The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 3.4 Tri-Vly Vision Project CITY CLERK File # 0470-50 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Presentation of Tri-Valley Regional Vision Project Report Prepared by · Christopher L. Foss, Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Tom O'Malley dated October 29, 1999 2. Tri-Valley Vision Project report entitled "The Golden Valley: A 2010 Vision for the Tri-Valley Region" RECOMMENDATION: Receive staff repOrt Receive presentation by Tom O'Malley, Executive Director of the Tri-Valley Business Council Direct staff to continue to work with the other City and County staffs and the Tri-Valley Business Council on this topic and report back on the Plan's applicability and/or effect on the City's General Plan. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None. DESCRIPTION: Beginning in the mid 1990's, the Tri-Valley Business Council has invited nearly 200 public and private sector leaders to participate in the development of a vision for the Tri-Valley region for the year 2010, The results of the Business CounCil's regional vision project efforts were unveiled on October 21, 1999 with a publication entitled "The Golden Valley: A 2010 Vision for the Tri-Valley Region" (Attachment 1). The vision project is a result of a community survey and dozens of meetings within the area to discuss and prioritize issues for the region's future. The vision also included input received during meetings with the Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon City Council (the Dublin City Council, as well as the Alameda County and Contra Costa County Boards of Supervisors, did not receive a presentation of the vision plan during the draft stages). In a letter dated October 29, 1999, the President of the Tri-Valley Business Council, Mr. Tom O'Malley, requested an opportunity to publicly review the vision with the Dublin City Council (Attachment 2). As background, the 2010 vision defines seven broad, interdependent goals for the future: K2/G/cc-mtgs/forms/form-as.doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 1. Economic Vitality: The Tri-Valley has a balanced and healthy economy supporting the diverse needs of each community. 2. Enhancement of Open space, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality: The Tri- Valley is a distinctive region achieved by enhancing the amount of permanent open space, increasing the amount of highly productive agricultural land, and improving environmental quality. 3. Vital Centers and Connected Neighborhoods: The Tri-Valley has vibrant, walkable regional and city centers and connected neighborhoods where housing, jobs, cultural activities, education, places of worship, shopping, entertainment, and parks are clustered together. 4. Housing Choices: The Tri-Valley offers a range of attractive housing choices for people of various incomes. 5. Regional Mobility: The Tri-Valley has a system of efficient, user-friendly options for the mobility of people and goods within and through the region. 6. Educational Opportunity: The Tri-Valley has a lifelong educational system that is accountable to the highest community standards. 7. Regional Collaboration: The Tri-Valley is a region of people and jurisdictions that work well together. Upon release of the document, the Tri-Valley Business Council announced a year 2000 Action Plan. One of the first actions of that plan is to receive the endorsement of the vision by the elected officials at the county and city/town level and an agreement to incorporate the vision as a regional element within each city's/town's General Plan. and receive the City Council's endorsement of the document. The Tri-Valley Business Council also plans to prepare a November 2000 ballot measure that would ensure that 70% of the tri-valley region remains open space and agriculturally strong. The ballot measure would include such items as the establishment of an agricultural irrigation district, and enhancement and protection of agricultural and open space through land and development right acquisition. The initiative would also include proposals to ensure the construction of healthy communities through the establishment of coordinated development patterns and transportation improvements to retain the region's quality of life. In December 1999, the City Managers of the five affected communities (Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon) received a presentation from Mr. O'Malley regarding the plan. It was the consensus of the City Managers that the plan would need further study by each community to determine its ultimate effects and that the Tri-Valley Business Council should make a presentation of the plan at a Tri-Valley City Council meeting. Arrangements are currently being made for that meeting to be held in early February, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: It is staff' s recommendation that the City Council direct staff to continue to work with the other City and County staffs and the Tri-Valley Business Council on this topic and report back on the Plan's applicability and/or effect on the City's General P1an. Tri-Valley Business Council RECEIVED NOV 0 1 1999 CiTY OF DUBLIN October 29, 1999 Mr. Rich Ambrose City Manager City of Dublin PO Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Rich: