HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee (2) l
1
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 27, 1986
SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A. Memo from Planning Commissioner Raley
dated May 13, '1986
RECOMMENDATION: Determine: 1) whether or not to continue to
participate on the Committee, 2) whether or not
the Committee should form policy recommendations
to the local cities, and 3) whether or not to
invite the Alameda County Planning Staff to make
a presentation.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of the Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee has apparently changed
from a) providing input to the Alameda County General Plan for the Tri-Valley
Area, to b) forming policy recommendations to the Tri-Valley cities. The time
and resource commitment has also changed from a) a total of three meetings to
b) meeting as long and as often as necessary to address all major Tri-Valley
planning issues.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
determine:
1) Whether or not to continue to participate on the Committee.
2) Whether or not the Committee should form policy recommendations to
the local cities.
3) Whether or not to invite Alameda County Planning Staff to make a
presentation to clarify the Committee's intent and scope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Dublin Planning Commission Members
ITEM N0. Planning Department
' CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916
P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Brian Raley, Planning Commissioner
via Larry Tong, Planning Director
DATE: May 13, 1986
RE: Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee
In April, 1986, the City Council appointed Cm. Raley, Mr. Chase and
Mr. Kent to the Alameda County Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee.
After the first Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee meeting, several
concerns have arisen:
1. Purpose of the Committee
It was the Planning Commission's original understanding that the purpose
of the Committee was to review several key planning issues "of significance to
the entire Tri-Valley area" (see March 20, 1986, letter) and assist Alameda
County in the preparation of the General Plan for the Tri-Valley area.
The purpose now seems to be 1) the review of all major planning issues
in the Tri-Valley area, and 2) the formation of policy recommendations to
local cities. . (See Draft for Discussion, May 18 (sic) , 1986.)
Is it appropriate for the Committee to form policy recommendations, or
should that be at the discretion of the individual City Councils?
2. Time and Resource Commitment
The Committee was to meet a total of three times and then be phased out
(see March 20, 1986, letter) . The term of the Committee has been changed to a
minimum of three meetings (see Record of the Meeting, April 17, 1986) . The
Committee will now apparently meet as long and as often as necessary to
address all major Tri-Valley Planning issues. Is this consistent with-,City
Council direction?
Conclusion
The intent and scope of the Committee has changed considerably since the
City Council decided to participate.
tit Is ,,I B
City Council Members
May 13, 1986
Page 2
The City Council should determine 1) whether or not to continue to
participate on the Committee, and 2) whether or not the Committee should form
policy recommendations to the local cities. .
If the City Council has concerns with -the new intent and scope, perhaps
the Alameda County Planning Staff should be invited to make a presentation to
the City Council to clarify the Committee's input and scope.
BR/LLT/ao
Enclosures: March 20, 1986, Letter
Draft for Discussion, May 18, 1986
Record of Meeting, April 17, 1986
cc: Planning Commission Members
���-�rowt�i?ex?0.;�J5.:=:�. .. ...—.�. ._��...r,.�:'�c,�. wx-_-uvar•e•.rr•a..s:..� ��..i.�.®..�� :5:;:•:z r':=^:r:,=-.rr....... ....""i'=.�." °
ALAMEDA . COUNT PLANNING DEPARTM EN -
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 ` (415) 881-6401
March '•20, :1986
RECEIYED .
Mayor and City Council 111 AR
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340 DUBLIN PLANNING
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Snyder:
The Alameda County Planning Commission has authorized a study of the
Livermore-Amador Valley to take in the Tri-Valley . Planning Area .
Included cities are Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Danville and San Ramon t
and the surrounding unincorporated areas. The effort is to review
policies and plans of the two-county jurisdictions, with emphasis on
those issues that are of significance to the entire Tri-Valley arga.
These issues inc u e land use, _ transportation services) environmental
factors and resources.
Representatives of the seven jurisdictions held a meeting on February
27, 1986 at the Pleasanton Fairgrounds Cafeteria Building. Summary
minutes of that 'meeting - are enclosed for your information. It was
determined by the Planning Commissioners present that a 21-member citizen
task force would be appointed, consisting of one Planning Commissioner
and one member from each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction has or will
appoint its Planning Commission representative and citizen member.
