HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.4 ABAG Survey on Regional Government (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 12, 1991
SUBJECT: Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Survey on
Regional Government.
(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 ) Copy of Survey Distributed by ABAG Committee
2) Copy of City Council position on Draft Bay Vision
2020 Report, dated February 13, 1991
3) Memo dated July 30, 1991 from ABAG Planning
Director Re: Questionnaire Results
4) Draft Letter to Chair of ABAG Regional Planning
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: �:v" ' Provide additional input and authorize the Mayor to
execute the Draft Letter on behalf of the City Council.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost of implementing regional government has
not been determined.
DESCRIPTION: Mayor Snyder currently serves as an appointee from the
Mayor's Conference on the Association of By Area Governments (ABAG) Board
of Directors. Councilmember Moffatt is the City of Dublin delegate
appointed by the City Council.
Survey
Mayor Snyder was recently informed that the Regional Planning Committee at
ABAG was circulating a survey on issues regarding the implementation of
Regional Growth Management. ABAG Staff indicated that the survey was
mailed to various elected officials and agency delegates. The explanation
on the survey form states that the information is important to ". . .ensure
that a Bay Area growth management program will accurately represent the
region's collective political will" (emphasis added) . Mayor Snyder has a
concern that the method of distribution of the survey as well as the
structure of the questions will not obtain a valid representation of the
stated goal.
Basis for Ouestionnaire
The City of Dublin previously reviewed the Draft Bay Vision 2020 Report on
Regional Government and transmitted comments on the report to the Bay
Vision Committee as well as ABAG. The ABAG questionnaire takes many of the
concepts from the Bay Vision report and asks the respondent to rank their
level of agreement on the method of implementing the concepts. The survey
presupposes that some of the base criteria are factual. For example, the
description of the concept of a compact city centered urban development
states that this type of development will reduce traffic congestion. As
stated in the City Council's (Exhibit 2) comments on Bay Vision .2020, the
intense urban development in the City of San Francisco has not created an
area without traffic congestion. It appears that the focus of the survey
has undertaken an analysis of how to implement regional policies, prior to
addressing fundamental issues of the structure and goals of regional
government.
Mayor Snyder also has a concern that the results of a survey distributed
among selected elected officials will be interpreted as representative of
the region's "collective political will. " In results released in a
memorandum dated July 30, 1991 (Exhibit 3) , ABAG staff indicated that 138
responses were received as of July 26, 1991 . A total of 454 were
distributed and 44 returned were from elected officials.
Given the previous position taken by the City Council on Regional
Government, Mayor Snyder requested that the entire City Council review the
issues being discussed by ABAG. Based upon these concerns and consistent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
—6
ITEM NO. 4
with previous actions by the City Council, Staff has prepared a Draft
letter to ABAG regarding this survey.
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Draft letter and provide
additional input and that the Mayor be authorized to forward the letter on
behalf of the entire City Council.
PSR/lss a:L81ABAG.doc.agenda#5
-QUESTIONNAIRE
Means of Implementing
Regional Growth Management Objectives
The Regional Planning Committee of the Association of Bay Area Governments is seeking your participation in
deliberations that will help shape the Bay Area's future. The Committee is a group of mostly elected officials from cities
and counties all over the region. Members also represent regional agencies,public interest and professional groups.
In July 1990,the Committee authored,and ABAG's Executive Board adopted,A Proposed Land Use Policy
Framework for the San Francisco Bay Area. It articulates policies aimed at resolving critical land use issues,and
recommends governmental restructuring to balance local self-determination with effective regional problem solving. You
are being asked to help the Committee develop the process of balancing regional with local needs and objectives. This
questionnaire recommends initial guidelines for implementing key concepts and tools. Your response is valuable because it
helps ensure that a Bay Area growth management program will accurately represent the region's collective political will.
Please return completed questionnaires by July 22, 1991. A postage-paid return envelope is provided for your convenience.
All responses will be kept strictly confidential. It will be helpful,however,if you would provide the information requested
below to assist in grouping reactions. If you have any questions,please call Ceil Scandone at(415)464-7961.
0 Elected Official O Staff 0 Public Interest 0 Environment
0 Appointed Official 0 Business O Other
Jurisdiction Affiliation
Agency
OVERALL STRUCTURE
Discussion
Proposed regional goals call for a city-centered concept of urban development that guides balanced growth into or around
existing communities in order to preserve open space,agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas. This pattern
reduces public costs by encouraging a more efficient use of infrastructure,improves the potential to establish an efficient
network of public transit services,and minimizes adverse environmental effects. An overall structure needs to be developed
and criteria established and followed in order to achieve regional goals.
Recommendations
1. Regional policies,based on mutually agreed upon values,should be developed to guide decisions about where to direct
growth so as to minimize overall urban sprawl,to balance highway and transit networks and to fink housing needs with job
growth.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat ONeutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
2. Future regional policies should reduce development pressures on small and medium sized communities on the periphery
of the region.
O Disagree ODisagree somewhat ONeutral O Agree somewhat O Agree
3. Future regional policies should emphasize significant public and private investment in the region's major urban centers.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
EMMIT
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
Urban growth boundaries mark the separation between urban land and open space,and define the area within which urban
uses are accommodated and services provided. They preserve open space,agricultural land,recreation areas and wildlife
habitats. They also reduce public costs and conserve resources by encouraging a more efficient use of land,and public
facilities. Finally,urban growth boundaries can help reduce private costs by investing the development process with greater
certainty in designated areas.
Questions
How will urban growth boundaries be set? What considerations or criteria will be used in establishing them? How much
input will each local jurisdiction have? Will this be a "bottom-up" or "top-down"process?
Discussion
The Regional Planning Committee envisions locally initiated regional management,a"bottom-up"approach in which local
governments and the public have a strong voice. Each jurisdiction is encouraged to review and revise density,design and
other standards to ensure the most efficien4 environmentally sensitive use of land consistent.with the community's
character,and social and economic needs. Such an approach will improve the supply of needed housing,and create the
population concentrations needed to support public uansit,while respecting each community's unique identity.