Enclosed is a copy of"The Golden Valley: A 2010 Vision for the Tri-Valley Region". We have also enclosed additional copies for your Council Members. We thank you for your financial and staff support of this project. The document is our regional strategic plan for the future. It represents the efforts of 200 community members. The vision clearly states our goals and objectives but the hard work of developing and implementing Annual Action Plans is only beginning. InCluded with your Vision Document is a Year 2000 Action Plan. Our Action Committees will begin to meet over the next few weeks to work on these plans. As you will note, one of the first actions is to obtain endorsement of the Vision from the County Supervisors and the City and Town Councils, and their agreement to incorporate the Vision as a regional element within their General Plans. I will call you shortly to determine the best way to initiate action on this item with the City of Dublin. Please call me at 925-890-1892 if you have any queStions or comments regarding the Vision. Sincerely, Tom O'Malley President P.O. Box 3258 · Livermore, CA 94551-3258 (925) 890-1892 ATTACHMENT ! · FAX (925) 447-3039 · www.trivalley, org . . . , " <' ,~ <' .,r, ~'" ~ ~ -', ' ""' :~\.. , """ ".. c~" ~ .. p ., ,-. , ., '~"'. .- :IIJ illWlID~IlD1GJra ~illW1tJID )'.~ ~..,-",^, ' I ,~.. . ,;' '....~..,-~- ."'~- .::~:~.~. ".-._~_ "', .. _.'""', c- , C"c.. 'if f ptXD .:7" t/ ATTACHMENT 2 '-I/)O - 50 . In October 1998, a diverse group ofTri-Valley leaders joined together to develop a vision for the future of the region. We wanted (0 define a positive and achievable future based on the shared values ofTri- Valley residents. We developed a set of interdependent environmental, social, and economic goals to express tharvision. We also developed a set of specific measures of progress for each of the goals, We have tested these goals with the residents of the Tri-Valley through a public opinion polL And, we have convened a set of comminees to design and implement actions that will move the region towards the positive and achievable vision of the future. Figure 3 illustrates the process. FIGURE 3 Values Outcomes Measures Actions - - ----. What We Want For What It Would Mean How We Will Know How We Can Get If We're The Region ForThe Region Mak\ng Progress What We Want ..... - --..... - -.....-- - .......- TRl-VALLEY REGION VISION LEADERSHIP TEAM Dave Anderson Karen Kiernan Valarie Raymond TazBramlene Chris Kinzel David Rice John Chapman Marjorie LaBar David Rounds Becky Dennis Mike LaLumierc Bob Sakai Dennis Eloe Mike Madden Joan Seppala Marcy Feit Karen Majors Bob Silva Donna Gerber John Marchand Christine Smith Jim Ghielmetti Adolf Martinelli Pete Snyder Gail Gilpin Mike McGee John Sugiyama George Granger Karena McKinley Mark Sweeney April Gray David Merres Steve Tanner Millie Greenberg Otis Nostrand Tom Vargas Philip Gustafson Sandi Olsen Eric Wallis Scott Haggerty Tom O'Malley Phil Wente Guy Houston Frank Patimcci Tim Hum Cynthia Patton Marty Inderbitzen Michael Perry Steve Kahhoff Ron Raab . PREPARED IN OCTOBER 1999 BY COLLABORATIVE ECONOMICS STRATEGIC ADVISORS TO CIVIC ENTREPENEURS 350 Cambridge Avenue, Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94306 www.coecon.com . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . .......................... ... ............................................................................. ............. 2 Resident Values and Vision Goals ........... .......... .................................. ............. ...... .. ....................... 3 Map, Buildollto/Current General Plans.. .....................................'......... 5 W'hyThe New Economy Wants The Livable Community. .. ............................ 6 Measures of Progress to the Vision of the Golden Valley. .............................. ..... ..... 8 Economic Vitalif} .. ................................................................ ................................ ....................... 10 How Economic Vitality Contributes to Quality of Life. ....... .................. 14 Enhancement of Open Space, Agriculture, and Enviromemal Quality.... ......................... .......... 15 Map, Tri-ValleyRegioll! Asof/999 ... ....................... ............,...........,......... ..................................17 How Quality of Life Contributes to Economic Vitality ...... .......... . . 21 Vital Centers and Connected Neighborhoods. ................. ................ .. 22 Does Density Always Increase Traffic? .... ......... ........................... ................... ....... 27 Housing Choices. ...................... ...................... .................. ................................ ........................... 28 Expanding Housing Choices Has Many Benefits ......................... .................................................... 32 Regional Mobility.. .................................................... ...... ................ .................................... ......... 33 How Traffic Congestion and Community Design are Connecred .................... 37 Educational Opponunity.. ................ ........................................ ....... 