbOrS are active in puning
together organized activities
such as picnics, block parties
and volunteer efforts
Not reported
3%
Strongly agree
21%
.
Strongly disagree
21%
Somewhat disagree
26%
Source: Tri-ValleyCommunilySuNey
,~
6~
.
,~
,~
'"
;~
,~
,~
~
Hav..pl.ce'oneighb<Jrhoodwheren.'ghborsme.l.nd
sod.r;,e
Oonothave.pl.cetomeet.odsoci.lile
(24 )
.
.
We also sought to measure the physical dimensions of connectedness. We gave survey respondems a list
of common neighborhood amenities. Large percentages of residents report that neighborhood-serving
places and services, such as parks (97%); access to places for path walking, hiking, or other outdoor
activities (93%); elementary schools (92%); grocery stores (85%); and cafes and restaurants (65%) con-
tribute either "a great deal" or "somewlm" to the qualit)' of their neighborhoods.
.
We asked them how much they thought having each amenity contributed to the quality of a neighbor-
hood. In every case, the percentage of residents who said they had such an amenity in theiT neighborhood
exceeded the percentage of residems who believed that having such an amenity contributed a "great deal"
to the quality of the neighborhood,
.
Overall, 44% said they had a "place in their neighborhood where neighbors meet and socialize." About
four in ten residents (39%) believed that having such a place contributes a "great deal" to the quality of a
neighborhood, and another 36% believed that it contributed "somewhat" to neighborhood quality.
.
Overall, residems who have these amenities within their neighborhoods are more likely to believe that
they comribute to their neighborhood's quality. For insrance, 85% of residents repon that grocety stotes
contribute either a great deal or somewhat to the quality of their neighborhoods. Of those who actually
have a grocery store in their neighborhood, a highet percentage (97%) report that it contributes to the
quality of their neighborhood.
.
. In interpreting these findings, it is important to define the size of a neighborhood. We asked people to
define their neighborhood: about half said that it was the immediate block and surrounding blocks, and
about half defined their neighborhood as a larget area. Thus, a large percentage of residents believed that
they had these amenities in their neighborhood as they defined it. For some people, having these amenities
more than a few blocks away was fine; they defined their neighborhood as a larger area, so believed that
they had access to the range of amenities.
Moasure #4: Resident Use el Tri-Vallev City and Reulenal Contors
Many ways exist to measure the "vitality" of city and regional centers. Common measures fOCllS on financial
statistics, such as sales tax receipts, generated by residents and visitors. In addition to creating a baseline number
for total investmenr in city and regional centers, we also chose to emphasize how much people of the Tri- Valley
use the region's city and regional cemets, and for what reasons. First and foremost, we want our city and
regional centers to offer a Strong variety of choices and be llsed actively by our residents. We do not fulfill our
vision if these centers arc not well-used by residents, are used only for narrow purposes, or are primarily geared
to visitOrs from outside the region.
How Are \% Doing? Most Residents Use Tri- valley's City and Regional Centers, about Half Actively
.
Every city center is a regional center. When given a list of the downtown or business district of each of the
five Tri-Valley cities, at least 60% of residents said they visited those places at least "a few times per year."
The most visited locations were a downtown (PleasantOn) and "other regional malls and shopping cen-
ters," both of which 92% of residents visit ,j[ least a few times per year. Whereas 58% of survey respon-
dents visit the Dublin cemral business district at least once a. month, 90% of those visitors were not
Dublin residents. Likewise, whereas 62% of survey respondents visit dowmown Pleasanton once a momh
or more, 55% of those visitors are not Pleasanton residems.
.
When given a list of common activities, in each case, at least seven in ten survey respondents visited Tri-
Valley city and regional centers to engage in these activities at least a "few times per year." Activities
ranged from going out to ha.ve a me;d; to movies, music, or performanc.es; to specialty stores and busi-
nesses; to visiting places with historic atmosphere.
It
(25 )
fl/)C(plte
d?otBm
9~~
~~
;. '~~':.i~..{.~."'.;.'
i.',i~~ ':', ,~ ";
,.;.~ '"?;.":'"
~
".
, ;! ,'~)'J
I ,. r~'jt...<t,.;."
'('~'lf~' ,
'~'l, '.~1\'"
.~~{...'\
II?) r::r;/te
~~9~~
~t7~
"".it will be important to
measure how well we link
jobs, hQusing, and transit,
so as to create more choices
fi 'de "
or rest nts.
(L.
.tI,q
.~'" i
.~, ~
',~:;---~','",-. :'-~
,,' ",":" ,,..1
f
"
I.
r _"_'>,
l,' --"-~' ".'
_i:~t.~J1;-kl>{(i;'
. ,Ji\l~~.'
.
About half of the region's residents could be considered "active" users of Tri-Valley's city and regional
centers. Fifry-five percent visit a city or regional center in the Trj- Valley "to meet people and socialize with
friends" at least "1-2 times per month." A similar percentage visited city and regional ceorers as onen for
"movies, music, or performances" (54%) and "specialty stores or businesses" (50%). A higher percentage
(76%) go out co have a meal; smaller percentages go for "nightlife" (34%) or to visit places with historic
atmosphere (19%). These wtals suggest that more resident.~ could become more active users of Tri-
Valley's city and regional cemers.
.
.
We also established a financial ba5eline for "vitality" against which w measure future performance: a total
of$16.4 million was invested in theTri~Valley's city and regional centers in 1998.1
% Jri-Vallev Residents going out 01 their neighborhood lor
tbe lollowing at least once a montb
Source: TM-Valley Communily Survey
80%
-
l-
I-
- -
-
~
I- -
I-
,l- f-
.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
"
"
E
~~
:g'o.
v~
,,0
"
" u v
v c c
V 0 v
ro"~
a.!i'~
~~ 0
.;5 ~5
'Vi 3:<11
>
~ ~"
OO~
~~ ~
.~ ~:E
:>: ,
v "
'<Ii <I.l
o u
E .
crl5~
.!l;! 0
> 'to
o "
:>: ~
~"
~ ~
. 0
v~
" "
~
~
~
"
~
~
z
ro
.f'
o
o
MoasulO #5: C1ustollng 01 Now lobs, Housing, and rranslt
We want more people to be able w live and work in the Tri-Valley, get back and forth between home and work
quickly, and have more real choices than driving their automobile from place to place. Clearly, most residents
will continue to exercise their choice of using an automobile to commute to work. But, we believe that most
residents have no realistic choice beyond the automobile. They work toO far away from home to walk or bike.
And they are too far from public transit to choose that option. A5 the region moves into the future, it will be
important to measure how well we link jobs, housing, and transit, so as to create more choices for residents.
How Are we Doing? Most New Jobs Are Close to Transit, but New Housing Is Not
. Of the 3.2 million square feet of commercial/industrial space approved for construction in 1998, 3.0
million square feet (94% of the total) was located within a quarter mile of a major transit route. Of the
1,801 housing units constructed in 1998, none of them are located near a major transit toute.
t
(26 )
DOES DENSITY ALWAYS INCREASE TRAFFIC?
The residents ofehe Tri-Valley region are split on whether or not clustering of housing, jobs, and com-
mercial services is a good idea. Four in ten at lease somewhat f:1vor this approach; 49% oppose it, and
9% are uncertain. Concerns about the negative impact of density may be pan of the reason. The face is
that increased densities do not necessarily increase traffic. Multifamily housing produces fewer trips
than single-family detached housing. A study prepared for the Institute ofTransportarion Engineers
determined that apartments and condominiums generate fewer trips per unit (5.5) than single-family
detached units (0).2
At higher densities, [[amir service improves, enabling a viable alternative to the auto. Studies linking
quality of transit service to density of residential areas indicate that rhe larger and more compact the
residential neighborhoods are, the more reliable che transit service. To support a minimum level of
transit service (30-minuee headways) a minimum of seven dwelling units per net acre is necessary. More
frequent bus services would require triple the density. These studies indicate that at 50 units per acre.
transit trips can oucnumber auco trips." 4 Employment centers, too, should be designed to accommo-
date trips by transit. For employment centers to be well-served by transit, chey need to accommodate at
least 50 employees per acre, in office districts where total employmenc is roughly 10,000 jobs.