There will be an additional seven citizen members appointed by the
seven Planning Commissioners from among submittals by local
organizations. The mailing to the local organizations is enclosed. The
local organizations were divided into seven groups from which one member
each will be selected by the Planning Commissioners as at-large -members
representing Environmental; Agricultural; Service, Health; Community,
Historical; Builder, Developer, Real Estate, Chamber of Commerce;
Utility, Transportation; Mining, Flood Control interests.
The Planning Commission-Citizens' Committee- would meet a total of ✓.
three times to make policy and plan recommendations, from which a report
would be prepared. The Committee'would then be phased out.
r
Mayor and City Council
March 20, 1986
Page 2
This is not an Alameda County project .but. a joint .project of the.
seven jurisdictions to provide for a Tri-Valley cooperative effort.
Interest at the February 27 meeting was - evident and the Planning
Commissioners and staff members are looking forward to this endeavor.
Please call me if I may respond to uestions.
r truly yours,
WHF/BC/jpb William H. ey
Encl. Planning Director
cc: Planning Directors
Ed Campbell
1597P
7
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
May ), 1986
TRI-VALLEY PLANNING TASK-STUDY GROUP.'
FINDINGS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
Agency Roles and Responsibilities,
Population Issues
This is the first of a series of Draft Findings and Policy Recommendations
papers to be prepared by staff for the Task Study Group. The current paper
presents, as a draft for discussion, a summary of findings and alternative
policy recommendations based upon the Group's review .of two sets of issues at
its April 17, 1986 meeting. Further papers will be' prepared as the Group
progresses with, its discussion of other Tri-Valley planning issues.
Staff recommends that the Group first discuss and then approve statements
identifying, the scope and findings pertaining to each issue. The language
approved by the group may be based on the following draft statements, with any
additions, deletions or changes the group determines to be appropriate.
Staff recommends that the Group nest review and discuss the draft alternative -
policies. Again, the suggested language in this paper may be modified to
include any changes the Group may choose to make.
It is suggested that the Group tentatively approve language pertaining to the
two subject issues, insofar as it may wish to modify some of its
findings/policies prior to preparation of its final report.
1. Agency Roles and Responsibilities
1.1 Exposition of the Issue -
l.l.a. Is the current arrangement among local, regional, state and federal
agencies acting in the Tri-Valley area acceptable and adequate? If
it is not, how and to what extent can local planning agencies
encourage greater coordination?
l.l.b. How might the cities within the Tri-Valley area and the t-go
counties better coordinate their short- and long-term planning
efforts?
l.l.c. Is it possible for the cities and the counties to reach policy
coucensus on issues of mutual concern, in order to present
consistent local policy in dealing with private property owners and
developers, and with other public agencies?
Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group
Draft Findings and Recommendations: 21
May 18, 1986
Page 2
1.2 Findings of the Task Study Group
1.2.a. It is the concensus of the Tri-V alley Planning Task Study Group
that there is a need for improved coordination among the various
agencies and organizations acting within the Tri-Valley area.
1.2.b. It is the concensus of the Group that local city and county
planning agencies,, and the long-term, comprehensive general plans
formulated by these, should have preeminence in guiding and
evaluating plans, programs and projects of other agencies in the
Tri-Valley area.
1.2.c. It is the consensus of the Group that coordination of agencies and
organizations acting within the Tri Valley Area, while undertaken
in a manner consistent with legislative requirements and
guidelines, nevertheless is inadequate to deal with ongoing and
dynamic changes in social; economic, environmental, physical and
political conditions in the Tri-Valley.
1.2.d. It is the conclusion of the Task Study Group that local decisions
on. development are too often made based primarily on the benefits
to the decision-making jurisdiction and community, with inadequte
consideration of' .- direct or indirect impacts on surrounding
communities and on the Tri-Valley area as a whole.
1.2.e. It is the conclusion of the Group that coordination of . short- and
long-term planning efforts and programs is particularly important
now, in that most communities ' in the Tri-Valley are undertaking
local reviews of plan policies in response to recent and
anticipated changes.
1.2:f. It is the conclusion of the Group that coordination of local
planning policies and programs is essential in order to provide a
consistent set of policies with which local communities can deal in
concert with regional, state and federal agencies relating to the
plans, programs and projects of these latter agencies which may
impact the Tri-Valley area..
1.3 Alternative Policy Recommendations
1.3.a. The counties and cities of the Tri-Valley area should adopt a
common set of goals and objectives to serve as guidelines to these
and other agencies and organizations acting in the area in the
formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects for
the area.
