Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 Bay Vision 2020 Response (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Written Response to Bay Vision 2020 Draft Report (Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Proposed Letter (Transmitting City of Dublin comments on Draft Bay Vision 2020 Report) RECOMMENDATIO;;P Review proposed letter, provide any additional input, and authorize the Mayor to distribute the letter on Qbehalf of the City of Dublin. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The financial impact of full implementation of the recommendations of Bay Vision 2020 are undetermined at this time. DESCRIPTION: At the City Council meeting on January 28, 1991, the City Council reviewed the draft Report presented by Bay Vision 2020. The City Staff had provided as a part of the agenda statement a review of key areas of the Bay Vision Report. The Report proposed recommended methods to improve the Bay Area. This included recommendations to modify government responsibilities and suggested addressing some issues on a regional basis. The City Council directed Staff to draft a letter incorporating the Staff comments on the proposals supported by the 2020 Commission. In addition, City Council members were encouraged to submit any additional comments which they believed should be provided to the Bay Vision 2020 Organization. Attached is a draft letter which incorporates comments which were received. Staff would recommend that the City Council review the proposed comments to assure that all pertinent areas of concern have been addressed and authorize the Mayor to transmit the letter to the representatives of Bay Vision 2020, on behalf of the City of Dublin. a:s2llbayv.doc.agenda ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. February 8, 1991 ORAF1 Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, Chair Bay Vision 2020 Commission Hearst Building, Room 608 5 Third Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: City of Dublin Comments on Bay Vision 2020 Review Draft Report Dated January, 1991 Dear Mr. Heyman: The Dublin City Council has reviewed the draft report referenced above at a regular City Council meeting. Based on our review of the report, the following comments are considered pertinent to your proposals. We would request that these comments be considered in the development of the final report. It is obvious that the Bay Vision 2020 Commission has undertaken a substantive review of the quality of life in the Bay Area and potential organizational structures which could improve the region in the future. This effort has been, no doubt, a complex undertaking, and it is important that any final report incorporate comments and concerns from the existing governmental entities in the region. It is also important that the Commission consider the reality of certain assumptions which have been presented in the draft report. The Land - Urban Areas and Open Space ■ The draft report speaks to the issue of defining areas for urban development, permanent open space, and permanent agricultural lands; however, the term "urban" area as used in the report is not clearly defined. A better understanding is needed of whether this term is intended to also include "suburban" areas such as the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. ■ The goal of creating intense urban development appears to conflict with the report' s support for diversity; for example, diversity can be reflected in the places where we live. It would be simplistic to deny the fact that some individuals live in suburban communities because they have consciously chosen that lifestyle. They are not necessarily living there as a result of being forced to live in suburban areas through external conditions . ■ The role, if any, of the existing cities in determining the establishment of urban limit lines is not addressed in the draft report. Given that these decisions directly affect the local community, it is highly important that local control and input be a part of this process. Letter to Mr. Ira Mi, 31 Heyman, Chair Bay Vision 2020 Commission DRAFT February 8, 1991 Page 2 Transportation/Residential Densities/Jobs/Housing Balance ■ The report attempts to suggest that increasing residential density and improving jobs/housing balance in urban areas would effectively address transportation congestion. The examples of existing urban areas in this region would not support this theory. For example, the City and County of San Francisco has 1 ) high residential density, 2) considerable mass transit opportunities, 3) jobs far in excess of housing, 4) considerable traffic congestion. Therefore, congestion management does not automatically flow from increasing densities. ■ If this goal is intended to apply to suburban communities such as Dublin, it is not clear how the intended objective would be reached. For example, the City of Dublin has low housing densities (averaging 4t dwelling units per acre) , with some medium density housing ( 14t dwelling units per acre) . In the area of mass transit, there is a local bus system and connections to regional transportation, such as express bus service to the nearest BART stations. The City maintains a nearly perfect jobs/housing balance, and has minor transportation congestion. There is potential for considerable traffic congestion in the event that traffic levels were to be increased through increasing land use densities. It is not clear how this change will benefit the quality of life in our community. Regional Governance ■ The draft report tends to conclude that the regional government would be responsible for planning, and the local governments continue to have the responsibility for