Recommendations
1. Each jurisdiction or subregion will consider the following factors in establishing proposed growth boundaries:
A. Anticipated population and employment growth.
B. Opportunities to rehabilitate,redevelop,increase density or otherwise improve the efficiency of land within
existing boundaries.
C. Densities and development patterns required to support cost-effective public transit.
D. State and regional objectives such as providing housing for people of all household types and income levels.
E. Environmental resources and constraints,natural and manmade hazards,and urban open space needs that will
affect the amount of development a jurisdiction can reasonably accommodate within its boundaries.
F. Local,subregional and regional infrastructure capacity to ensure adequate levels of service for existing and
proposed development.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0'Agree somewhat 0 Agree
Suggested changes,deletions,additions:
2. Each jurisdiction that has not already established urban growth boundaries will submit proposed boundaries to the
regional agency. A collaborative process will ensue in which the jurisdiction will have ample opportunity to clarify the
information and process used. The ultimate responsibility for acceptance of urban growth boundaries,however,will rest
with the regional agency.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
3. Communities that have already established taban growth boundaries according to appropriate criteria will not need to
submit them to the regional agency for approval. Established boundaries will be reviewed for acceptance by the regional
agency when local general plans are submitted for consistency with state and regional objectives.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
Comments or suggestions:
2
COMPACT COMMUNITIES
A city-centered concept of compact urban development,with balanced growth guided into or around existing communities
will protect against unnecessary urban sprawl. This development pattern will also facilitate establishing an integrated and
efficient mass-transit network that will reduce traffic congestion,improve air quality and shorten commute time. To
accommodate population and employment growth within the boundaries of urban areas,and to create the population base
necessary to support mass transit an increase in density and better integration of housing and business areas will be
necessary in some communities. It is also necessary to seek ways to facilitate the development process-especially of
residential units-within urban areas;otherwise new workers will continue to be accommodated outside the Bay Area.
Questions
What policies must be implemented to ensure that urban communities are compact and efficient? How will areas for
needed infill development be identified,and their timely development ensured?
Discussion
Jurisdictions can implement a variety of policies to encourage compact development For example,pairing residential and
commercial space in mixed use developments near downtowns or transit stops could reinvigorate targeted areas and provide
needed housing in locations served by diverse amenities. With modest density increases in selected areas,and carefully
crafted design guidelines,each community can help the region meet its housing needs and preserve open space while
retaining its unique character. Compact,balanced and innovative development patterns make optimal use of infrastructure
and provide the services and amenities needed to discourage both local and long distance automobile commuting.
The physical conditions that would support infill development may not always exist. For example,infrastructure may need
to be upgraded to accommodate infill. In addition,many residents may be unwilling initially to support the capital outlays
necessary to improve public transit services,or to use transit once systems are in place. For these and other reasons,
favorable public opinion is key. Communities need to engage in public information and education campaigns and to
provide citizens ample opportunities to understand and support policies leading to compact communities. The regional
agency will assist communities via an advisory service that evaluates potential infill sites,distributes information on new
design techniques and provided public education and information materials.
Recommendations
1. Each community or subregional area will identify sites suitable for infill,increased density and mixed use in the land use
-.nd housing elements of their general plans.
Disagree . 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
2. Communities will enact strategies to expedite development within urban growth boundaries. Such measures might
include allowing master EIRs in"preferred development zones`or streamlining the development review process for projects
that meet specified criteria.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
3. Compact and efficient Mew communities"outside urban growth boundaries can be considered when interurban transit
services are available or committed to serve them.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree-
Comments. or suggestions:
3
JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE
Achieving a balance entails more than ensuring there are enough dwelling units to accommodate locally employed workers.
Jobs—housing balance is defined as the coordination of housing and job opportunities which takes into account the
availability of transit,as well as land use mix,housing prices,job categories, worker skills and the historical role of a city
as a"bedroom community." The primary objective is to reduce auto trips and auto congestion within and between
subregional"commute-sheds"by providing the opportunity for workers to live close to job sites or to transit.
Questions
How will the jobs—housing proximity or balance be improved and maintained? Now will commute—sheds or subregionl
areas be defined? What measures can be taken to ensure that the housing built is affordable to residents employed within
the commute—shed?
Discussion
Economic growth as well as the income levels and housing needs of new workers can be predicted more easily at the
subregional level Large employers tend to cluster in locations convenient to interstate transportation routes,airports,
convention centers,transit facilities and similar amenities. While communities that are'jobs rich"are encouraged to
undertake aggressive residential development programs,preferably on multi-modal transit routes,the focus should not be on
achieving a balance within each community,but rather on defining appropriate"commute-shed"jurisdictional groupings,
improving the jobs—housing balance within them,and developing a more extensive and efficient network of mass transit
services to serve them. The regional agency will monitor the progress of individual communities,assist in the
identification of"commute-sheds,"and provide technical assistance in the development and coordination of transit services.
Recommendations
1. Cities and counties will demonstrate that major proposed non-transit accessible employment improves jobs-housing
balance within the community or"commute shed."
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
2. All communities will strive to coordinate the housing approved with workers' needs and income levels.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
3. Suburban communities,in particular,will focus on developing multi-modal transit services that facilitate the home-to-
work commute.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
4. At the sub-regional or"commute-shed"level,jobs-housing balance initially will be addressed in county Congestion
Management Plans. It is evident,however,that commute-sheds frequently cross county boundaries. 'Merefore,jobs-
housing balance will ultimately be addressed on a subregional basis by jurisdictions in agreed-upon"commute sheds."
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat O Agree
Comments or suggestions:
4
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Ensuring that all Bay Area residents have quality affordable housing is critical to the region's overall social welfare and vital
to those individuals and families who have had difficulty in meeting this most basic need. It is also important to achieving
environmental and economic goals. Developing an equitable allocation system that all the communities within the region
agree to implement must be a top regional priority.