.
But density and clustering, by themselves, are noc enough. Designing the layout of the residencial or
office site so that it facilitates walking to adjacent sites and transit stops is critical to whether people will
walk. Building walls or other barriers around the development will impede walking and encourage
people to use their cars. Many ciries have developed site-design guidelines to give specific guidance to
developers on how to facilitate walking. Also, by designing residencial streets primarily for the pedes-
trian and secondarily for the car, we will increase the safety of our streets for walkers and bicyclists and
encourage less use ofautomobiJes.
.
( 27)
II?) C(j;/~
~tBm
..~~
J~
U\\!e want opportunities
for our workforce, ... to
live in OUT region and be
part of our communities. "
.~.;~;..!
'-~'-~ - .. ":'.
-:-:"-.-":.'.,
'- ""'~~'.(
'-.-.'..- - "
,
;(:J;-;::"
\ ~. ^ .,.
1'~Pf' ~ .
- -""",-";c~=_~'="dj----",-
. .. -. ~.,+:<>
,--,-
<l-
HOUSING CHOICES
Vision
We want our region to offer a range of attractive housing choices for people of various incomes. In striving for
this goal, we want to maimain high standards for quality and design.
We value communities with a variery of residents. We fall shon of our vision if we create homogeneous cities and
isolated neighborhoods. We want a regional mix of households that reflect the richness of people of different
backgrounds, talents, and generations. '~7e want 10 be able [0 provide appropriate housing options for residents as
they pass through various life stages (e.g., adults without children. families with children, retired residents). We
want opportunities for our wotkforce, especially aUf critical setvice professionals (e.g., teachers, police, firefighters,
nurses, and chiJd-c:J.re workers) to be able (Q live in our region and be part of our communities.
Providing sufficient housing choices is the collective responsibility of all the cities of the region.
Measures of Progress
Measure #1: Regional JobS/Housing Matcb
We believe it is important to work towatd a regional jobs/housing "match"-in other words, sufficient housing
for people who work in our tegion. In the long term, we believe it is bener fot the Tri- Valley that the people
who work ill our region have the opportunity to be part of our communities. The alrernative is large numbers
of daytime workets whose homes and community ties lay far beyond our region-most of whom must use our
roads and freeways to travel back and forth between regions.
We seek a Jobs/housing "match" as opposed to simply jobs/housing "balance." Simple balance is achieved when
the number of employed residents (i.e., total housing units multiplied by the numbet of workers per house- .
hold) is equal to the llumber of jobs in the region. Job/housing balance, however, does nor address the issue of
where people work relative to where they live. A community may have jobs/housing balance and still have large
numbers of people commuting into and out of the region-as the Tri- Valley docs. Whereas we will always have
some residents who choose to commme to work outside the Tri- V:J.llcy region, we would like our housing stock
and job base to be more in sync providing more people with the opportunity (Q live and work in the same
regIOn.
To measure jobs/housing match, we look first at total housing llIlits, then derive total employed residents based
on the average number of workers per household. Thc Association ofEay Area Governments (ABAG) Projec-
tions '98 indicates that employed residents per household in the Tri- Valley region in 1995 was 1.48. Next, given
census data and lhe Tri-Valley Community Survey, we estimatc the percentage of residents who work in the Tri-
Valley-a number that changed very li[de in the 1990s (58% in 1990 to 59% in 1999) after a significant
increase in the 1980s (from 48% to 58%). Third, 011 the basis of these pcrcenrages, we account for the toeal
number of jobs held by Tri- Vallcy residems, with the remainder of jobs held by people commuting to the
region. This adjustlnent gives us a better ovetall picture of how much housing is available for people who work
in the Tri-Valley region.
.f:
.
(28 )
How Are W'e Doing? Our Region Has a Growing jobs/Housing Mismatch
.
In ,he 1990s, the region experienced strong job growth and slow housing growth. It also experienced little
change in the percentage of residents who work in the Tri-Valley. This combination of facts has produced
a widening mismatch between jobs and available housing units in the region. In 1992, the Tri-Valley
housed 56% of its workforce. By 1999, the region housed 49% of its workforce. This figure means that
about 76,000 commuters travel into the Tri-Valley for work, Monday through Friday. This figure does
not include those commuting through the region to Silicon Valley and other locations.
Regional Jobs/Housing Match
Source: Tri-ValleyCommunity Survey,
CA Deptof Financa
Employment Development Depl. ABAG
Jobs/Housing Mismatch is Growing
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80.000
60,000
40,000
. 20,000
0
~ Tri-Valley Jobs Held by Commuters
~Tri-ValleyJobsHeldbyLocal
~Resldents
Total Housing
Total Jobs
.1992
.1998
Measure #2: Availabilitv of Housing Choices
A basic measure of housing choice in the Th- Valley is the relative density of housing and housing type. We
recognize that in the past the Tri- y.1.lley region built its housing stock to meet rhe demand for suburban, single-
family detached homes. The region had plenty of available land, willing developers, and ;,ntnested buyers. The
current housing mix is the natural omgrowrh of that set of circumstances-and has, overall, brought the region
a high quality of housing, We don't want to compromise our quality in the future, but want to offer more
choices. So it is important to measure how well we are diversifying our housing mix as we add new housing
each year. Over time, to achieve the vision, we want to see a gradual adjustment in overall housing mix. It is also
important to monitor our apartment vacancy rate to assess how well we are ofTering that housing choice to
residents.
How Are we Doing? Housing Choices Are Mostly Limited to Single-Family, Detached Homes
. Single-family detached homes constitme 69% of the region's total housing stock; single-family attached
homes represent 10%, and multifamily units cOllStitute 20% of the region's total housing stock. How-
ever, of the 1,801 units added to the region's housing stock in 1998, 87% were single-family detached;
only 13% were multifamily units.
.
(29 )
.. rt;/ie
fjp(Bm
~
"Over time, to achieve
the vision, we want to see
a gradual adjustment in
overall housing mix. "
,J?)VPhe
~~
~a#~
. The density of residential development appears to be increasing, indicating greater choice in housing. As
of the end of 1997, residential development had been built at an average density of approximately 3 units
per acre. Based on residential development plans approved in 1998, and excluding residential develop-
ments approved in the South Livermore area which has set-aside requirements for vineyards, the density
of new residential development CO be built in the [mute averages over 5 units per acre.
. Apartment vacancy rates, an indicator of rhe adequacy of the supply of housing, have generally decreased
by more than a quarter-from a high of 4% in 1993 to 2.7% in 1998. Low vacancy rates are indicative
of high demand for housing and an inadequate supply relative to the number of households wanting to
live in the region.
DensilV of Residential Development .
Source: Tri.Valley City Planning Depts
Overall, Housing Choices are Growing...
~ 4
.
o
.~ 3.
4
a
As 01 Decamber, 1997
New units approved in 1998
Tri-Vallev Apartment Vacancy Rates, December 1993 through December 1998
Source: REAL Fact.
"
.,
'"
'.0
"
.
0
"
"
"
G'
'.0
1993 1994
...Bul Some Choices are not.
1998
4
1995
1996
1997
(30 )
Moasure #3: Wortllerce Housing ler Critioal Servloo Professionals
We believe that a good indicator of housing choice and affordability is the extent to which a region's critical
service proFessionals-its teachers, firefighters, police officers, child-care workers, receptionists, and others-
live in the region. For some professions, we are able to measure the percentage who actually live and work in the
region. For other professions, we can only examine the likely affordability of housing by comparing people's
monthly wages and the prevailing remal rates of apanmell(s.