providing services. These two areas are directly linked, and a separation would significantly impact the local economy. ■ Growth management involves a complex set of local concerns about how we live, work and play. This can also affect the provision of services provided by a local government. One must seriously question whether a new level of regional government with broad powers can more effectively manage growth than local agencies who work together to coordinate their planning efforts. Again, the Commission needs to consider the effectiveness of existing single purpose regional governmental agencies . There is no question that regional cooperation can be a benefit; however, decisions which impact a local community must be decided with substantial input from those individuals who are most affected. ■ The initial objective of the report was to have a democratic, responsive, accountable, regional government. This is adequately accomplished through our system of local government, in which the direction of City policies can be effectively changed by local residents. The election process, local public hearings, meetings, and other contact with elected officials provide citizens with Letter to Mr. Ira Mi, el Heyman, Chair Bay Vision 2020 Commission DRAFT February 8, 1991 Page 3 input into public decisions which will directly impact them. It is clear from current examples of regional government, that they are not accountable to individual constituencies. In some cases, direction of these organizations is primarily determined by appointed staff members, due to the fact that the elected governing board does not have a unified constituency. The proposed appointed regional governing board will limit Bay Area residents' ability to change the direction of the board and/or influence the policy decisions which are made. ■ The creation of an agency comprised of appointed board members is not appropriate. Government must reflect and be responsible to a specific constituency. There is some concern with a regional entity in that the votes of individual members are diluted and certain sectors within the region are not adequately represented. Further, they may lack the numerical representation on the Board to effect any change which represents their interest. ■ One must also question the assumption that a new regional commission with broad powers would stimulate the economy. It is likely that the time for businesses to receive development approvals could become extremely protracted by the addition of another layer of government. The end result would be an impairment of the local economy. ■ The report does not appear to acknowledge the benefits which local governments have provided to the Bay Area economy in the past. City governments have been capable of providing local services and responding to local needs while continuing to maintain a balanced spending plan. They have a proven track record in effectively managing resources, and are closest to their constituency, thereby serving their citizens in a responsive manner. In order to continue this relationship, a regional board should not be capable of issuing a veto over local decisions. ■ It may be appropriate to consider that the development of any regional board/agency would contain an evaluation of the entity's effectiveness. This may be accomplished through including a sunset clause, which would provide for restructuring or dissolving the entity in the event that it was not capable of accomplishing its stated objectives. ■ The draft report has not addressed the funding of a new regional body. Given that all of our levels of government are experiencing difficulty in developing reliable, ongoing revenue sources, this area needs to be carefully considered. It would not be appropriate to fund a new level of government through reductions in the current levels of funding to existing governments. ■ The successful implementation of any of the proposals in the study dictate that additional input from the public is necessary. The development of a regional agency must be structured in a manner Letter to Mr. Ira Mi. el Heyman, Chair Bay Vision 2020 Commission DRAFT Februar Y 8, 1991 Page 4 that allows local cities to have substantial ' input. The lack of government representation on the original 2020 Commission must be rectified if the proposals of the report are intended to be successfully implemented. Input from all sectors throughout the process should be encouraged and accommodated. ■ The development of a regional body may be an appropriate solution to provide a forum for the discussion of regional issues, and the identification of potential responses. The implementation would then be carried out through the existing governmental structure. The City of Dublin was incorporated only 9 years ago and our constituency has a unique perspective of regional issues. The citizens supported incorporation in order to obtain local control and assure that policies implemented were reflective of the local community. Prior to incorporation, decisions were made by members of the Board of Supervisors, only one of which was elected by the local residents. This perspective should not be overlooked or forgotten by agencies which have enjoyed local control for many years. In addition, the City has been supportive of working with neighboring agencies to address subregional issues. On behalf of the entire Dublin City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to present these comments. We would request that the issues discussed be strongly considered and incorporated in any final report issued by Bay Vision 2020 . Sincerely, Peter W. Snyder Mayor /1ss.LBV2020 .doc.agenda cc: City Council City Manager Planning Director