While communities may recognize the need for a system that ensures equitable division of housing responsibilities,
substantial disagreement remains about how to determine each community's responsibility. Apart from jurisdictions'
frustrations with the numbers,there have been more general concerns that the program simply is not working.
Questions
How can we provide local governments with greater latitude in meeting fair share housing needs without undermining
social concerns and equity issues? What opportunities can be created for sub-regional coordination and cooperation? What
are the most expeditious means of meeting regional housing needs?
Discussion
To ensure that all communities share equitably in supplying quality,affordable housing for existing and.future residents,
some form of allocation program is needed. The challenge is to devise a program that achieves this goal within a regional
growth management program's larger context. The current system lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. It fails to
address fiscal concerns and market forces that have legitimately affected land use decisions in many communities in the past
decade. It is important and timely to establish ways of improving the fair share program so that current concerns about its
structure can be resolved,and a more effective alternative can be developed. Ile regional agency will make its staff
available to local communities and subregional groups to assist them in devising approaches to meeting housing targets
Recommendation
1. To permit greater flexibility in the existing system,subregional sharing and"brokering"of fair-share allocations and
housing funds will be permitted. While no local government will be allowed to"bargain away"its entire 'fair share' of
affordable housing,jurisdictions will be encouraged to cooperate on a subregional basis in devising effective means of
meeting housing production and affordability goals.
D Disagree O Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat O Agree
?. In another departure from the current system,review of the housing elements of local general plans will be delegated by
the state to the regional agency. If the state is unwilling to delegate its review,the regional agency shall conduct a limited
review of site availability to meet housing targets.
Disagree O Disagree somewhat O Neutral ❑Agree somewhat 0 Agree
Comments or suggestions:
5
INCENTIVES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
Full achievement of regional growth management objectives requires action from a variety of jurisdictions. It is crucial to
recognize the need for additional revenue in conjunction with this or any new system. Costly mandated activities relating to
county social,health and justice services,and the need to maintain,upgrade and add infrastructure in regionally significant
locations precludes full implementation of these proposals without new revenue. Furthermore,incentives,mandates and
sanctions are needed to ensure that the regional growth management system is implemented. Incentives would reward
communities that help meet regional objectives. Limited mandates and sanctions are also necessary, however,to help
achieve regional goals.
The State should:
1. Initiate changes to the existing property tax system in order to alleviate fiscal constraints and motivations that
have influenced local land use decisions.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat O Agree
2. Either directly provide anew and stable source of funding,or enable regional comprehensive planning agencies to
raise revenues to fund comprehensive planning and infrastructure programs.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat D Agree
3. Establish general goals,objectives and guidance for regional agencies with the participation of local and regional
officials while recognizing the diversity among regions.
ID Disagree O Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
4. Allow for the establishment of authority at the regional level to carry out adopted land use policies and actions.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
S. Require special districts,local agency formation commissions(LAFCO's),and regional agencies to coordinate their
efforts.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
6. Provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between and/or among agencies that avoids costly and lengthy
litigation.
D Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral D Agree somewhat 0 Agree
7. Reduce the 2/3 vote requirement for infrastructure bond issues.
D Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
8. Improve flexibility in rules governing tax sharing arrangements between local jurisdictions.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
9. Allow for the withholding of new revenue as well as grant funds to cities,counties and special districts that do not
comply with regionally adopted land use policies and actions.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
lo. Permit the imposition of a regional impact fee or fine on developments which proceed contrary to adopted.land
use policies and actions.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
Comments or suggestions:
6
Regional Agencies should:
1. Advocate a priority in allocating Federal,-State,and special district grants,loans and funds to those communities
that adopt regionally and subregionally endorsed objectives.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
2. Ensure consistency of all local general plans with state and regional objectives and adopted land use policies as
local plans are amended over time.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
3. Organize and coordinate the development of specific goals and objectives,generally acceptable to the political
entities of the Bay Area,which address issues of potential regional significance such as:
1. Economic well-being
2. Population growth and distribution
3. Housing and job production
4. Transportation
5. Public health and human services
6. Environmental quality
7. Public safety
8. Education
9. Scheduling,siting and financing of regional and subregional infrastructure as well as special regional
facilities such as regional airports and major industrial developments.
0 Disagree O Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral O Agree somewhat 0 Agree
Comments or suggestions:
SubrgEional Coordination Committees should:
1. Develop policies and review boards of cities,counties and special districts to resolve matters relating to job-housing
balance,the amount and allowable density of needed housing,open space buffers,coordination of infrastructure,and
capital needs and responsibilities
O Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
2. Require mitigation of significant adverse impacts of a plan or project on a neighboring community unless,on a
subregionl basis,mitigation is deemed infeasible due to overriding social or economic considerations.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
3. Provide for sharing and pooling of local housing funds among neighboring communities.
0 Disagree O Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
4. Develop procedures for improved notification and communication on planning and development issues.
0 Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat O Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
Comments or' suggestions:
* Composition of subregional committees is expected to vary depending on the issue under consideration.
7
Local al Jurisdictions should:
1. Coordinate local land use plans with neighboring jurisdictions on a subregional basis.
ZI Disagree Q. Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agree
2. Ensure local general plans and regionally significant development proposals are consistent with regionally
adopted land use policies and actions.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral O Agree somewhat 0 Agree
3. Consider interjurisdictional tax sharing agreements in order to reduce the fiscal influences on land use decisions.
Disagree 0 Disagree somewhat 0 Neutral 0 Agree somewhat 0 Agee
Comments or suggestions:
Any important issues dealing with regional growth management or governance missed?
8
Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, C1. .r
Bay Vision 2020 Commission
February 13, 1991
Page 2
February 13, 1991 pose serious questions as to whether the 2020 report is realistic. A feasible
mechanism must exist to assure that infrastructure can support the
Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, Chair intense development proposed by the report.
Bay Vision 2020 Commission
Hearst Building, Room 608 ■ The role, if any, of the existing cities in determining the establishment of
5 Third Street urban limit lines is not addressed in the draft report. The voice of local
San Francisco, CA 94103 constituencies must be incorporated in decisions affecting their surroundings.