Clearly, some of these professionals choose to live outside the region for personal lifestyle or other rea5ons.
However, anecdotal evidence suggests that more would like to live in the region where they work. In addition,
we believe it is in our region's intere~t to have a high percentage of such professionals living and working in the
Tri~Vallcy, For example, it is valuable to have teachers be more available for after-school meetings with parents
and other school activities, rather than having to stan on a long commute home.
To compute this measure, we looked at the percentage of teachers, firefighters, and police officers who actually
live in the region, based on public records. Intormation about [he reasons for living inside or outside the region
and data on other critical service professionals-such as child-care workers-are important, but not readily
available at this time. For other critical service professionals, we have compared the average monthly wages for
several key service occupations with th~ average rental rates of apartments in the region,
How Are 'We Doing? Many of Our Critical Service Pmfessionals Do Not Live in the Region
. Only about four in ten police officers (39%) and firefighters (40%) live and work in the Tri-Valley, Sixty-
one percent of the public school teachers live and work in the region.
In general, workers living alone and working in common service occupations-child-care provider, cook,
home health aide, ground~kceperJ maid, receptionist, or salesperson-must spend between 50% and 70%
of their monthly income to secure a one-bedroom apartment in the Tri-Valley region. Realistically, given
additional living expenses, people working in these occupations have to live outside the region or share the
COSt of housing with others to live in the region.
.
Tri-Vallev Rental Anordabilitv for Kev Service Professionals
SouJce;REALFacts
Alameda and Contra Costa Occupational Outlooks
Housing Choices for Key Workers Are Few
90%
80%
. 10%
.
.~
" 60%
"
~ 50%
1
.
) 40%
30%
..
.
.
, 20%
~
"\C%
0%
0-.
cP'\\~
.
_oo~s _,H!> ~f".~ ~ "..
" .db~P"- v.f".~'I> ".t#\~'J' se~#
,.o'(f:i''(<'' c-~GtO ~>P'. ~o'J'
~,- O(i,c~ seO ~-i,l.O<;)
~et\Y'~ V#'"
....""
;.Of".\
e"e~'l;.
~
<<,"
~~
,,0
,..'"
'"
D1Bedroom
.2 Bedroom
(31 )
... ~lB
~~
~llfAJ
"...workers living alone and
working in common service
occUptltions- child-care
provide); cook, home health
aide, groundskeeper, maid,
receptionist, or salesperson
- must spend between 50%
and 70% of their monthly
income to secure a one-
bedroom apartment in the
Tri- Valley region. "
I '"
1~~:'
o
r ~1$1!DDflDJGl8, ~
{,~,~~
'{:'i"1,'1;.~, "~,-.. ': .I;;;~:, '~~,! :(~.r'
{, "'. ,..~_:.,,"~'.:~'.Ii>,'~"...' .::I,~.I:'
., -I' ' ';:" ",...;' . ~ . \ ,
, ~lte
/Jto~
:q;~
Measure #4: Expansion 01 Housing lor Moderale- and low-Income Residenls
Another measure of housing choices is the amounc of housing specificaJly built for low and moderate income
households and offered at below market rates. This measure would be the number of new housing units built
for and offered to households making between 50% and 120% of the region's median income-which in 1998
was a household income of $63,300.
How Are we Doing? 1Iery Little Expamion of This Choice of Housing
. Of all the housing units built in 1998, 9% were built for households earning between 50% and 120% of
the region's median household income, primarily by nonprofit housing developers. In order (0 construct
such units, nonprofit housing developers, often working in partnership with for-profit developers and
with the cities, must obtain "gap financing" from a multitude of sources, including the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CA Housing and Community Development, Redevelop-
mem Agency Tax Incremem Finance monies, foundations, charities, and other nonprofit organizarions.
It is this "gap financing" that enables housing units to be built to meet all zoning, building and architec-
tural design codes and be offered at rents affordable to lower-income households.
EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICES HAS MANY BENEFITS
It can help us meet the challenge of the new demographics and the new economy
The Tri-Valley's growing software and communications industries employ people of varying lifestyles and
housing needs. They range from the young, multimedia software developer who prefers to live in an interest-
ing, urban environment with entertainment and dining options to the two-parent professional household
needing convenient access to schools, parks, and jobs. Nationwide, 32% of households have children living
in them, and by 2010 rhe proporrion will decline co 27%. The Trj- ValJeycUfrenrly has a reJariveJylarge supply
of housing for families with children. In face 69% of all housing units arc single-family detached units. As the
Tri-Yalley's new industries prosper and as the number and variety of workers grows, so will the need for ~
housing that is attractive to New Economy workers and affordable to our nurses, reachers, child-care workers, 11
firefighters, and police oB-lcers. Our seniors on fixed incomes and persons with disabiliries will also need
affordable housing.
It can help us solve our transportation problem
Clustering housing near jobs and transit reduces the number of trips by car. People living in multifamily
housing near jobs or transit are more likely to walk to work or take transit. And, according to a report by the
Instirute of Transportation Engineers, mu]tifamily housing generates fev.'er trips and vehicle miles traveled
than single-family homes. Compact housing clustered at transit nodes increases the economic feasibility of
transit, providing residents and workers more options for traveling around and through the region. Increased
travel on mnsit leads to improvements in transit service, with reduced transfer times and waits between buses
or trains. This reduction increases rhe amactiveness of transit as an alternative to automobile travel, leading to
additional increases in ridership. Air quality and livability of the region are improved, especially for youth and
seniors, who are more sensitive to air pollution than young or middle-aged adults
It Cdn help us preserlle open space and agriculture
Building housing within the urban core reduces the pressure to build at the periphery of the region.This
option protects land that is better suited For agriculwre. The Tri-Valley region's agriculture, especially rhe
vineyards, are an imporrant element of the region's economic vitality and quality of life. Protecting these assers
from the pressure of utban development enhances the region's attraniveness to workers and businesses.
It can help us ensure vital downtown fwd business districts
Compan, multifamily housing is ao effective catalyst for renewed investment in declining downtowns or in
revitalization effons. Cteating interesting urban environments through well-designed multifamily housing
that incorporates some retail, such as cafes, offers a suburban option for some young, weaIthy high-tech
workers who might othetv.,ise live in central cities. Empty-nesters with dual incomes and no children are also
attracted to more urbanlike environments. Roth groups, with their relatively high disposable incomes, in-
crease market opportunities for a broader range of retail and commercial services in an otherwise stagnant city
core. And last, when designed to blend with the prevailing design and scale of existing housing, in-fill multi-
family housing actually improves the value of adjacent properties.
~
(32 )
To sustain our economic vitality and quality oflife, we must have a system of efficient, user~friendly options for
the mobility of people and goods within and through the region. We must design our communities and road~
ways to minimize congestion-expanding the mix of realistic choices for moving people and goods around the
Golden Valley.
Regions with communities designed to allow safe, reliable, and convenient access to work, shopping, recreation,
and social activities will have an economic advantage over other regions. They will capture more economic and
cultural activity because businesses and artS centers will want to locate there. The greater size of theil" public
coffers will allow fat more community services so families and workers will want to live there.
An efficient transportation system consists of a safe, integrated system of bikeways, walkways, public transit,
and roadways. It allows for the safe and convenient mobility of people of all ages, including seniors and chil-
dren, and supports the region's distinctive open space and cultural attractions.
The transportation system is a vital element of the tegion's economic infrastructure and ensures ease of access of
goods and people to ports and apptopriately located distribution centers, manufacturing plants, and all places
of commercial and industrial activity.
Measures of Progress
Measure #1: How long the Commute 10 Wortl Takes
Our time is dear to us. More time spent driving to work, running errands, or chauffeuring children means less
time for more enjoyable activities. Longer commute times have a damaging effect on business recruitment and
retention efforts. As traffic congescion and commute times increase, people consider other options for getring
to work (ridesharing) or ways to avoid traveling to work (i.e., telecommuting). If options are not available, they
may look for jobs closer to their home. A5 it becomes more difficult for businesses to recruit and retain workers,
they too become more active in increasing transportation options.