38 Regional Collaboration ......... ...................... ..................................................... .......... ..................41 Conclusion ..... .................. ................... ............................................................... ..45 Seven Areas of Regional Vision & Sources ..........................................................................46 Acknowledgements. ........... .. ................. .... .......... ............................................ 47 ~7fl~ ~a~ -- ..,.".-'--- "Ti'i- Valley combines the economic vitality of the Silicon Valley with the quality of life of the Napa Valley." -Joe Gab bert, Documentum Corporation INTRODUCTION A Shared Vision for rhe Future of the Tri- Valley Region . Our vision for the Tri- Valley region seeks to preserve the best of our past and our present. We seek to preserve our heritage as lhe Valle De Oro as rhe early Spanish setders called the region-the beautiful and bountiful "golden valley." We also seek to preserve our nC'W economic vitality and diversity, which have brought us a high standard of living and high levels of satisfaction with the qualiry of life in our region. Ours truly is a Golden Valley, one that is rich in both quality of life and economic opportunity, where people can live well, pursue a career, engage in lifelong learning, raise a family, and build communities where their children can enjoy these same qualities in the future. By 2010, we will hdlle succeeded in pn'manently preserving our Golden Valley, We will have maintained our economic vitality while preserving our most desirable open space, enh:lOcing our most fertile agricultural land, and achieving a high level of environmental quality and beautiful and vital com- munities. People will be able (Q travel smoothly throughom our region. Residents will have access to lifelong educational opportunities. And housing choices will exist for people with a range of incomes. l ~ ~ The Vision sets a high standard-right where the residents of the Iri- Valley want it to be, Most people are happy now with the region as a place to live and raise a family. They want to maintain that high quality, while limiting negatives like traffic congestion. They value economic vitality, but not at the cost of quality of life. Most residents believe elm both values can be served: 77% believe that the region can have economic growth while preserving quality of life (Tri-Valley Community Survey, 1999). The Vision identifies and integrates compatible, widely shared values. The Tri-Valley Community Survey confirms that a large majority of residents hold these values, providing the necessary foundation for the Vision (See page 2). Based on these values, the Vision describes a path to the future, a set of criteria that future regional development must meet. . The fundamental premise of the Vision is to e1lSure that the regions urban core has a strong economy and vital communities, while preserving opm space and mhancing agricultw'e beyond the core. To achieve this outcome, the Vision calls on cities to complete the build-out of their current general plans in a way that simullaneously achieves a high level of economic vitality, viral communities, good regional mobility, ample educational opportunity, and sufficient housing choices. The Vision proposes that no less than 70% of the region remain in open space and agricultural land and thar no more ,han 30% of the region be used for urban development. And ir creates a framework for accountability: a set of specific measures has been established in each of these areas so the residents of lhe Tri- Valley can monitor whether or not the region is progressing toward this vision. In the future, if measures in one area go up while those in another area go down, we will know that we must change our approach to get back on track. . (2 ) . . . RESIDENT VALUES AND VISION GOALS The Vision defines seven broad, interdependent goals for the ftture a/the region based on the shared values of the residents of the Tri- Valley region, These IJalues and goals were tested in an Aprill999 public opinion survey conducted by the Field Research Corpora- tion. The vision gMIs are in italics, followed by the survey results: Economic VlralilV: Tri- Valley has it balanced and healthy economy supporting the diverse needs of each community. Among local residents, 78% say that it is "very importam" that Tri- Valley be a place "where people can both live and work in the same region," and 56% say that it is "very important" that the region "has growth in high-wage jobs and industries." Enhancement 01 Open Space. Agriculture. and Environmental QualllV: Tri- Valley is d distinctive region achieved by enhancing the amount of permanent open space, increasing the amount of highly productive agricultural land, and improving envi~ ronmental quality. Among local residents, 88% say that it is "very important" that TrirValley be a place "where open spaces arc preserved," and 68% say that it is very importam that "agriculture is part of the landscape." Vnal Ceuters aud Conuecled Nelohborhoods: Iri* Valley has vibrant, walkable rt!gional and city centers and connected neighborhoods where housing, jobs, cultural activities, education, places of worship, shopping, entertain~ ment, and parks are clustered together. Nine in ten local residents rate their neighborhoods as excellent