1.3.b. The counties and cities of the Tri-Valley area, in coordination
with other agencies and organizations, should periodically
Tri-Vall.ey Planning Task Study Group
Draft Findings and Recommendations: 31
May 18, 1986
Page 3
undertake joint studies to assess the cumulative and regional
(Tri-Valley wide) impacts, on infrastructure, environmental
quality, etc. , of approved/adopted and alternative plans, policies,
programs and projects.
1.3.c. A central clearinghouse should be established to improve the
dissemination of information among the counties, cities and other
agencies acting in the Tri-Valley area. The clearinghouse should
serve to: maintain records of and periodically prepare summary
reports on major projects, studies and reports, plan amendments,
etc. ,ec. , of local, regional, state and federal agencies;
monitor and periodically report on changes within the Tri-Valley in
land use, infrastructure, population, housing, employment, and
environmental quality.
1.3.d. The counties and cities of the Tri-Valley area should jointly, or
through a central clearinghouse, prepare, adopt and maintain
(periodically update) common sets of basic data, assumptions and
projections for the Tri-Valley area to be used by these and other
agencies in local studies.
2. Population
2.1. Exposition of the Issue:
2.1.a What qualitative as well as quantitative changes in the population
and in households are anticipated through the nest twenty or so
years? '
2.1.b. How will these changes be affected by the amounts and types of new
employment projected for the Tri-Valley area, and by the types of
housing that are likely to be constructed?
2.1.c. What implications do these changes in poulation/household
characteristics have for housing,public services, transportation,
etc.?
2.1.d. To what extent do and/or should local planning agencies consider
these potential changes in their plans and programs and in the
review of project proposals?
2.1.e. How should the cities and the counties deal with uncertainties and
differences of opinion regarding projections of population, jobs,
household size, employed residents, etc.?
2.1.f. Should a mult-agency monitoring program be put in place to track
ongoing changes in these? Should mid-decade censuses be instituted
Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group
Draft Findings and Recommendations: 41 .
May 18, 1986
Page 4
of special polls taken to provide -improved and more up-to-date data
on area population and employment characteristics?
2.1.g. Should local general plans be reviewed and revised more frequently?
2.2. Findings of the Task Study Group
2.2.a. It is the conclusion of the Group -that local planning programs may
not give adequate consideration to ongoing qualitative changes in
the population.
r"
2.2.b. It is the conclusion of the Group that there is inadequate
information on the characteristics of the existing population
within the Tri-Valley communities. This may be due to very rapid
turnover in housing within the Tri-Valley area, such that
population characteristics. provided in the 1980 Census may no
longer apply to the current population.
2.2.c. It is the observation of the Group that a wide variety of often
conflicting data and assumptions are currently used in planning
studies and project reviews within the Tri-Valley area. In
particular, there. .is a lack of concensus regarding the amounts,
types and location of future development. Further, there is a lack
of adequate understanding of the implications of this growth in
relation to future population characteristics.
2.2.d. It is the conclusion of the Group that mid-decade censuses and/or
sample surveys are warranted in order to provide . up-to-date
information on the characteristics of area residents and
employees.
2.2.e. It is the conclusion of the Group that dynamic changes in
population, in employment, and in land use, transportation,
traffic, etc. , warrant frequent and periodic reviews of local
general plan policies and proposals.
..2.3. Alternative Policy Recommendations
2.3.1 The State (Employment Development Department) in conjunction with
regional and local agencies, should maintain and periodically
update employment data for communities in the Tri-Valley area.
2.3.2 In the absence of current state employment data on the Tri-Valley,
local jurisdictions should jointly undertake surveys of employers
in the Tri-Valley area to maintain up-to-date employment
information.
2.3.3 The counties and cities of the Tri-Valley should jointly undertake _
—..::rrr..w..::.+:...f-s.rx.etq..•:+:'r::..:.�..:........,.y. a.a..w..:.,ot.u_-.�lw^..NY��. lh...:w.:r�...k'.1:. rn�::.....:r. :.M•.r,•.E+?-3}u..'+Lbciv-f�::r.+mrV.Lrsa::nnt:4.h ub4!YC:^J!_J'f?•ITPJ"37+Y=..i'r:....s c.',.. ....
f
Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group
Draft Findings and Recommendations: 51
May 18, 1986
Page 5
(sponsor) censuses or surveys to,-provide up-to-date information on
the area's population between U.S. Censuses.
