Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.3 ABAG Governmt PositionCITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Written Communication: Association of Bay Area Government's Position on Regional Government (Prepared by: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Letter from Mary Griffin, President of ABAG RECOMMENDATION: Consider calling meeting of Tri-Valley Council to ~~i~ discuss what position the Tri-Valley Council will take on the recent action of the ABAG General Assembly. 2. Set a date to meet prior to December 25, 1991. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined. DESCRIPTION: The City recently received a letter from the President of the Association of Bay Area Governments indicating that the General Assembly had adopted a position on regional governments. The proposed process provides additional time for local communities and subregional organizations to consider the issues and present recommendations for review and consideration by the General Assembly in March 1992. As indicated in President Griffin's letter, these recommendations must be developed and submitted to ABAG no later than February 19, 1992. The intent is to allow adequate time for the proposals to receive proper consideration at the ABAG General Assembly which is tentatively scheduled for March 19, 1992. In order to meet this tight timeframe, it is apparent that an initial meeting of the Tri-Valley Council representatives should occur prior to the Christmas holiday. a:s129abag.agenda#6 ------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: CITY CLERK ITEM N0. • ~ / Gl FiLE / cJ ~ .`/,~r~ rr ~~~- ~~ ~ l ~ ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ~ Mailing Address: ^ P.O. Box 2050 ^ Oakland, CA 94604-2050 November 27, 1991 Dear General Assembly Delegates, Alternates and Executive Board Members: Less than a week ago, we met in San Francisco to deliberate on establishing a platform for regional growth management. Since then, numerous articles and editorials in newspapers, and on radio and television have tried to interpret the actions we took. The purpose of this letter is twofold. First and foremost, to send my personal thanks to those of you who came and participated in one of ABAG's most controversial and engaging General Assemblies ever. Secondly, to commend you for your willingness to be candid and forthcoming in the work sessions and to present thoughtful alternative~ during the business meeting which resulted in the action we took to move forward. It was not always easy to follow the monons, substitutes and amendments, so I am enclosing a copy of the position paper, as revised and adopted by both the cities and the counties. It spells out the common interests, goals and objectives. Please notice that in the position paper's last sentence we commit ourselves to meeting again next March. This means we have an extremely tight schedule. Since so many of you expressed interest in being involved, I will take you at your word and encourage your acrive parricipation and leadership. It is important that you share what was accomplished at the General Assembly with colleagues on your boards and councils. You will also need to devise the best means for enlisting local/ subregional input on issues identified in the General Assembly posirion statement. March 19 has now been selected as the date for our next General Assembly. I would request that any recommendations developed by local communities and sub- regional organizations on points raised in the position paper be submitted to ABAG by no later than February 19. This will permit us to sort, summarize and forward material to all delegates and alternates in advance of the meeting and allow for the casting of a thoughtful vote. I will be requesting the Execurive Board to tackle the administrative issue dealing with ensuring effectiveness and economy in consolidaring single-purpose regional agencies. In addition, re~reser.:a~iv~s ~f :he Ba; .°.rea Plznr.ir.g D~~ect~*s' Associati~n are being asked to nr~~?~e ontional approaches on how to stress the role and responsibility of subregional planning in managing growth, and how to best protect agricultural land and agriculture as a business. ABAG staff and I are looking forward to working closely with you from now until the March 19 General Assembly. Once again, my warmest thanks to all of you who struggled with me through the voting last week. Sincerely, ~ . , ~~~L+ Mary G~ffin, President Supervisor, County of San Mateo Enclosure ~ Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter ^ Eighth & Oak Streets ^ Oakland ^(510) 464-7900 ^ Fax: (510) 464-7970 ~ , ~ Assoc~u~ion of Bay Area Governments G~ . ~ POSITION ON REGIONAL GOVERNANCE Adopted by the General Assembly - November 21, 1991 We support the concept of integrated regional growth management; however we strongly disagree with the Bay Vision 2020 Commission's recommended process. We believe that planning should occur from the bottom up, with each city and county responsible for planning in its area, and with the regional body responsible for ensuring coordination and integration of planning efforts. We believe that if a regional commission is formed it should: • Consist only of local elected officials; • Not create a new layer of government or more complicated permitting process, and; • Have no new authority other than that currentty vested in ABAG, MTC and , BAAQMD, and no ability to allow or deny developments of regional importance. While the Proposed Platform on Regional Growth Management, recommended by ABAG's Executive Board, responds to many of our concerns and contains supportable principles, there are a number of issues in need of further study. We support the general concept of consolidating existing single-purpose regional agencies into a streamlined and more efficient organization, providing we can reach consensus on a number of unresolved matters. These key issues include: • How to stress the role and authority of subregional planning in managing growth; • How to ensure that the composition and voting rules of a regional commission adequately represent and respect the diversity of the Bay Area; • How to best protect agricultural land and agriculture as a business; • How local, subregional, regional and state objectives and decision-making will relate to each other; • How to ensure that the consolidation of regional agencies would be more effective and economical than the existing structure, and would have no negative fiscal effects on local budgets and services. Before taking any final or definitive position on regional growth management, we direct the Executive Board to enlist local communities and subregional organizations to consider the above issues and present their recommendations for review and consideration by the General Assembly in March, 1992.