or good places to live, and more than half are active users of the downtowns and business districts ofTri-Valley cities for entertainment, socializing with friends and neighbors, and specialty shopping. Housing Choices: Tri~ Vailey offers a range of attractive housing choices for people of various incomes. Among local residents, 62% say that it is "very important" that Tri-Vallcy be a place "that has a range of housing for people of various incomes." RegIonal MOhililV: Tri- Vailey has a system of efficient, user-friendly options for the mobility of people and goods within and through the region. Among local residents, 74% say that it is "very important" that Tri-ValLey be a place "where people can get to work conveniently using transportation other than automobiles." EducaUoualOpporbmllV: Tri- Valley has a liftlong education system that is accountable to the highest community standards. Among local residents, 84% say that it is "very important" that the Tri-Valley be a place "that has lifelong educational opportunities." Regional ColtahoraUou: Tri- Valley is a region of people and jurisdictions that work well together. Among local residents, 89% say that it is "very important" that Iri-Valley be a place "where people work together to improve living conditions." (3 ) .' ~hf! ~,".~ ) ~Jlm; 'The Vision proposes that no less than 70% of the region remain in open space and agricul- turalland and that no more than 30% of the region be used for urban development. " "...62% say that it is 'very importantJ' that Tri- Valley be a place '~hat has a range of housingfOr people of .' " vanous incomes. f',':;'" ',;., .,. . "y...., ! -\ .- .~j\:l j. " ..)~~, ;: ..:~ : "; I' , " ~,ff.,~l:L; " ~JBm .,)~ (~..preser:vation ofTri- Valleys natural environ- ment will actually help ensure that the region remains an attractive location for the New Economy in the future." "'-~. -- '/" ~L" ~"~,- '~'!, ,~..,.,(-., "-'"':7<:- - .~..-_.,., "- ,;i \. ,<,~l(, ',I "':: ,- ,~_ ':i;.' ""Ii' ~. .;I'f\!':"-+r'i. .,..;.s-"'''''~'' _~ W.:W.f';"~ f:::!~~"-.:~i'..,~. ./ .1 The Vision is ambitious, but reasonable. The Vision supportS continued housing and commercial developmem, bur insists that it be carefulJy designed to protect important regional values such as open space, agriculture, economic viralicy, vital communities, regional mobility, and housing choices. It supportS the current general plans and planning boundaries of the region's five cities, but asks that the cities and counties hold to those boundaries. In this way, the urban core of the Tri- Valley region will never account for more than 30% of the region's landscape, leaving 70% for open space and agriculture. Currently, developed land covers 16% of the region. So, the Vision allows for future urban development, but insists that no more than an additional 14% of the region's land be converted to residential or commercial uses. In addition, any new urban development should be clustered in and around existing cities. The vision also welcomes any redevelopment of existing developed lands if it produces a higher- qualiry urban use. The Vision is optimistic, but also realistic. It recognizes the economic reality that the Tri- Valley region has been and always will be a crossroads between the coastal Bay Area and the Central Valley. As such, enormous growth pressures are constantly at work in the Tri- Valley-especially to accommodate the broader regional need for housing. The Vision also recognizes rlw Central Valley traffic to Silicon Valley jobs is a major reason for Tri-Valley's freeway congestion. The region cannot change these realities by itself At the same time, doing nothing will make the situation worse. IfTri- Valley refuses to create new jobs and housing, growing numbers of people will have little choice but to take jobs where they are plentiful (e,g., Silicon Val]ey) and find housing where they can (e.g., the Centra] Valley)-filling the freeways everyday with people traveling between home and work. A more realistic approach for the Tri-Valley would be to expand jobs and housing options for local residents, so more people can live and work closer together, while encouraging othcr regions to pursue a similar approach. . The Vision is also realistic in recognizing that open space and agricultural land do not ''protect themselves"from urban development. A vision of open space and agriculture surrounding a contained urban core is not guaranteed. We believe that ollly "economically secure" land in the form of protected open space and highly productive agriculture are likely to withstand the inevitable pressures of urban development. Today, 22% of the region's land is protected open space. To grow this amount will require that addirionalland be permanently protected through private or public acquisition or other means. Today, about 2% of the region's land is in irrigated agriculrure, almost entirely in grape vineyards. To grow this amount will require significant increases in water delivered to areas of the region that today have little if any irrigation infrastructure. By 2010, surrtJuJJding the five Tri- Valley cities will be a complete ''economically secure greenbelt"- a combination ofpermanent~y protected open space and highly profitable agriculture. Expanding vineyard acreage and thar of other irrigated agriculture will be a key to the vision. The region is one of the oldest wine-producing areas of California. The Vision is to build on that heritage as an important way of preserving the rural character of the region, while also developing a homegrown economy of clean, high-wage, knowledge-intensive industry. In fact, preservation ofTri- Valley's natural environment will actually help ensure that the region remains an attractive location for the New Economy in the future. r'-" '. . (4 ) . . ~ LJi ~ ~, , .. Buildout of Current General Plans ." ., ..., {oj 0 .....,~.