2.3.4. Local planning agencies should periodically review and modify their
general plans to reflect significant ongoing changes in conditions
(population, employment, transportation/traffic, infrastructure
constraints, environmental quality, etc.).
1675P
.. ,,e.;�•.,..x.`...,_.r.,.,e v,.... ,..,..c ._c.. , y. ,.•.ur�.y.::�:....x-rest. .. <,..a .....,,rr..o.rs..-r.:....... .,i... ,...�I•...N•tr.a,K ..... ...z�4Y:Ta:C:a^.':.+.6" ..... .. ..
TRI-VALLEY PLANNING TASK STUDY GROUP
Record of the Meeting
April 17, 1986
The first meeting of the Tri-Valley Planning_„Task Study Group was convened at
7:40 p.m.
1. Opening Remarks: Ms Betty Croly' Assistant Planning Director, Alameda
County Planning Department, made the opening remarks, describing the
formation and objectives of the Group.
2. Introductions: The members of the Group as well as attending staff and
public introduced themselves. Seventeen of the 21 Task Study Group
members were present (A copy of the attendance list is attached)
3. Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair: Ms. TunyDunkley, Alameda County
Planning Commission, was selected Chair of the Group. Mr. Tony Hurt, City
of San Ramon Planning Commission, was selected Vice Chair.
4. Approval of General Procedures and Schedule: The proposed Procedures and
Schedule were reviewed by staff and discussed by the Group:
There was general concern about the scope of the Group's effort and
the ability of the Group to complete its report in only three
meetings, as proposed in the Draft Procedures. The Group therefore
agreed to amend the draft Procedures so that the "Term” of the Group
will now read: '"The -Group will hold a minimum of three meetings to ,
discuss and prepare its report on Tri-Valley planning issues, and
will then be phased out."
A question was raised as to whether or nor proxies/alternates should
attend the meeting in the absence of the regular members. Staff
advised that each of the jurisdictions had agreed that there would be
no alternates.
Several suggestions regarding Group procedures for taking public
testimony were considered. After discussion, the Group agreed that,
as a general procedure, it would not receive public testimony.
S. Background Materials: Current Planning Studies and Programs: The
materials were reviewed by staff.
Comments on the eleven background reports prepared by the Alameda County
Planning Department were made at various points throughout the meeting..
There were several comments that some of the information in these is
incorrect and/or out of date, and should be revised. Staff recommended
that the Group members indicate where revisions may be required. Some
members also felt it would be helpful to invite Tri-Valley agencies to
submit their views and comments, to supplement the materials in the
reports.
... ,�..�•-,.e..:,..::.v..:.:.....,,.:._,:......�..:t...__•:.•..:••.«.:.....r...,,,.,3:,.....:.........,o.,.:-,..�....,.�..«...d.....—..,...-........_,.,..�•..r,n. .n...... . t -��o.n>�x:.. .,vaxx:hia:e�i2 ., s:;e+.a rz. .....�
Tri-Valley Planning'Task Study Group
Record of the Meeting: April 17, 1986
Page 2
6. Procedures/Schedule for Discussion of Tri-Valley Planning Issues:
The Group discussed its possible objectives and purposes at various points
during the meeting. Various suggestions were made: to consider only one
major issue; to vary the proposed schedule for discussion of issues; to
consider land use and circulation as focus issues, with other related
issues considered as required; to limit the work of the Group to
identification of major issues; or to complete a report containing both
issues identification and proposed policies.
Staff advised that the final decision relating to these choices rested
with the Task Study Lroup, although it was hoped that the Group would
address and develop policy on a broad range of Tri-Valley issues.
Staff suggested that the Group first attempt to reach concensus on wHat
constituted major planning issues for the Tri-Valley area. Issues in the
"Findings and Issues" background report would be used as a vehicle for
discussion.
7. Discussion of Issues
a. Agency Roles and Responsibilities: The scope of these issues was reviewed
by staff, and then discussed by the Group:
Common sets of data and assumptions: There is a need for agencies to
use common sets of data and assumptions. Currently, a wide variety
of often conflicting information is used by local agencies and
organizations. There is no central clearinghouse for such
information, requiring an extended process in reviewing plans,
programs and projects.
Agency roles: The relationship between local planning agencies (the
cities and counties) and autonomous public agencies (school, utility
and other service districts) was identified as a potential planning
issue. Several related points and examples were given:
The current arrangement of independent agencies may be healthy
because it provides a system of .checks and balances.