These decisions directly affect the local community. It is highly important
Re: City of Dublin Comments on Bay Vision 2020 Review Draft Report that local control and input be a part of the process to define
Dated January, 1991 where development occurs.
Dear Mr. Heyman: Transportation/Residential Densities/Jobs/Housing Balance
The Dublin City Council has reviewed the draft report referenced above at a regular ■ The report attempts to suggest that increasing residential density and improving
City Council meeting. Based on our review of the report, the following comments and jobs/housing balance in urban areas would effectively address transportation
concerns are considered pertinent to your proposals. We would request that these congestion. The examples of existing urban areas in this region would not
comments be considered in the development of the final report. support this theory. For example, the City and County of San Francisco has 1)
high residential density, 2) considerable mass t;ansit opportunities, 3) jobs
It is obvious that the Bay Vision 2020 Commission has undertaken a substantive review far in excess of housing, 4) considerable traffic congestion. Current
of the quality of life in the Bay Area and potential organizational structures which examples do not support the theory that congestion management will
could improve the region in the future. This effort has been, no doubt, a complex automatically flow from increasing densities.
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 ■ If this goal is intended to apply to suburban communities such as Dublin, it is
that the Commission consider the reality of certain assumptions which have been i not clear how the intended objective would be reached. For example, the City of
presented in the draft report. Dublin has low housing densities (averaging 41 dwelling units per acre), with
some medium density housing (141 dwelling units per acre). In the area of mass
The Land - Urban Areas and Open Space 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
• The draft report speaks to the issue of defining areas for urban development, nearly perfect jobs/housing balance, and has minor transportation congestion.
permanent open space, and permanent agricultural lands; however, the term There is potential for considerable traffic congestion in the event that traffic
"urban" area as used in the report is not clearly defined. A better levels were to be increased through increasing land use densities. It is not
understanding is needed of whether the term "urban" is intended to I clear how increasing densities will benefit the quality of life in
also include "suburban" areas such as the cities of Dublin, our community.
Pleasanton, and Livermore.
Regional Governance
• 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 ■ The draft report tends to conclude that the regional government would be
places where we live. It would be simplistic to deny the fact that some responsible for planning, and the local governments continue to have the
individuals live in suburban communities because they have consciously chosen responsibility for providing services. The areas of planning and the
that lifestyle. They are not necessarily living there as a result of being provision of services are directly linked, and a separation would
forced to live in suburban areas through external conditions. The goal of significantly impact the local economy.
"diversity" can only be achieved if you provide for different types
of development. ■ 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
■ The goal of creating intense urban development does not identify how local government. one must seriously question whether a new level of regional
infrastructure will be financed and installed to support this growth. Aging government with broad powers can more effectively manage growth than local
water and sewer systems in older urban areas will require significant agencies who work together to coordinate their planning efforts. Again, the
improvements just to maintain current services. Also, decisions currently being Commission needs to consider the effectiveness of existing single purpose
made regarding infrastructure improvements are not addressing potential growth. regional governmental agencies. There is no question that regional cooperation
It is our understanding that after reviewing the replacement of the Cypress can be a benefit. This goal must not ignore the fact that decisions
Structure,the-Alameda County Board of Supervisors (representing the County as a which impact a local community must be decided with substantial
Region) did not recommend adding capacity on the new structure. These examples input from those individuals who are most affected.
Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, Ch .r Mr. Ira Michael Heyman, Cy,--r
Bay Vision 2020 Commission Bay Vision 2020 Commission
February 13, 1991 February 13, 1991
Page 3 Page 4 ,
■ Too often local governments become the victims of legislation which was drafted
■ The initial objective of the report was to have a democratic, responsive, without careful consideration in a public forum. A recent example was the
accountable, regional government. This is adequately accomplished through our imposition of the California Integrated Waste Management Plan. This was passed
system of local government, in which the direction of City policies can be in the closing hours of a legislative session without the benefit of public
effectively changed by local residents. The election process, local public hearings. The successful implementation of any of the proposals in
hearings, meetings, and other contact with elected officials provide citizens the study dictate that additional input from the public is
with input into public decisions which will directly impact them. It is clear necessary.
from current examples of regional government, that they are not accountable to
individual constituencies. in some cases, direction of these organizations is ■ The lack of government representation on the original 2020 Commission must be
primarily determined by appointed staff members, due to the fact that the rectified if the proposals of the report are intended to be successfully
elected governing board does not have a unified constituency. ' The proposed implemented. Input from all sectors throughout the process should be encouraged
appointed regional governing board will unduly limit Bay Area and accommodated. The development of a regional agency must ti
residents, ability to change the direction of the board and/or structured in a manner that allows elected representatives of loc
influence the policy decisions which are made. cities to have substantial input.
■ The creation of an agency comprised of appointed board members is not
appropriate. Government must reflect and be responsible to a specific ■ The development of a regional body may be an appropriate solution to provide a
constituency. There is some concern with a regional entity in that the votes of forum for the discussion of regional issues, and1the identification of potential
individual members are diluted and certain sectors within the region are not responses. The implementation of programs and policies can best be
adequately represented. Further, they may lack the numerical representation on carried out through the existing governmental structure.
the Board to effect any change which represents their interest. If a Board
is to exist, it must represent local elected officials from diverse The City of Dublin was incorporated only 9 years ago and our constituency has a unique
areas within the Region. perspective of regional issues. The citizens supported incorporation in order to
obtain local control and assure that policies implemented were reflective of the local
• One must also question the assumption that a new regional commission with broad I community. Prior to incorporation, land use, decisions, and those affecting services
powers would stimulate the economy. It is likely that the time for businesses to the community were made by members of the Board of Supervisors. Given that the
to receive development approvals could become extremely protracted by the boundaries of the Supervisor's District go beyond the City boundaries, local voters
addition of another layer of government. The end result of creating more did not retain sole control of their one representative on the Board. This
government would be an impairment of the local economy. 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
• The report does not appear to acknowledge the benefits which local governments neighboring agencies to address subregional issues of mutual interest.