How Are 'We Doing? It's Taking Longer for Tri~ Valley Residents to Get to WOrk
. Despite the fact that a gteater percentage of residents are working within the Tri-Valley region, commute
times have increased since 1990. In 1990 Tri-Valley residents took 27 minutes, on average, to commute
to their work ~ites. In 1999, that commute increased to an average of33 minutes. The simplest and most
significant measure of how well our transportation system is performing is to periodically track changes in
the amount of time necessary to travel bet"..een two points along the same route. Although data is not
available to track changes in the time to travel the same rOllte between two fixed points in 1990 and 1999,
a region-wide average increase of 5 minutes per one-way commute is significant.
. In addition, 37% of local residents report that the amount of time spent moving around the Tri-Valley
region "increased a lot" in the past five years. Another 25% reponed that it "increased a little," and 32%
reporred "no change."
.
(33 )
"jVe must design our
communities and roadways
to minimize congestion -
expanding the mix of
realistic choices for moving
people and goods around
the Golden Valley."
II?) ~lte
d#o~
~
Source:CalTrans
Measure #2: Freewav CongeSUon through .he Region
We want a safe and effccrjye interregional transportation system that supports the susrainabiliry of our commu-
nities and our environment, including the air we breathe. Interstates 1-580 and 1-680 ate our region's two
major links to other regions in California. 1-580 links the Central Valley with the metropolitan Bay Area and
the Oakland POft and accommodates a large amount of commercial vehicle traffic. I-GBD links the Tri-Valley
with (he North Bay and with Silicon Valley by way of [he Sunol Grade. Increasing traffic congestion on the5e
major imerstate routes inhibits Tri-Valley residents' and businesses' ability to navel within and through their
region in,a timely manner. It also generates unhealthy levels of air pollution and polluted water runoff.
How Are 'We Doing? The Tri- Valley Regions Freeways Are Increasingly Congested
with Interregional Travel
. Congestion on Tri-Valley freeways, 1-580 and 1-680, increased by 100% in the past four years, growing
from 5,000 vehide hours of delay to more than 10,000 vehicle hours of delay. The Sunol Grade has the
worst level of congestion, accounting for 65% of all freeway delay. Other segments ofTri-Valley freeways
are becoming more congested as well. Each year, Caltrans collects information on travel time for free-
ways in the Bay Area in order to locate where congestion occurs, how long it lasts, and during what time
of day. In 1994, Calnans identified only one segment of freeway within the TriNalley region that was
congested-a small stretch of 1-580 near Pleasanton. Since then, the number of congested freeway
segments in the Tri- Valley has grown to five.
Peak Period Congestion on Tri-Vallev Frewavs, 1995-1998
Traffic Congestion Way Up
,,=
10000
8000
.00
2000
,w,
,~
1997
'9g8
1998 Peak Period
Congestion on
Tri-Vallev Freewavs
.
Where The Freeway
Congestion Is
.1_'8aWB.Va'coRD.dtDRI.84.r>dli""rmor."'EIC~a"" .1-680SB,SunoIRd,ooulllofRou,o262
1-f;80SB, ~IC."",alvo.lR"ogearToSycamoroValloyRo [ 1.580EB, Fro,"ill," EICIl."QRd
(34 )
M.....'. #3: C.OUBSlI.o 00 lac.' Ro.dW.ys
We wanr to be able to travel within the region in a comfonable, safe, and timely manner. Most of the trips we
take-whether by driving, walking, or bicycling-are by way of our local Streets. A5 these roadways become
more congested and waits at traffic lights increase, the time we spend traveling increases, taking time away from
other activities. Increasing traffic volumes increase the opportunities for crashes, reducing the safety of our
transporration system.
How Are we Doing? Major Roadways Have Enough Capacity to Meet Existing Travel Volumes
. Working with the five Tri-Valley cities and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, we selected 36 intersec-
tions of regional significance to monitor over time. Of these intersections, only 5 had a level of service
(LOS) of D or below in 1998. LOS is a universal means of communicating the performance of roadway
segments and intersections. LOS can be rated A to F, with A being the highest level of service and F being
rhe worst, stop and go. LOS D is the lowest level of service stilled deemed "adequate," with minimal
delay. Six of the intersections selected have no LOS raring, but should be studied in the future. Though
existing conditions are fairly good, future growth will increasingly crowd arterials ifintervenrions are not
implemented soon.
Level of Service At Tri-Vallev Intersections, 1998
Source: Tri-Valley Cily Traffic Engineering Dept"TJKM
Local Roadway Capacity Adequate So Far
.......~
v....,
,
,
,
r-__..
, '
\:-' Ef
~-"'---
I
.
ONAotFuture
$A-c
.D
iI
North
Not to Scale
(35 )
Livermore
.~
I
,
!
,
~~
\
~!tB
~m
I )~M/f
~
"Almost half of employed
r;'i- Valley residents (45%)
work from home at least
some of the time... JJ
~ - ~~
~-'--.'~tt':"j;,--,--:~, i
, "". ;.,l).:'f, ,'j;{;~
~~}-~-;1?~' {1 {
,,'~. t
-;"",';,,;;c,"", <;;1';":':"""'" ,;
"" ~
,~.,_.,
<'-
Measure #4: llpansion 01 Transponation Chalces
We want people to have more options for moving around than just their private automobiles. Increasing OUf
travel options-walking, biking, ridesharing, or riding a bus-allows us to improve our health, save fuel and
money, and safeguard the air we breath. Fewer people driving means cleaner air and healthier children and
adults.
How Are U7e Doing? U7e Have Had an Increase in Transit Availability and a Slight Improvement in
Proportion afCommuters Using Alternatives to Private Auto
. Between 1990 and 1999, the percent of residents driving alone to work dropped slightly. In 1990,84%
usually got to work by driving alone; in 1993, that percentage dropped to 80%,
. Likewise, use of all alternatives-including walking, bicycling, carpooling, and using transit-increased
from 16% to 20%.
Increases in Bus Routes and Rapid Rail Create Dramatic Rise in Transit Ridership
. Two bus services, BART and ACE, increased options for commuters from Tri- Valley and Central Valley.
Berween 1994 and 1997, ridership on Tri-Valley transit systems increased 129010, primarily because of the
opening of [he Pleasanton/Dublin BART station. Ridership grew another 42% between 1997 and 1998
with the opening of [he ACE stations in Livermore and Pleasamon.
. Comparing data from the 1990 Census and the 1999 Tri- Valley Community Survey, [he percent of
residents using lransit to commute to work changed dramatically, from 2% in 1990 [Q 8% in 1999. This
change is due primarily to an increase in the availability of transit as discussed above,
. A significant percentage ofTri~Valley residents are choosing to travel [Q work less often by either working
at home or working longer but fewer days each week. Almost half of employed Tri-Valley residents (45%)
work from home at least some of the time, while ,%% of employed residents work longer days or a
compressed work week (4/40 or 9180) [Q have more days off. III addition, 13% work from a location
closer to home than to their regular workplace
Average Annual Transit Ridership. 1994 thrOUgh 1998
Source: ACE,BSAT,LAVTA,CCTA
Transit Ridership Way Up
5.000.000
,
4,5Q0,000
4,000.000
3,500.000
3,000,000
.
2,500,000
,
.
~ 2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
5QO,OOO
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
.1
(36 )
.
HOW TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ARE CONNECTED
Why has traffic congestion increased, and what can be done to prevent it from getting worser
The answer is in how we design our communities
The Tri-Valley's growing traffic congestion is due, in part, to the same factors causing increasing traffic
volumes throughoUt the United States and worldwide: rising incomes and relatively cheap fuel coStS, but
also land-use policies that favor large-lot residential development separated from stores and jobs.