\.~~ \~ ".~..;:: ."~-~": > . L ~ Boundary of Tn-Vallev Region ,V Future Study Area N Sphere of Inrluence of TVR Cities " Urban LImit Line ' .. D CityUmit& N County line D PUbflc/vAccesioible Protected land ~ Other Protected Land D Developed Area.. D Vineyards D Potential Irrigated Agriculture -0- Ca. Highways . ~ Intet5tate Routes ~ o ~ G"""'~ N_~ (5) p., 1, \;.. :J :~i '~ o. '. " ~f" ~ i;.... \..ii;.n.;...;:,., WHY THE NEW ECONOMY WANTS THE LNABLE COMMUNITY A strong, natural rie exists bet\veen lhe New Economy and the Livable Communities movements of recem years with its emphasis on morewalkable town centers and neighborhoods, easier access to public transir, and an integrated mix of housing, workplaces, shops, and civic facilities. The New Economy is based on new ways that business operates and new ways that people work. The post-World War II industrial economy was characterized by large, vertically integrated compa- Ilies whose success was linked to high-volume, standardized, low-cost production by a large, stable workforce working within a strong hierarchical corporate culture. The new ecollomy is characterized by networks of specialized firms working together ro innovate and compete in fast- changing markets. The emphasis now is on innovation, knowledge, quality, speed, and flexibility, and nothing is more important to rhe success of individual firms than the skilled people they can retain and attract. The New Economy values: Place Place matters in the llew economy. The most creative, innovative work in the new economy occurs primarily in face-to-face exchange within teams, where people live and work in close proximity. Electronic communications are important, but arc not a substitute for the [fUSt, shared experience, and imense interpersonal interaction essemial for the innovation process. Vilal CenlerS Vital city and neighborhood centers are increasingly important not JUSt as quality-of-life ameni- ties, but as places for planned and spontaneous networking. Innovation is at its core a social process. Instead of placing workers in isolated office parks or plants built on greenfidds, many ne\v economy companies want to be in more stimulating, mixed-use environments. Onnn Spaco/Nalurallnvlronment The new economy values the natural environment as an important asset, because knowledge workers value access to greenspace, outdoor recreation, and clean air. Increasingly, these workers have more loyalty to a particular place~and its unique quality of life-than to a particular employer. Sneed and MobililU The new economy comperes Oil speed and productivity. New economy companies put a pre- mium on efficient movement of people, informarion, and goods. Congestion is no longer just a source of frustration, but a significant, quantifiable economic cost and talent drainer. Cboice: ProllimilU 01 Home and Work Community design must accommodate the increasingly diverse work and life patterns that char- acterize the new economy, providing people with meaningful choices of whete and how they live. Not only is today's workforce more diverse by typical measures-gender, age, race, ethnicity- but people no longer experience life in predictable patterns. The new economy argues for a more integrated mix ofhollsing within communities~so that people can remain connected to places and relationships a~ their lives change-and proximity of homes to workplaces. (6 ) . . . . . The visioll is multidimensional We know that open space is only one indispensable ingredient. We must have viral communities. We must ensure that people have choices-in transportation and housing. We muSt ensure that residents have educa- tional opportunity from children in school to adults going back [0 school to keep pace with the New Economy. we must move all these goals forward together (Figure J). If we fall behind on one or more of them, our region will sufTer. If we lose our open space and environmental quality, we will lose our attractiveness for people and companies in the new economy that are creating jobs for our residents. FIGURE I Open Space, Economic Agriculture, Vitality and Quallty Environment Educational Regional Vital Centers and Connected Opportunity Collaboration Neighborhoods "- RegIonal Housing Mobility Choices By the same token, if we successfully protect open space hut undermine our economy, we will not have the funds to invest in our communities. Com- munity services wil! have to be CLlt back; investment in downtowns and other commercial centers will decline. If we manage to preserve open space and maintain our economicvitaliry but fail to build housing For people with a range of incomes, we will force many of them (0 commute long distances to wotkherc. Where we Stand