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 on behalf of the entire Dublin City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to present
continuing to maintain a balanced spending plan. They have a proven track these comments. We would request that the issues discussed be strongly considered a
record in effectively managing resources, and are closest to their constituency, incorporated in any final report issued by Bay Vision 2020.
thereby serving their citizens in a responsive manner. A regional board
must not be capable of issuing a veto over local decisions.
Sincerely,
• 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 development of a permanent Peter W. Snyder
additional layer of government does not serve the public interest. Mayor
• The draft report has not addressed the funding of a new regional body. Given /lss.LBV2020.doc.agenda
that all of our levels of government are experiencing difficulty in developing
reliable, ongoing revenue sources, this area needs to be carefully considered. cc: City Council
It would not be appropriate to fund a new level of government City Manager
through reductions in the current levels of funding to existing I Planning Director
governments. Shirley Sisk, Chair ABAG Legislative & Governmental Org Committee
I
_oseon? =ort MevcCenter .'a ina Access: Overall Structure
;::on,, &OaK S::ee[s =r..=ox 2050
Oaxian.c =axlana.CA 94 604-2r0
- Responses in the"Agree/Agree Somewhat"categories exceed 70%for all three questions and all
14t5) 64-,900 -3X:t4,s',46a-79'9 three respondent categories. The first recommendation,which states that"regional policies,based
on mutually agreed upon values,should be developed to guide decisions about where to direct
growth.. ."registered 87%,96%,and 89%suppon from"officials","staff",and"all others"
July 30, 1991 respectively.
Urban Growth Boundaries
To: Regional Planning Committee Close to 90%of the respondents agree with the basic concept in the fast guideline which states that
From: Gary Binger,Planning Director each jurisdiction or subregion will consider certain factors in establishing proposed growth
Re: Questionnaire Results boundaries. Support drops dramatically for the recommended process,however,when timing and
review authority are described in guidelines 2 and 3. The two primary areas of disagreement are 1)
granting ultimate responsibility for acceptance of the boundaries to the regional agency,and 2)
Introduction treating communities that have already established urban growth boundaries differently from those
that have not.
The attached report illustrates graphically the results of the Questionnaire"Means of Implementing
Regional Growth Management Objectives." A total of 454 questionnaires were distributed during To address these two issues staff recommends that the guidelines be modified as
the last week of June and first week of July to three different groups,as listed below. follows:
1. General Assembly Delegates/Altemates 205 Early in the initial planning process,the Regional Commission will develop clear
2. RPC members and"friends" 143
standards for establishing and reviewing urban growth boundaries. Once criteria are
3. Bay Area Planning Directors 106 established,all communities will,within a reasonable period of time,demonstrate that
454 the urban growth boundaries they are proposing or have established satisfy regional
The second category includes elected and appointed officials,public agency staff,educators, standards. The responsibility for initial review will rest with the LAFCO's rather than
g rY PP P g Y the regional agency. LAFCO's will review each community's proposed boundaries
attorneys,business people,and representatives of public interest and environmental groups. for consistency with regional standards. When a community's urban growth
boundaries have been accepted by LAFCO,a detailed report,including findings,will
The graphs reflect information contained in the 138 completed questionnaires received through be forwarded by the LAFCO to the regional agency for review. LAFCOs will submit
Friday,July 26,a 30.4%response. Of the 138 responses,44 were received from elected officials periodic reports to inform the regional commission of their progress in establishing
(39 of whom are delegates or alternates),8 from appointed officials,48 from public agency staff, acceptable boundaries for the communities in their jurisdictions.
and 38 from"all others."
Delegating the responsibility for acceptance of urban growth boundaries to LAFCOs could have a
To simplify the graphs'elected and appointed officials' responses have been combined into one number of advantages. First,it emphasizes the imponance of subregional cooperation and
category,and answer categories"Agree/Agree Somewhat"and"Disagree/Disagree Somewhat" coordination. Second,it takes the responsibility for what is likely to require a great deal of staff
have been combined. The response percentages for each of the three respondent categories do not time at the regional level away from the regional agency and leaves it at the county level. Finally,it
always add up to 100%. This is primarily due to rounding. It also reflects that a few respondents could allay concems about creating a new level of government and/or a large,expensive new
left some questions blank. I bureaucracy
Respondents'narrative comments have been read,however they have not yet been extracted from Compact Communities
the questionnaires.
Discussion Averaging the three categories of respondents,93%percent agree with the recommendation that
"each community or subregional area will identify sites suitable for infill,increased density and
mixed use in(their)...general plans." Responses to the recommendation that communities
The results indicate that the majority of respondents generally agree with most of the land use expedite development within urban growth boundaries were also strongly positive at 79 percent.
policies the Committee has developed,and with many of the initial guidelines for implementing key The third recommendation in this section,however,which would permit the establishment of
rora�r+ concepts and tools. For many of the guidelines,positive responses exceed 75%. There is strong compact and efficient"new communities"outside urban growth boundaries,received the lowest
support for most of the recommended Incentives and Enforcement Mechanisms also,with score in the entire survey. While the average was still positive,only 51%of all respondents agree
responses to all but three registering at least 70%in the"Agree/Agree Somewhat"categories. with this guideline. In the category"all others,"negative responses outweigh positives by 47 to 39
percent.
There are,however,guidelines and enforcement mechanisms for which support lags.
It is important that we reassess what has been recommended in light of these results,particularly
since it appears that the guidelines which have the weakest support are those that have generated 2
the greatest concern in the past. This report will identify those guidelines,briefly summarize
respondents'comments,and suggest how the guidelines might be changed to gain wider support.