An increasing amount of research links our travel behavior to the design of the communities in which we
live and work. That research indicates that the density, size, and land-use mix of employment centers and
residential neighborhoods have a significant impact on people's travel patterns-the number of trips they
take, the length of the trips, and the method of travel (walk, bike, transit, autO).
.
The design of our neighborhoods and communities has a major influence on how we choose to travel. A
study recently completed by Fehr and Peers, a transpormtion consulting firm, showed rim people living in
more uaditional pre- WWII neighborhoods were less likely to use a private vehicle for their daily trip needs
than people living in a post-WWII suburban neighborhood. In traditional neighborhoods, residents took
an average of9 nips pef day; in suburban neighborhoods, they averaged 11 nips. Use of an automobile
averaged 77% in the traditional neighborhoods; use averaged 86% in suburban neighborhoods.'
Another study looked at three different neighborhoods in the Easr Bay: Rockridge, Walnut Creek, and
Oanville, Total miles of navel varied measurably benveen the three. The most traditional, pre-\X1Wll
neighborhood, Rockridge, which has a BART station, had the lowest vehicle miles traveled (vmt), averag-
ing 15,000 miles per year. On the other hand, residents of Walnut Creek, a post-WWIl suburban commu-
nity that also has a BART sration averaged 20,000 vmt. Oanville, however, a suburban community with
no BART station, averaged 30,000 vmt per year.6 The transportation costs associated with driving were
also less for a more traditional neighborhood: $9,000 per year versus $18,000 per year for a suburban
neighborhood.
Work sites, too, can be developed to increase the use of commute alternatives. Large suburban employ-
ment centers can attract fewer nips by amo by increasing the mix of land uses within the center. Research
by Cervera and others demonstrates that employment centers with mixed uses are more likely to support
trips by means other than auto, including ridesharing, transit, walking and biking. Where services and
retail establishments, including restaurants, dry cleaners, and child care are available, workers have less
need for their own vehicle to run errands during the day. When developers build housing within walking
distance of offices, more workers walk [Q work. Communiries developed where work sires, mail and
commercial services, and housing are built in a compact and integrated manner increase the opportunities
to walk and decrease the need to drive.
.
( 37)
(1/) 'C(pIIB
~tBm
.1~J!m;
< rt;;/1JJ
~..~
J~
"Our children and
adult residents must be
able to keep up with the
pace of economic change
if they are to have the
choice to remain and
prosper in our region. "
~
:~~-;~;:;,
-J~~t: ~
^
~i__~V
,,""; ~.
Q
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
.
Vision
We wam a lifelong educational system tlm is accountable to the highest community standards. Critical to the
overall vision oFTri- Valley's hlture is high-quality educational opportunity-from prc-K-12 through postsecondary
education to lifelong learning. OUf region is becoming morc advanced economically, driven by a growing mix
of knowledge-illlensive indusrries. Our children and adult residents must be able to keep up with the pace of
economic change if they are to have the choice to remain and prosper in our region.
Job_~ at virtually all levels of the occupational spectmm will require higher levels of skills than they do today-
including the creation of new kinds of jobs that we can't even imagine today. Residents may have twO, three, or
more careers in their lifetimes. Ten years ago, who would have been able to guess that one of the fastest-growing
and well-paid jobs would be "Web designer?" The only way to ensure that our residents can keep pace is to
ensure access to high-quality educational opportunities at all stages of their lives.
Our vision is for the region's educational system to distinguish itself as one that employs state-of-the-art meth-
ods .and facilities to design and deliver the highest quality education and training to all tesidents, regardless of
age, income, and ability. Strong parental involvement at the K-12lcvd will be critical to our success. Pattner-
ships with businesses and our national laboratories will enhance the curriculum and support the atea's competi-
tive advantage. Given the fast pace of change, it is essential that business and education work closer together
than ever before to make changes necessary to prepare people for the economy and society.
MeasU1-es of Progress
Measure #1: Public Scbool Capacity
A basic indicator of educational opportunity is school capacity-how well are we meeting the volume ofK-12
education need in our region. We compared enrollment and capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school
levels, based on a widely accepted, statewide methodolob'Y for calculating space per student.
How Are we Doing? In Some Areas, School Enrollments Are Close to or Exceeding Capacity-
though Facility Expansion Is Under way.
. The Pleasanton elementary and middle school enrollment and the San R-,mon Valley middle schoo]
enrollmem exceed current capacities-most by a small percentage, with the sole exception of the Pleasanton
middle school enrollment, which exceeds capacity by nearly 20%. High school enrollment in Livermore
Valley, Pleasanron, and San Ramon Valley are at 90% to 100% ofcapaclt)'. San Ramon Valley elementary
enrollment is also near 100% capacity. To achieve a basic level of educational opponuniry, dearly enroJl-
mem should not exceed capacity. Became new school comtrunion is now under way to address these
capacity issues, this indicaror should improve in the future.
.
School Enrolllment as a Portion ot Capacitv Level in Yri-Vallev School Districts
Source: Tri.valley School Districls
Some Schools at Near Capacity
140%
120%
e
'00%
eo%
W%
,~
~%
0%
PI".",nron
SanRamonV.llev
OElemenlarySchOOI
.MiddleSohool
HighSohool
(38 )
.
.
.
Measure #2: Sludern Perfermance allhallememarv Scheel and Hloh Scheollevels
An importanr way to judge whether the region is providing quality educational opportunities is to look at
outcomes. Student performance, especially in the early grades, is a good indicator of later educational success
and the ability [0 take advantage of further educational opportunities. Because a widespread, multidimensional
measure of student performance is not available, we chose to look at the best available measure at the elementary
level that is common across all public schools in California: scores on the scate's STAR test. At the high school
level, we chose to examine SAT scores as an indicaw[ of preparation for further educational opportunity.
Ideally, in order to meet the highest community standards, students attending K-12 public schools in the
Golden Valley should show high achievement on measures including bur not limited to California's STAR
testing program, Golden State examinations, Advanced Placement tests, and Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT).
How Are we Doing? Most Students Score Above the National Average, but Too Many Do Not.
. Most tbird-graders score above the national average, but too many do not.
The STAR tests administered to third-gtaders in the spring of 1998 indicated that 70% of studelHs are
reading above the national average, whereas 30% are reading below the national average. Also, 32% of
third-graders scored below the n:ltional average on the math test. We believe that our region cannot settle
for having almost one-third of our children with sllch a low level of reading and math skills. We mllst do
better to reach the "highest community standards."
. Tbose higb scbool students taking the SAT score above the national avemge,
but mimy do not take the test.
Tri-Valley's overall educational achievement scores on the SAT are well above the averages for California.
Whereas California's average SAT scores range from 990 to 10lD, Tri-Valley high school students' scores
on the SAT have steadily increased from an average of 1070 to 1110 between 1990 and 1998. Tri-Vailey
students perform bener on the Math SAT than on the Verbal SAT. The diffetential between the two has
widened over time. Between 1990 and 1998, math scores increased 25 points, from 540 to 565; verbal
scores increased 10 points, from 530 to 540. The percentage of Grade 12 students in the region taking the
SAT is 49%.
Tri-Vallev School Districts Average 3rd Grade STAR Scores. Spring 1998
Sourca:Tri-Valley School DislriClS
Too Many Third Graders Below Average
80
70
" 60
~
~
~ 50
~
~ "
1;
f 30
~ 20
10
Readina
Math
. Below national average
. Above national average
(39 )
"we believe tbat our
region cannot settle for
baving almost one-tbird
of our children with such
a low level of reading and
matb skills. "
, ~lle
/jomm
~J~
Average SAT Scores. 1990 to 1998
Source: Calilomia Departmenlol Education
SAT Score Well Above Slale Average
""
--... /
~
...................--- 'V'
-
""'
"'"
1060
"'"
1020
''''''
''''
""
..,
'"
1990
1991
1992
....- Tri-Valley
1993
1994
"""
1996
1997
1996
..... California
.