Each agency has powers and duties as prescribed by state lava.
Each agency, therefore, is not subservient to, but rather, is
coordinative with all other agencies.
A certain preeminence of cities and counties, as local planning
agencies, may be assumed from state statutes requiring that
certain plans and projects of autonomous agencies must be
reviewed by the cities and counties for conformance with local
general plans.
Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group
Record of the Meeting: April 17, 1986
Page 3
The current arrangement of cities, counties and service
districts reflects the way in- which the Tri-Valley developed.
Most of the existing service districts were in place to serve
development in parts of the Tri-Valley -before the cities
incorporated.
Several examples of existing policy and technical groups and
studies were given (Alameda County Solid Waste Management
Authority; I-580/I-680 Study)
Intra Jurisdictional Planning:
It is often difficult for two or more communities to reach
concensus on planning for "regional" ' facilities (i.e. street
extensions and improvements).
Local land use/project decisions are often made without adequate
consultation with other jurisdictions. There should be more
cooperation, rather than competition.
Tri-Valley: The comment was made, and the Group agreed that the
that the second Issue - set under Agency Roles and Responsibilities
should be revised to include the entire Tri-Valley area (San Ramon
Valley area and jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, as well as
jurisdictions in the Livermore-Amador Valley area of Alameda County).
b. Population: The scope 'of these issues were reviewed by staff, and then
discussed by the Task Study Group:
Mid-decade Census: Such a census, or comparable survey, may be
important, especially with the rapid turnover in housing within the
Tri-Valley. There was a general support for local funding of ..a
mid-decade census, if the costs are not prohibitive. Local funding
may be required give cutbacks in state funding for special censuses,
Some questioned the need for a special census simply to serve
long-term general plans. It was pointed out that it is already too
late for a 1980 mid-decade census:.
Alternatives to a comprehensive special census were suggested,
including sampling and telephone surveys.
Plan Reviews: It was suggested that local general plans either be
updated more frequently (e.g. , every five years) or be made more
flexible to take into consideration ongoing changes in population
characteristics and in the political outlooks of the communities and
Tri-Valley area. The comment was also made that General Plans should
be long-term and comprehensive in their scope, and therefore should
not be "spot" amended for individual projects and proposals.
-:'Jx.._ _ .„.w....•..�._.,._. ...�.�_..r--_ _.. �...:.Yr:„t+dr.-1:b•Kii1u"«:r�N.`..;:::_.....^�aC.r.w+uY..r.i:ai. .+i.......�"ciwi+b•Y.:�T:w:iaJrt.^..a.G:e:2.:......)..[G.'1SJv'C—..n'JE•!55.:vi.�ra:,e..;`•:;:�•:....J._
Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group
Record of the Meeting: April 17, 1986
Page •4
Changing Population Characteristics: It was not clear to some
members of the Group whether local__ general .plans and plan amendments
are giving adequate consideration to and responding to potential
changes in the population.
Housing Affordability: The observation was made that most of the
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area are, in effect, deciding that
housing for low and moderate income households will not or cannot be
provided in their communities. These households must seek housing
elsewhere outside the Tri-Valley (e.g. , the San Joaquin Valley).
The question was ,raised as to whether or not local jurisdictions have
control over housing costs. Some felt that; communities do have some
control, through zoning regulations on densities, lot sizes, etc.
However, some observed that many multi-family projects have been
turned down because of local objections to higher than "normal”
densities. Others noted that most home purchasers regard their
houses as investments, and do not want certain densities and uses
that would jeopardize these investments.
One member observed that appropriate housing densities to accommodate
projected needs will have to take precedence over local politics and
community sentiments. Several strategies were suggested:
More aggressive planning by local jurisdictions, involving more
direct management of growth.
Programs to remove the negative stereotypes about higher density
housing.
Concensus and programs providing that all communities in the
Tri-Valley area provide a share of affordable housing. This
allocation is currently provided by ABAG's calculations of
housing needs, some felt that the base data (1980 Census) on
which these needs are based should be more current.
8. Conclusions
It was determined that staff would prepare policy alternatives based on
the issues discussed for consideration by the Task Study Group. Copies of
these will be mailed to the members seven to ten days before the neat
meeting.
8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The neat meeting Till
be in the Pleasanton Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. , May 15, 1986
1674P