Agenda Item 3.0
Housing Affordability
Respondents who commenced on this guideline focused on two issues in particular. The first
criticism is that the availability of interurban transit services is an inadequate criteria for permitting a "Agree/Agee Somewhat"responses to the first recommended guideline,which would allow more
new community outside urban growth boundaries. Other factors must be established and criteria flexibility in the existing"fair-share"system averaged 76%,with 85%support from elected and
satisfied before such a development can be considered. Secondly,a number of people felt that appointed officials,and 71%from staff and all others. At 65%,support for the second guideline,
which moves responsibility for review of general plan housing elements from the state to the
allowing new communities under any circumstances was counter to the whole purpose of
establishing regional land use policies to control sprawl and preserve open space. regional agency,or alternatively,recommends limited review at the regional level,was less
pronounced. Comments include the often repeated concern that this would add another layer of
Because this recommendation drew such a strong reaction,it is important that this issue be review to an already time consuming process.
revisited and clarified. While it is possible that new communities could be located appropriately at Staff recommends that:
a number of locations within the region,it is necessary that the siting and design criteria be
expanded to address the concerns that have been expressed.
The Committee consider amending and expanding upon the suggested initial
Staff recommends that: guidelines to split the responsibilities as follows:
A statement of intent,which defines"new community"and clarifies the purpose such The Regional Agency would be responsible for:
communities are expected to serve,i.e.improve the jobs-housing balance in a
subregion,should be developed. • developing regional housing standards,including regional fair share
assignments,that local housing plans would have to meet.
Jobs-Housing Balance developing a system of incentives and penalties to encourage local to
adopt housing plans that comply with regional standards and state law.
With the exception of the 567"staff'response to the first recommendation,positive responses to reviewing local plans and formulating an opinion on their compliance or
all four of the recommendations in this section exceeded 70%. While respondents generally agreed lack thereof.
with the guidelines,many expressed doubts about whether they could work. Many of the developing a regional housing policy plan,based on the regional
comments were similar to those expressed by members at the last meeting. In particular,there is a standards,local plans,and the system of incentives and penalties used to
great deal of concern about how to accurately define two key terms or concepts,"jobs-housing encourage adoption and implementation of adequate housing plans.
balance"and"commute-shed." A few respondents question the ability of smaller communities to The State would be responsible for:
develop multi-modal transit services,and some believe that non-transit accessible employment
development should probably not be allowed.
• developing,as today,the law governing contents and purpose of local housing
A true jobs-housing balance consideis not just the numbers of jobs and housing units in a elements(State Legislature).
particular community or subregion,but also the match between residents'skills and income reviewing regional housing standards,including the regional fair share allocations
expectations and the types of jobs available. A primary goal is to reduce the number of single (HCD).
occupancy vehicle miles traveled to work each day by making it more likely that residents will find reviewing the comprehensive regional housing plan,including both the regional
desirable employment within their own communities,or commute by public or private transit to agency's summation of local programs and the regional agencies incentive and
nearby communities. penalties to ensure local compliance(HCD).
It is unlikely that many individual communities will be able to achieve this goal. It is possible, Incentives and Enforcement Mechanisms
however,to approach this on a subregional basis by first dividing the region into"commute-sheds"
and then working towards jobs-housing balances within them. It will require some time,however, Seventeen of the twenty recommended mechanisms registered"agree/agree somewhat"response
to accurately define them,determine what is needed within each,and devise the interjurisdictional
programs needed to improve the balance. averages of 70%or higher. Among elected/appointed officials,"agree/agree somewhat"responses
fall below 70%for just five of the twenty mechanisms. These include state mechanisms 4,9 and
Staff recommends that: 10(the three that registered the lowest average"agree/agree somewhat"responses);regional
mechanism 1;and subregional mechanism 3.
Recognizing that the county-based Congestion Management Plans currently
being developed are not perfect,they should focus on establishing policies State mechanism 4 recommends the establishment of authority at the regional level to carry out
which improve the coordination of housing and job opportunities. At the same adopted land use policies and actions. The other four suggest the withholding of new revenue and
time,subregional coordinating committees,with the assistance of regional grant funds to jurisdictions that do not comply with regionally adopted policies,imposition of
agency staff,should identify more accurate"commute-sheds"and develop penalties for developments that proceed contrary to adopted land use policies,giving priority in
appropriate programs to improve the jobs-housing balance within them. allocating grants and funds to those communities that adopt regionally adopted goals,and the
sharing and pooling of housing funds.
4
3
OVERALL STRUCTURE
Whether to grant the regional agency authority over land use at the local level,and if so what kind 1. Regional policies,based on mutually agreed upon values,should be developed to guide decisi6ns
and how much,continues to generate a great deal of discussion. Comments include concerns that about where to direct growth so as to minimize overall urban sprawl, to balance highway and
regional authority over local land use will erode citizen control,will create another expensive layer transit networks and to link housing needs with job growth.
of bureaucracy,and will further complicate the development process. In order to achieve the
results envisioned for an effective system of regional growth management,however,some
measure of regional authority is necessary.
Agree
The existing single purpose regional agencies have already been granted some control over land
use and disbursement of funds by the state and federal governments. What is being proposed is a
more comprehensive,better coordinated program that will enable the region's jurisdictions to work Neutral ® Officials
together more efficiently to achieve not just regionally adopted goals,but also those that state and
federal legislation have mandated. ® Staff
Positive responses to the recommendations to withhold funds or assess penalties for non- Disagree ❑ All Others
compliance with regional goals,at 54%and 63%respectively,dropped well below those registered
for most other enforcement mechanisms. They rose to an average of 77%,however,in support
for the regional agency advocating a priority in allocating grants,loans and other funds to those 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1
communities that comply with regional and subregional policies. To improve support for some
measure of regional enforcement power,staff recommends that the focus be on rewarding those
communities that comply rather than penalizing those that do not.
2. Future regional policies should reduce development pressures on small and medium sized com-
munities on the periphery of the region.
Agree
RM
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Disagree ❑ All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3. Future regional policies should emphasize significant public and private investment in the
region's major urban centers.