Measure #3: Student Access to Postsecendary EducaDon (Percentage QualifYing
lor Emrance te UC/CSU SvstemSJ
We want our regional educational system to prepare students well enough to gain access to opportunities for
higher eduGuian and training. For students to be adequately prepared for the sociecy and the workplace, the .
perccntage of students completing high school and continuing theif education must be high. One indicator of
qualification for ftmher education is the percentage of graduating high school seniors who have completed the
courses required for entrance into the University of California or California State Universicy System. These
courses are mathematics (3 years), science (2 years), English (4 years), social sciences (2 years), foreign languages
(2 years), and visual/performing arts (I year).
Although it is nor a sole predictor of later education or job success nor a comprehensive measure of the ability
to gain access [Q higher education and training, this measure does provide an indicator of access to key higher
education institutions in California.
How Are we Doing? Four in Ten High School Seniors Complete the Courses Necessary for Entrance
into the UC or CSU Systems.
. Many high school seniors meet the requirements to the University of California or California State
University System, but many do not.
In the Tri-Valley region, 41% of high schoo! seniors have completed the basic courses required for en-
trance to the UC or CSU system. Although this percentage is better than the California average (37%),
the "highest community standards" require that more than four in ten high school seniors arc prepared
and have the opponunicy to attend a UC or CSU campus, whether they ultimately decide to do so or
decide to take a different path (e.g., through communty college, technical training or apprenticeship, or
other options for post-high school skill development).
(40 )
.
.'
Measure #4: Access 10 U1oloug, ConUnulng EducaUon
We believe that to reach the 2010 vision, to keep pace with economic change, our residents will need to have
access to lifelong learning opportunities. In the Tri-Valley Community Survey, we asked employed residents the
following question: "In rhe past five years, have you had any difficulty getting access to adult or higher educa-
rioo in the Tri-Valley Area in order to improve your job skills or change your career?" With this question, we
assume that some residents are not seeking further education. We also assume that other residents get signals
from their employers or the marketplace that they need to upgrade their skills or change careers, that they then
look for education, and that they either do or do not have difficulty finding such education. If a significant
percentage of residents are having difficulty, it would be an indicator that our region is nor providing the
necessary educational opportunities for its residents-educational opportunities in sync with our changing
economy. We also added a measure ofInterner access to assess how many residents have the ability to tap the
growing on-line education and training opportunities.
How Are we Doing? Currem(y, Most Residents Appear to Have Access to Continuing Education
. About 85% ofTri-Valley residents say that they have not had difficulty gaining access to adult or higher
education. Only 9% of residents polled indicared rhat they had difficulty, and another 6% were not sure.
. About three-quarters of the region's residents have access to the internet from home, work, and/or school.
Only 23% of residents srared that they had no access to the Internet.
REGIONAL COLLABORATION
Vision
. To connect all aspects of the vision of the Golden Valley, we must be a region of people and jurisdictions that
work well together. Too many elements of the vision are dependent on regional collaboration to hope that
individual jurisdictions wotking alone is enough. Individual jurisdictions, sectors, and otganizations must all
play their part, but must also find ways to integrate what they are doing with what others are doing. In this way,
regional collaboration will allow us to build a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, a regional vision of
the Golden Valley that is greater than the sum of the visions of the five cities making up the Tri-Valley region.
.
In the years ahead, we envision local issues being viewed with a regional perspective, based on reliable informa-
tion on critical regional trends. We envision large numbers of involved citizens working to improve their region
and jurisdictions collaborating to solve regional issues. We believe that an environment of openness, inclusive
of existing organizations, can make regional collaboration commonplace. We believe that the vision can help
grow and fOCllS civic engagement (including charitable contributions and volunteetism) on key needs, working
with an effective regional delivery system of charitable organizations. And we believe that collaboration in Ollr
region can help us connect to surrounding Bay Area and Central Valley regions to address multiregional issues
and develop mulriregional solutions.
(41 )
" regional collaboration
will allow us to build a
whole that is greater than
the sum of its parts..."
r;0C7i;lte
~/})m
~I
Measures of Progress
.
Measure #1: RegionalldenUtv
We believe that a basic building block for regional collaboration is whether or not residents identify as citizens
of their region. Without a strong regional identity among residents, regional collaboration is unlikely to have a
strong and lasting constituency. [n the Tri- Valley Communiry Survey, we asked residents about how they define
their communiC)'.
How Are we Doing? About Half of Tri- valley Residents Strongly Identify with Their Region and
about Half Do Not.
. Residents were asked "when you think of community, how oftcn do you think in terms of your neighbor-
hood, the city where you live, the Tei-Valley Area, and the Bay Area?" Almost half (46%) of residents said
they think in terms of the Tri-Valley Area "often" or "almos( always"; slightly more than half (54%) said
"occasionally" or "hardly ever." Residents most strongly identified with their city (79% "often" or "almost
always"), then with their neighborhood (68%), and least often with the Bay Area (39%). We believe that
the definition of community is multilayered and important for diffetent reasons at each level. So it will be
important to track community identity at alllevds in the future.
When You Think About Your Communilv, How Ohen 00 You Think In Terms 01
Neighborhood. Cih. Tri-Vallev. or Dav Area
Source: Tri.valley Communily SUlVey
About Half of Residents Identify with the Region
"
eo
.
"
eo
;0
'"
'"
'"
w
Your Neighborhood
The City Where You Live
TheTriValleyArea
The Bay Area
.
(42 )
,
.
J
.
.
Maasura #2: ChIlan Engagemam
Another key building block for regional collaboration is the level of citizen engagement-how engaged are
residents in terms of giving and vo\umeerism to make their region a better place. We believe that having a strong
regional identiC}' and demonstrating a strong level of citizen engagement are critical conditions for Sllccess.
How Are we Doing? More Residents Give to Charity and Volunteer Than the National Average
. Almost every household (91 %) donates a percentage of income to charity. This percentage is much
higher than the national average (690/0) and is higher than that of neighboring Silicon Valley (83%). In
terms of the percentage of household income donated to charity, the region is close to the national average
of a linle more than 2% of annual income.
. The region also has a stronger-than-average level of volumeerism, with 56% of residents volunteering
during past 12 months. This percentage is higher than both the national average and the Silicon Valley
,vmg' (49%).
. Howevet, room exists for improvemem. About half (47%) of hi gh-earning households ($100,000+ annu-
ally) gave $2,000 or less to charity. Although Tri~Valley donors naturally give to a variety of causes inside
and outside the region, the Tri- Valley Community Survey found that about one-third (32%) of charitable
giving among Tri~Valley residents goes to organizations outside the region.
level of Giving and Volunteerism in the Region
Source: Tri-Valley Commumly Survey
100%
90%
80%
.
.
.
.
~
.
~
.
~
!
~
70%
60%
50%
,,%
,,%
20%
'0%
0%
Spent time on cl1aritabJe or votuntary service ectivity in past 12
months
Madtla donation of money or propenyto cl1arityirlpasl12
mOrlths
.Tri-Valley . Silicon Valley Natiorl
(43 )
/1/) ~/Ie
~~
~tJI!!J~
flj!te
9!PtBm
~~
.~
>'o.:r:__.:i..!
'" 'J'"
-~-'
0", _'_
-~_: '~- <;
,..., ;,'. -,'1
-'- -.' j
:;~,~: ,",
1~;"7:-;>,'j:~"")";~'
Q
~ ;1 " '....,
:~- ":>
, "'Ai,,,
I ~11llir
~~, rf:,
'. .,. 'L'l1ft>'1'
'~,f.'\ '~"'~.J!1:,.I'1 'j:
,
Measure #3: Commltmem to Regional CollaboraUon
We believe that in addition to strong regional identity and citizen engagement, strong commitment of the
concept of regional collaboration as a way of solving problems is critical to achieving the vision of (he Golden
Valley. \'ile afe measuring this commitmem in twO ways: how Strongly do residents believe in the value of
regional collaboration, and how well are local jurisdictions practicing regional collaboration. In ocher words,
what evidence do we see of regional collaboration (e.g., joiot powers agreements) versus regional conflict (e.g.,
filing of lawsuits against each another).