TOday: W7e Enjoy a High Quality of Life, but Pressures Are Growing For each goal of the Vision, several measures of progress have been chosen. These indicators will be examined annually to chart progress and shape actions that will help Tri-Valley achieve its positive future (See Figure 2). Across these indicators, the inescapable conclusion is that we enjoy a high quality of life. It is also clear rim pressures on that quality of life are growing-from traffic congestion to air quality to housing affordability. Fears are growing that we may not be able to maintain our quality of life-that if we don't do things differently, we could lose what we value most. These fears arc legitimate. . Also no guarantee exists that our economic vitality will continue indefinitely if we do not ensure that our region provides adequate educational opportunity, housing choices, and environmental quality. . No guarantee exists that traffic congestion will cease, unless we take steps to stimulate more transpor- tation options and design our furure development to allow more people to choose other ways to travel III our reglOn. . No guarantee exists that urban development will not consume the rural landscape, unless we take steps to enhance permanent open space and agriculture. We must attend to each part of our Vision, monitoring progress in each area. We must take action that pulls all the pieces together, emuring alignment of the widely shared values of the residents of the Golden Valley. The following sections of this document describe the Vision Goals and measures the progress in more detail, with a list of data sources at the end. The document concludes with a call to action for the region. . (7) "Fears are growing that we may not be able to maintain our quality of life-that if we don't do things diffirently, we could lose what we value most. These fears I .. " are egltzmate... o. {: " ~/Ie /JtoiBm ~~ FIGURE 2 MEASURES OF PROGRESS TO THE VISION OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY . SEVEN GOALS OF REGIONAL VISION 1999 STATUS & DIRECTION ECONOMIC VITALITY Local Jobs for Residents Economic Diversity Job Quality and Career Opportunity Good Place to Stan a Business ENHANCEMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Acreage of Permanently Protected Open Space Acreage of Highly Productive Agricultural Land EfEciem Use of Land and Resources. Connected Open Space (miles of connected trails) Outdoor Recreation Uses Air Quality (violation of ozone standards) VITAL CENTERS AND CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS Resident Satisfaction with Region and Neighborhoods Regional and Neighborhood Safety Neighborhood Connecredness (access to community amenities, such as stores, schools, parks, restaurants) Neighborhood Connectedness (interactions among neighbors) Resident Use ofTri-Valley City and Regional Centers Clustering of New Jobs, Housing, and Transit Strong Performance, Needs Ongoing Attention 48% to 59% since 1980 Strong, sustained growth Growing opportunities Strong entrepreneurship Mixed Results, Much Progress Needed 22% of total region Low amount, but growing Development consuming Fewer acres per capita Very little progress Frequent use of outdoors Worsening trend . Strong Performance, Some Progress Needed High satisfaction Excellent Access to key community amenities for most 50% actively interact with neighbors Most use centers across the region, half actively Most new jobs, no new housing close to transit . (8) . . HOUSING CHOICES Limited Choices, Much Progress Needed Regional Jobs/Housing Match Growing mismatch Availability of Housing Choices Limited bUl improving options Workforce Housing for Critical Service Professionals Many cannot live in the region (e.g., teachers, police officers, firefighters, child-care workers) where they work Expansion of Housing for Moderate and Low Income Residell~ Very little expansion REGIONAL MOBILITY Serious Congestion, Much Progress Needed How Long It Takes to Get to Work Getting longer Freeway and Street Congestion Freeways much WOfse, Streets are okay for now Expansion ofTransponarion Choices Growing llse of alternatives to driving alone (now 20%) EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Mixed Results, Progress Needed Public School Capaciry Close to or exceeding capacity in some areas; expansion is under way Student Performance Good results overall, (elementary school level, high school level) but one-third of third~graders score below national average Student Access to Pomecondary Education 41 % of HS seniors meet (Percent meeting University of California UClCSU requirements and California State University course requirements) Access to Lifelong, Continuing Educatiori Strong access REGIONAL COLLABORATION Good Foundation Ltlid, Mon' Progress Needed Regional Identity Half of residents strongly identify, and half do not Citizen Engagement' Broad base of giving and volunteerism Commitment to Regional Collaboration Strong citizen support; Growing cooperation among jurisdictions . (9 ) 1~' ~~.~ ~j.. 'j .., p fifD~....,\., '~~:~ . '.. '..;\i"', .1 '':., \{W-j !l, ,..I " ,,' "':...~.