Agree
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Disagree ❑ All Others
5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I
Urban Growth Boundaries . Compact Communities
1. Each jurisdiction or subregion will consider the following factors in establishing proposed growth
boundaries: 1. Each community or subregional area will identify sites suitable for infill,increased density and
A. Anticipated population and employment growth. mixed use in the land use and housing elements of their general plans.
B. Opporturuties to rehabilitate,redevelop,Increase density or otherwise improve the efficiency of land within'emsting boundaries.
C. Densities and development patterns required to support coso-eifectrve public transit.
D. State and regional objectives such as providing housing for people of all household types and income levels.
E. Environmental resources and constraints,natural and manmade hazards,and urban open space needs that will affect the amount of develop-
ment a jurisdiction can reasonably accommodate within its boundaries. Agree
F. Local,subregional and regional infrastructure capacity to ensure adequate levels of service for erdsting and proposed development.
Agree Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Neutral ® Officials El All Others
® staff Disagree
Disagree O All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10 0
2. Communities will enact strategies to expedite development within urban growth boundaries.
Such measures might include allowing master EIRs in "preferred development zones,"or stream-
2. Each jurisdiction that has not alreadv established urban growth boundaries will submit proposed lining the development review process for projects that meet specified criteria.
boundaries to the regional agency. A collaborative process will ensue in which the jurisdiction
will have ample opportunity to clarify the information and process used. The ultimate responsi-
bility for acceptance of urban growth boundaries,however,will rest with the regional agency. Agree
Agree
Neutral ® Officials
Neutral ® Officials ® Staff
® Staff ❑ All Others
Disagree
C:1 All Others Disagree
0% 20% 40% 60% eo% 1001/6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 r
3. Communities that have already established urban growth boundaries according to appropriate 3. Compact and efficient"new communities"outside urban growth boundaries can be considered
criteria will not need to submit them to the regional agency for approval. Established boundaries when interurban transit services are available or committed to serve them.
will be reviewed for acceptance by the regional agency when local general plans are submitted for
consistency with state and regional objectives.
Agree
Agree
Neutral ® Officials
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff ® Staff
Disagree O All Others Disagree C1 All Others
0% 20% 40% 601% 80% 1001/6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Jobs-Housing Balance .
. Housing Affordability
1. Cities and counties will demonstrate that major proposed non-transit accessible employment
improves jobs-housing balance within the community or "commute shed." 1. To permit greater flexibility in the existing system,subregional sharing and"brokering"of fair-
share allocations and housing funds will be permitted. While no local government will be al-
Agree lowed to"bargain away" its entire'fair share'of affordable housing,jurisdictions will be encour-
aged to cooperate on a subregional basis in devising effective means of meeting housing produc-
Neutral ® Officials
lion and affordability goals.
® Staff
Disagree O All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree
2. All communities will strive to coordinate the housing approved with workers'needs and income Neutral ® Officials
levels.
® Staff
Agree Disagree D All Others
i
Neutral ® Officials
ED Staff 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Disagree O All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2. In another departure from the current system,review of the housing elements of local general
plans will be delegated by the state to the regional agency. If the state is unwilling to delegate its
review,the regional agency shall conduct a limited review of site availability to meet housing
3. Suburban communities,in particular,will focus on developing multi-modal transit services that targets.
facilitate the home-to-work commute.
Agree Agree
Neutral E3 Officials
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Disagree C:l All Others ® Staff
Disagree El All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4. At the sub-regional or"commute-shed" level,jobs-housing balance initially will be addressed in
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
county Congestion Management Plans. It is evident,however,that commute-sheds frequently
cross county boundaries. Therefore,jobs-housing balance will ultimately be addressed on a
subregional basis by jurisdictions in agreed-upon"commute sheds."
Agree
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Disagree 0 All Others
01/6 20% 40% 60% 80% 100
i
I
Incentives and Enforcement Mechanisms
1. :allow for the establishment of authoritv at the regional level to carry out adopted land use poli-
The State Should: cies and actions.
I
1. Initiate changes to the existing property tax system in order to alleviate fiscal constraints and
motivations that have influenced local land use decisions. Agree
Agree Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Neutral Officials Disagree ❑ All Others
® Staff
Disagree
C3 All Others 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3. Require special districts,local agency formation commissions(LAFCO's),and regional agencies to
2. coordinate their efforts.
Either directly provide a new and stable source of funding,or enable regional comprehensive
planning agencies to raise revenues to fund comprehensive planning and infrastructure pro-
i
grams.
Agree
Agree
Neutral ® Officials
Neutral ® Officials ® Staff
® Staff Disagree ❑ All Others
Disagree ❑ All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80°0 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I
3. Establish general goals,objectives and guidance for regional agencies with the participation of
local and regional officials while recognizing the diversity among regions. 6. Provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between and/or among agencies that avoids
costly and lengthy litigation.
I
Agree
Agree
Neutral ® Officials I
® Staff I Neutral ® Officials
Disagree El All Others i ® Staff
i Disagree ❑ All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% j
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reduce the 2/3 vote requirement for infrastrucL-re bond issues. I Regional Agencies Should:
t -
Agree 1. Advocate a priority in allocating Federal,State,and special district grants,loans and funds to
those communities that adopt regionally and subregionally endorsed objectives.
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Disagree ❑ All Others
Agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
i Neutral ® Officials
t
® Staff
Disagree ❑ All Others
8. Improve flexibility in rules governing tax sharing arrangements between local jurisdictions. Disa g
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agree
Neutral
2. Ensure consistency of all local general plans with state and regional objectives and adopted lai
® Officials
® Staff use policies as local plans are amended over time.
Disagree ❑ All Others
O% 20% 40% 601% 80% 100% Agree
Ml
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
9. Allow for the withholding of new revenue as well as grant funds to cities,counties and special Disagree C3 All Others
districts that do not comply with regionally adopted land use policies and actions.