.
How Are U7e Doing? Regional Cooperation Is Increasing; Regional Conflict Is Low
. In the past fen years, the number of formal joint-powers agreements has been growing while lawsuits
between jurisdictions have, on average, remained steady at one or two per year.] 993 was an especially
litigious year. In that year, four of the five cities were involved in three Iawsui,s with each other or with the
coumies.
. When asked if they favored developing a cooperative regional approach to preserving the quali')' of life
and economic vitality of the area, 53% of residents "strongly favor" sllch an approach. An adclitional34%
"somewhat favor"; only 7% opposed a cooperative regional approach.
. We find a majority Strongly supportive of regional collaboration and strongly identified with their re-
gion-and a large majority at least open to the regional approach-a good foundation on which ro build.
This situation is promising, given that more than four in ten residents moved to the Tri-Valley within JUSt
the past ten years. It is an essenrial ingredient to ensuring progress toward the vision of the Golden Valley.
Do You Favor Developing A Cooperative Regional Approach to PreSerge QualilV
ollile and Economic VitalilV 01 the Area;!
Source; Tri.Velley CommUMySurvey
Strong Support for Regional Collaboration .
60%
50%
<0%
30%
20%
'"
"
I I
Strongly Favor
SomewhalFavor
Oppose
,...-.
.
(44 )
.
.
/
.
The Vision is co be used as a framework for accountability and a wellspring for action. People like living in the
Tri- Valley region. This attitude must not change. At the same eime, whether we like it or not, we know that
change of some kind is inevitable. The only real question is: Will change be on our terms? If we do nothing, we
will still be affected by decisions made omside our region. If we try to freeze everything-no more jobs or
housing growrh--our region will nor be a place where our children can live and make a living. If we let growth
happen piecemeal and without regional planning, we will lose what makes our region special: a high-qualiry
environment to live and work. With this vision, we are determined to shape our destiny, not stand by and
accept the consequences of decisions made outside our region.
We ask that each of the five cities in the Tri- Valley region add this vision to its general plan-a common
"regional element" as a companion to specific local plans. That is a starring point. Next, we ask for volunteers
from aU over [he Tri-Valley to become "stewards" of this regional vision-people from government, business,
and the broader community who are willing to work with others in myriad ways to make this vision a reality.
Are people willing to work together to fulfill the Vision? The survey results suggest that they are-and that they
are willing to pay for what they want, if payment is necessary. For example, residents hold the following posi-
tions even if they mean increasing local taxes:
. About 7 in 10 would "strongly favor" investing in effortS to decrease traffic congestion.
. Almost 6 in 10 would "strongly favor" purchasing undeveloped land to preserve the rural quality of the
Tri-Valleyarea.
. About 7 in 10 would at least somewhat bvor building a new performing artS center somewhere in the Tri-
Valley area.
. About half of residents would somewhat favor bringing in water to provide for more agriculture.
The Vision aligns the shared values ofTri-Valley residents with a set of goals and specific measures w make
ourselves accountable for progress wward the Vision. The nexr step is w use this foundation as a catalyst for
sustained action over the next decade to fulfill the vision ofTri-Valley as the Golden Valley of the twenty-first
century.
CONCLUSION
A Regional Call to Action
The stage is set. The vision of the Golden Valley sets the direction and lays our a set of inter depend em goals that
must be met. This document details a set of measures that will be used to assess progress towards the visiun.
Now is the time to act. The vision will be achieved only if concerned residents come forward to serve as
advocates and work together to develop and cake action over a period of years.
A committed group ofTri-Valley residents have already begun to work towards the vision. But, we need your
help. To join the team to create the Golden Valley, please e-mail the Tri-Valley Business Council at MLWfri-
~ or call us at (925) 890-1892. Together, we can determine the desriny of our region. Years from now,
we should be able to look back and say that thousands of residents got involved and made a difference in the
early 21" century-and left for fucure generations the gift of the Golden Valley.
(45 )
The 1999Tri.Valle}' Community Surve}'was conduaed by Field
Research Corporation on behalf of the Tri.Valley Busines_\
Council. The lamp!e was obtained using a random digit Jiaj.
ing (ROD) sampling method covering rhe 'li-i.Valley area, in-
cluding ml' cities of DanvilJe, Dublin, Livermore, P!ea-<..'nlon,
and San Ramon. 3,300 phone lisrings were diaJed by inter-
viewers which resulted in 409 complete irucrvicws. The ~nal
sample matched the known frequency distributions of adulrs
by geography (city). gender and race (wirhin a few percentage
poims)so thatstaristical weightingo[the data wa.s unneces-
sary. A sample of rhis size (IJ09) is subject to a maximum .Iam.
piing error of plus or minw 5 percenragepoinrs at the 95%
confidencele\'el. Resu!rs [rom subgroups of this population
havehrgersamplingerrurestirT1Jtes.lnaddition,thercarcmany
mherpmsiblcsoUfces ofcrrorin any slIrvcy umer than sam-
piing variability, including qUC$tion wording, sequencing, or
undetenoo errOt5 in sampling, inrerviewingorda!a process-
ing. Every effim was made lO minimize slIch errors
Acknowledgments
Spdallhll>1lrs ro rk ftUow;ngpopkllnd orgll>1iZ4I;OTlS woo eomtib.
uud Mr.r ,md ~"prrris~:
Alamed,ClnilllyOlTtceofEJuc:lli"n
Al:uneda CoUlllY Congesuon !\t:m~g.melll Agency
A1"",ro. County Pl,nning Del"'Umem
Associ>uon or B~y Area G",,,rnmems (ABAG)
II,,)" Area Air Ou~lity M,n.gemem Oi.'triel
lIayAreaR.:.pi,l'rrall,il 05mic1 (BART)
C.!ifornilDopanmomotEducJriun
Ciliforni>Dop.nmemorFin~"ce.
Demogrophic Rc=rch Unit
CaJiromi, Depmmem ofJusuce
Ct!irorru, Dcpmmem "rTraml"'naliot\, Dimiet 4
CaJ;~b::'S:r~;'~~r:~,~,?:~17~i~~~:n Dep'nmonr,
Cin'ofDublin:
'Ci[\'Cle,k
l'u;,ning DepHtm.m
Engineering Depmrn.m
Poli~ & Fir< Oeparlmml'
CilyofLlvcrmme
CiryCkrk
PlanningDcp~nmem
Enginecringtkpmrnent
Police & Fire DeparrmenL'
O,vofPkl'M1Tnl1
'CirvClerk
Pla~ningDermrnem
EnginecringDepHun.m
Police & Fi",Dcp:utmenu
Cirv ors~n Ran",,,
'CilVCbk
Pla;',Tlin);n'I''''[ln.Il'
Engmee,ingLkl'arrmem
Po!iee&FtreDeparrm.nt>
Comra Co." Counn. Office ofEduarion
Com" Com Cuumy Planning Oep~rrme[\1
Comra Co~ta Cnunt)"Traml'",r".;nll Authority
Duhlitl U",i.nISchoul Diwjct
u.rBayl\lunieipalUrililyDislrict
Frocral Bu,,,,u nrJn''C>rigalion
2~n%fu~~r.>~rr'arion
l.ivermo","A","dor Valle;. Tran'rnr~"lion Agene)'
Livermore V.II"y Ullir,eJSch'Hl 11m"cl
Mmopoliran Tr~mpOnaIiol1 Commi"ion
PIoa,:mlOn UnificJ &/'001 DJSlrin
Real&a,
S~n Ramon V~llev Unified School Oistrict
T]IJI,JTrampo,,;rioIlCons1lhant'
'lilWn"fD,nville
PI:mning,Oepmment
r.l1ginemng~pmmen'
Police & Firellip:utmenu
TownCbk
'Source: Ori' J'1~nning DepJJ1ment" "Viral ceme,,' i"dude: OlJhlil1
CliO; Downrown Dan,.ilk Downrown Liv<'r",.,'e: Downtown
l'lca,.ullun; The J\Jarket PI,"e in S:m R.:.mon; other region.! m~lIs and
.hcppinge~nlm.
l Homburger. WS" et. al., Rnidtl/rW Srrm &ign, lTE, 1989.