~,..,J_l.';.,ll. ,': , .j~ 'r.. ~\"'\ J, ," ~/Il' ~mm 'W~ HIVe wa1lt people to be able to choose to live close to work, giving tbe'm more time with their pmilies a1ld less . l {;. " tune on tJe l,eeways. ECONOMIC VITALITY . Vision We maintain a balanced and healthy regional economy stlpponing the diverse needs of each community. Eco- nomic vica[iry makes all other dements of the regional vision possible. It generates tax revenue and developer fees that help pay for high-quality public services and parks. It provjdes incomes for local residents so they in rurn can afford local housing and can suppaH local downtowns and business districts. If we ensure that our economic vitality includes agriculture, it can also preserve our rural landscape. Economic vitality gives liS choices, including the ability to acquire and permanently protect open space that is highly valued by the people of our Valley. We want a vital economy that creates and sustains healthy businesses-firms that are continuously improving their products and services, seeking new markets, and acting as good corporate citizens. Our economy will continue to be driven by a diverse set of expanding industry dusters that provide a range of employment opportunities. Clusters are a geographic concentration of interdependent firms that provide a region with a competitive advamage. These dusters of healthy businesses will grow and support high-quality community services through tax revenues. They will produce homegrown company headquarters to complement branch plants of firms based elsewhere. We will leverage our national laboratories and technology companies in terms of entrepreneurial spin-offs. Businesses in these clusters will be supported by competitively priced and readily available infrastructure and by dose working relationships among all sectors of the community. We recognize that to keep our economy vital, we must provide water, electricity, telecommunications, and other essential infrastructure. For example, ac- cording to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the demand for electricity in the region is likely to exceed the capacity of the region's electric power sysrem by 2002. PG&E is currently working with the commu~ nity to develop plans for upgrading the system. Given the region's strong shift to technology- and elcctricity- intensive industries of the New Economy, the outcome of this process is extremely important. . We want to give coday's Tri-Valley children the opportunity to live and work in the region as adults in 2010. Measures of Progress Measure #1: lOcal Jobs lor Residents We want our region to be economically strong enough to provide employment for our residents. We do not want to be predominantly a bedroom community that requires people to commute long distances to work. We want people to be able to choose to live dose to work, giving them more time with their families and less time on rhe freeways. The measure we use is the percentage of residents who hold jobs in one of the five cities of the region, taken from the 1999 Tri-Valley Communi[y Survey and the U.S. Census. How Are W'e DOirlg? Our Region Is Increasingly Providing Jobs for Local Residents . A much higher percentage of residents arc working in the region, despi[e a huge population increase in the pas[ cwo decades. In 1980,48% of residents worked in the Tri-Vallcy. Between 1980 and 1999, the region's population grew by 200%. However, by 1999, our economic vitality has enabled us to accommo~ date a growing proportion of residents in local jobs. Today, 59% of residents work in the Tri~Valley. . (]O ) . . . Maasure #2: Economic OlversllV We want our region to offer a growing diversity of jobs and industries and avoid being dependent on a narrow industry base. Diversification is our insurance against decline in any particular industry or cutbacks by a large employer. It also provides our residents with more regional choices for employment and less need to commure outside the region for jobs. We measure economic diversity by how well we develop the key, driving sectors of our economy: scientific and biomedical devices and materials, communications services and suppaH, and soft- ware services and suppOrt. How Are we Doing? Our Region Is Rapidly DiversifYing its Economy . The region added morc than 37,000 jobs in the six years between 1992 and 1998, representing a total growth rate of 32% and an average annual growth rate of 4.8%. . The region has three industry dusters that drive its economy and that are very strong for a region of this size. Employment in scientific/biomedical devices and materials is 14 times more concentrated in the Tri- Valley region than in the nation; likewise, employment in communications services and support is 10 times more conccmrated in Tri-Valley than in the nation. Employment in software development and support is almost twice as concemrated as in the nation. . In 1998, these dusters together employed 23,697, an increase of 10% since 1992. In 1998,421 firms were in these dusters, an increase of77% since 1992. The three dusters added 2,148 jobs between 1997 and 1998, with scientific/biomedical devices and materials leading other clusters with a job gain of I ,395. . In 1998, total jobs in the three indumy dusters represetHed more than 15% of the jobs in the region, but accounted for more than 18% of total job gains in [he region. Between 1997 and 1998, the region gained 12,006 jobs, with 2,148 of those jobs in the region's industry dusters. ]n addition, the dusters create jobs in the reSt of the economy (e.g., retail, services). Number 01 Iri-Vallev Jobs, 2nd Quarter 1992tbrough 1998 Source: Employment Development Department Significant Job Growth During the 19905 175,000 150,000 . " ~ , 125,000 i E . z 100,000 75,000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 (11) "we want reside1lts to experience real increases in their wages. " .