0% 20%. 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agree MMMMW
3. Organize and coordinate the development of specific goals and objectives,generally acceptable to
Neutral M Officials the political entities of the Bay Area, �vhich address issues of potential regional significance such
® Staff as:
Disagree ❑ All Others
1. Economic well-being
Population growth and distribution
O% 201/6 40% 601/6 801/6 100% 3. Housing and job production
4. Transportation
S. Public health and human services
6. Environmental quality
7. Public safety
10. Permit the imposition of a regional impact fee or fine on developments which proceed contrary to g. °°°°°
P P y 9. Scheduling,siting and financing of regional and subregional infrastructure as well as special regional facilities such as regional airports and
adopted land use policies and actions. major industrial developments.
Agree
Agree
Neutral ® Officials Neutral ® Officials
® Staff ® Staff
Disagree ❑ All Others i Disagree ❑ All Others
o% 20% 401/6 60% 80% 1001/6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Subregional Coordination Committees'should: Local Jurisdictions should:
1. Develop policies and review boards of cities,counties and special districts to resolve matters 1. Coordinate local land use plans with neighboring jurisdictions on a subregional basis.
relating to job-housing balance,the amount and allowable density of needed housing,open space
buffers,coordination of infrastructure,and capital needs and responsibilities
Agree
gree
Neutral ® Officials Neutral a. 0 Officials
® Staff ® Staff
Disagree C:l All Others
Disagree ❑ All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80'% 100
2. Require mitigation of significant adverse impacts of a plan or project on a neighboring community 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
unless,on a subregional basis,mitigation is deemed infeasible due to overriding social or eco-
nomic considerations.
Agree 2. Ensure local general plans and regionally significant development proposals are consistent with
regionally adopted land use policies and actions.
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Disagree O All Others
Agree
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3. Provide for sharing and pooling of local housing funds among neighboring communities. Neutral ® Officials
® Staff
Agree Disagree ❑ All Others
Neutral In Officials 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
® Staff
Disagree C1 All Others
O% 201/6 40% 60% 80% 100
3. Consider interjurisdictional tax sharing agreements in order to reduce the fiscal influences on land
use decisions.
4. Develop procedures for improved notification and communication on planning and development
issues.
Agree
Agree
I
Neutral In Officials
Neutral ® Officials
® Staff . ro
Disagree L] All Others ® Staff
Disagree ❑ All Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
' Composition ojsubregional committees is expected to vary depending on the issue under consiJeration. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DRAFT
August 12 , 1991
Mr. Tom Powers, Chairman Regional Planning Committee
Association of Bay Area Governments
Post Office Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
Re: Questionnaire - Implementation of Regional Growth Management
Objectives
Dear Mr. Powers:
The purpose of this letter is to express concerns regarding the survey
referenced above. This letter is being forwarded on behalf of the
entire Dublin City Council, and its content was reviewed and approved
at the City Council meeting on August 12, 1991.
There are two primary areas of concern. First, the questionnaire is
structured in a manner which assumes that many of the elements found
in the Bay Vision 2020 report have been accepted by the respondent.
Your committee may not be aware that the City of Dublin raised several
concerns with the Draft 2020 report. I have enclosed a copy of the
comments submitted to the Bay Vision 2020 Commission and ABAG's
Legislative and Governmental Organization Committee. Before an
individual can provide a useful response to the questions asked by
your committee, it would appear appropriate to initiate a discussion
of some of the fundamental issues surrounding regional government.
There is a concern that the results of your survey will be used to
state an indication of a position without first discussing various
alternatives.
The second area of concern is the method of distribution of the
survey. The preface explains that the information will " . . .ensure
that a Bay Area growth management program will accurately represent
the region's collective political will" (emphasis added) . It is my
understanding that the survey was distributed to individual elected
officials and others at the direction of your committee. The
"collective will" can best be determined through public discussions by
elected bodies. The Dublin City Council has a practice of discussing
issues similar to this as an entity and putting forth a "collective
position. " It is our hope that somehow a selective survey will not be
represented as a "collective decision" of all cities in ABAG's .region.
The City of Dublin would encourage you to invite all cities affected
by the Bay Vision 2020 report to respond and take a position on those
recommendations prior to beginning a study on implementation of
concepts for which there is not any concurrence.
It appears that some of these concerns are demonstrated in the ABAG
Planning Directors' report dated July 30, 1991. An example is the
discussion of the best method of specifying Urban Growth Boundaries.
EXHNIT
It appears that ABAG Staff has suggested a proposal which is
patterned after the methods used by the State Legislature in its
recent treatment of cities and counties. ABAG Staff identifies that
respondents expressed a concern with the proposal to have the Regional
Agency define growth boundaries. The concern expressed was that it
would create an additional bureaucracy. ABAG Staff concurs that
substantial staff time would be required and therefore suggests the
responsibility should be delegated to LAFCO. This philosophy that
additional mandates can be accomplished by LAFCO does not eliminate
concerns with creating additional bureaucracy. You have merely
shifted the agency which is impacted.
The area of housing affordability contains another example of
attempting to create an illusion that fundamental problems with
current regional government proposals have been met. To address
comments that the proposal to have the Regional Agency review Housing
Elements would add an additional layer of review, ABAG Staff has
suggested that the Agency only be involved with mandating housing
standards and fair share allocations within the plans. The
fundamental issues of regional government need to be addressed prior
to spending more resources on implementing a plan and concepts which
have not been thoroughly discussed by the public.
The City of Dublin appreciates the efforts of your committee to obtain
information on regional issues. It is our hope that your efforts will
also include a review of certain assumptions presented both in the Bay
Vision 2020 report and your survey. Issues such as those previously
raised by the City of Dublin are worthy of consideration. It would
also appear appropriate for the written comments on surveys returned
to be summarized and presented for discussion by local communities.
This may provide information beyond the direct questions presented in
your questionnaire.
On behalf of the entire City Council, it is our hope that these
concerns will be addressed by your committee.
Sincerely,
OMA
Peter W. Snyder
Mayor
a:L8122020.doc.agenda#5
cc: Dublin City Council
Gary Binger, ABAG Planning Director
Enclosure