'P~hkarev, (I. S. ,nd p,t. Zupan. Puhlit: T"'mp~t1i1'i~n and lAnd Uu
PoliC)', IndiJna Uni,'miry Pre", 1~77
. S';;rde Mwo, "Encouraging l'1Jblic Tramport~tion Througb Effecti\'.
L:mdU~Actions",1987.
'Friedman. B.. S.p. Gordon,J.II. Peers, "ThrEffOClof:\rorradilicnal
r-.:-.ighborbooJ D",ignonlr.veICh."eteri,tiCl", Feht& PccrsAs;suci.
"1<<.lne.
'Calth"rp" P.m, I'resemarion m.de ~t B~y Arel lloming, Challenges
and Choi<es in rhe 21" Ccmury. GI24. Dublin.
SEVEN AREAS OF REGIONAL VISION
ICONOMICVlTAlm
ShareofTri-Valley Employoo Residem,
WorkinginrheTri.Vill.y
TouJ job Growm, 1992101998
Clu>lCr Job Growrh and Employmelll C"ncen!rario[\
A,,,,ageP.yperEmployec .
NewBu,ine"r"rmation,b)'Clu"et,
'](otal Number of Embli,hmmll. 19n w 1998
UlBAllCUIIINT OF om SPACE, IGBIC01TUBIDO IWVJBONMDfTIl QUWJY
Ac",ageofPerm~n.m1yPrO!ecredOpenSpace
;Jf,~i~~lo[!~1:~Jl~~nu~r~;eU~ricuhlltal Land.
Connmed Open Space (miles of connmed u~ils) .
Usco[OutJuorRc<:reJ,;oll
O'i~ J'<l Year E.c.eding Sraleand Feder~1
Oz.oneStandara..1990toI99S
VITIlCINTIRSUOCONHlmDNIIGHBORRODDS
ResidenlS'lisf,uint1 with Region,nJl'eighh"rhooJ,
Region~1 ~nd :-l'eighborhood S~fel)' .
NcighborhooJC"nnectoon=
(~ce"'lOcommuni:r.am.rutics,
IUCha,;llOre"schoo"I,atks.rell,uram,)
NeighborhoodC"nllecledne". . .
ResidemUseofT,i-ValleyCiry:mdRegionalCcnre", .
C1]J,teri~g of New Job" Hou,ing, a[\d Transil
HOUSINGCHOICIS
CurrenrMi:r:ofHousingTyf'C'
EXl'ansionoflJomingChuiccs
V~caJler Rat"
Housing for Crilical Servicc Prof=ional, .
(e,g.,tC3chers.polic.officm.firei.ghterl)
ExI'~llSiollOrH"",ingforMo.Je'ale
Low [ncome Jksident'
BIGIOIfAlMDRUm
lJow Long h Takes 10 G.t w Work
I'r~ew~y:md St"el Conj;C<tion
r.xP;ln.\iOnnf1;-;lmp"".,;onClwj,...
EDUGmOIfAl OPPOBTUIUTl
[\JblicSchooIC.padty. , . . , . . .
SLUJ,1Il Perfurmance'lthe Eltmem"vSchool [n-ol
College SAT Test Seom of High Seho~1 Students
AccC5-< [0 Lfdong. C..ominulng r~UClllnn. .
IEGIOWCOUABOBITIOII
Region,lldenrity
Cill;r.enEngagemenr
ComrniunemroRegionalCoUaboration.
SOURCES
.
1~90 Ccmu" CTPP.UE. .\iTC
Working Paper #7; Fidd Rc=rch,
Tri-V,Uev Communi[\' Sut\'OV
CaJiforniaF.mplO)'me~r '
OevdopmemOeparrnlenr
C,lif()rni~Eml'l"ym"nt
Developmenl Oepmmem,
2odQtr.1997lOZodQlr.1998:
Collabora.cive-EconomiCi
Californi> Employmem
Developmem Deparrmem
C.lirorniaEmploymenl
Oevel"l'menrDcl'.nmen,
Gm:nlnfoN'elWork;
E""RayReginn"1 l'.1[k Di,tricr
Crwllnf" Network
A,,,,,,i,tion nfll~}' Area Government'
{ABAG);Zone7,
F.>.IrBayMunicipaIUriliryDi,triC!
G=n[nfoNelWork
rield Re.\C~rch,Tri.v.II.y
Communis-' Survey
BarArC3A1rQu~llty
.\b~menrDistriC!
FiddRe=reh.
'Iri-ValleyComlllunilySurvey
~~Id ~=;~~ r.~.\~:l:.m ofJlIStice:
CommuniI}'Sllf'o'C}' '
Field Re,earcb.
'lfj-VJUey Community SUl"'ey
FiddR."':uch,Tri.V,U....
CommunirySurvcy .
FiddReseareh,
.1;;-V~lIe)'CommunitySul".cy
~~:,~~i~~~u~:~~.ni.i~<~~~;::~l:~~~lnn, San Ramon
CiliesIT""lIPI:mninglXp:mrnents:
D~nvilk Dublin, Livermore.
Plca.<anron,Sanll",,,,,\
(jTie</TownPlanni,:,gDel'anmenr"
Dam'ille, Dublin. uvermore, Pl=nwn,
SID Ramon; Realfm.
CityrrownFi",&Poli<eOepartmenrs.
school dislricts: Comf:l Co,,,, Occup~
li<Jn,IOurlook;AlJrnedaOccup,ti"nal
Our!lluk.Rcrlf,cts
Citi..rr"",nPL.nningO.p>runents:
D.nville,Dublin.Livermore,
Pleuamon,San JUmon
.
1990CensllS,JuurnevwWorkrield
R<';S..rch.Tri.v.Ueyr..ummunit}'Surv.y
C:.Jlfans Dim;C! 4 omce ofHighw.y
Opera,iollS;(jtirsflo"nTroffie
Engineers: Danville, DubJin. Livermore,
r>1"'.<a"rnn,S,nR.m"'l
1990 Cemus, CTI'I'-UE.
!\tIC Working l'.per #7: Field R"ear,h.
Tri_V~11ev Comm'lIlirv Surv",~ ACE,
BAR1~ LrWTA. cerA .
Sch.,,,IDimiw
SdlOolDimicr<
CaJlforni~DepmmemofEdu<arjon
FiddR=ch,Tri.Vallcv
C..ommuni<ySurve-y ,
Field Research. '1!i-V~IJey
CommunirySurvey
FieldR=ch,l,i-V,JJev
CommunirySurvey ,
Field R=arch, Tri.Vallev
CommurutySurve-y ,
(jli<<rrownClcrks;OtyAunrney,
The fllfowing have spoll5ored the Vi,ion Project rhrough cl1Jh ((lIIrrihuflom or in kind serl'ias
we grearly appreciate their mpporr.
AlamooaCounry
BbckTimeLimousine
Cat/America
Contra Costa Counry
Ciryo[Dublin
Cityo[Livc!l1lure
CiryofPleasanron
Ci[yofSall Ramon
DeSilva Grollp
East Bay Communiry Foundation
The James Irvine Foundation
l'<!cific Bell (SBC)
[)~dficGasandflemic
TJKM Transportation Consultants
TownofDanviJlc
Tri.Val!ey Community Fund
Tri-ValleyHerald
Wel1teVineyard!i
-\