~~ ~JJ ....~~ .".'" -! ll'>t:,.\ ... )rt'~- CL Size, Concentration and Growth Rate of Tri-Vallev Cluster Indnstries . Source: Employment Development Departmenl Regional Economy Becoming More Diverse c .2 ~ c- o 0 ~ Ii c . o 0> o ~ . c > . . E " ~2. 0. E w , / :'cienrt~Biomedlcal ,t Devices ,nd Materials ~': / ( ~::t Ions SelViG Software Development 0.- Support \ ) ~ -0.05 5% 30% 10% 15% 20"/" 25% o 0 Average Annual Growth Rate. 1992 to 1998 Measure #3: Job QualllY and Career Opponunilv We want nO[ only a diverse mix of employment opportunities for residents, but improvement in job quality and career opportunities over time. We want residents to experience rral increases in their wages. And we want them to have [he choice to se. down roms and build a career in the Colden Valley, and nO[ have to leave the region to seek a better job as their career advances. To assess job quality and career opportunity, we examine . wage rates and survey results. How Are we Doing? Our Region Offirs High, Growing wages find Good Career Opportunities . The average wage for all Tri-Valley industries is 540,945, which is comparable to the Bay Area average wage. The average wage of the three cluster industries was $60,877 Software leads all cluster industries with an average annual wage of570,759. . Three-fourths of ]ocal residen[s me the Tri-Valley region as an excellent or good place to "advance ones career. THI QUAlITY-Ol-llFl CLUSnR !WINI. UFISTYll NOSPITAIITY SIRVICIS) Tri-Yalley has another cluster that contributes to the region's quality oflife in a different way than do its other dusters. The region has a duster of wine, lifestyle, and hospitality services that are importam for both local residems and visitors. The value of the cluster is less in job creation (the average wage is below the regional average) than in supporting a highly attractive quality oflife in (he region. Growth in this cluster will further enhance (he natura] and commercia] amenities amacrive to ]ocal residems, especially those highly skilled wotkers who would like to live and work in a region rich with quality job opportu~ nities and qua]ity-of-]ife amibures. This cluster also helps generate new revenue for the region from visitors, including customers of companies in the other clusters. And in terms of wine and other highly productive agricultura] uses, growth in acreage means preservation of rural landscape as a comp]emem to the region's urban core. . ( 12) . . . Average pav Per Emplovee, 1994-1991 SOUfce: EmploymenlDevelOpmenl Department Regional Wages Growing 80000 ~ .---" . :::-- - ~ > ..----------- ;1 70000 60000 50000 __ Software Development & Support __ Scientific/Biomedical Devices & Materials -.---4-- Communications Services & Support ~ Tri-Valleyaverage 40000 30000 zoooo 10000 o 1994 1995 1996 1997 Measore #4: Good Place 10 Stan a Bosloess We believe that constant innovation and entrepreneurship is critical (0 our economic vitality. We want our region to be a good place to start a business-people with marketable ideas should be able to find a welcoming environment and support in the Golden Valley. If we are an entrepreneurial center, then we will be consrandy reinventing our economy, expanding economic opponuniry, and keeping pace in the global marketplace. To evaluate how good our region is for starting a business, we measure the net growth in business establishments, with particular attention to our three industry clusters. How Are we Doing? Our Region Is a Growing Hub of Entrepreneurial Activity . The number of business establishments in the Tri- Valley increased from more than 6,000 in 1992 to 7,659 in 1997, an average annual growth rate of 4%. In comparison, in the Bay Area, average annual growth in the number of business establishments was 2% between 1992 and 1997. . In 1992, there were 18 new business formations across the three industry clusters; by 1997, there were 52 new business formations. Most new business formations occur in the software development and suPPOrt duster. Since 1992, the dustet industries have created 233 new businesses. . These businesses are finding places to locate across the region. In addition to zoned commercial and industrial locations, there are 4,925 licensed horne-based businesses within the Tri-Valley. (13 ) gp//IJ /J;p..~ .~~ ~~ '~..people with market- able ideas should be abk to find a welcoming enl!ironment and support in the Golden Valky." , ~!tr ~.~tBtm ~~ r..-.~ _.__ lL ';';J, Total Cluster New Business Formations bV Year, 1992 thron9h 1991 . Source: Employment Development D8pa~m8nt Slrong Clusler Enlrepeneurship 60 so . 0 ~ '0 " e 0 . . . 30 ~ ~ . "' .i 20 j z 10 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 o Software Development & Support . Commmunication Services & Support 0 Scientific/Biomedical Devices & Materials HOW ECONOMIC VITALITY CONTRIBUTES TO QUALITY OF LIFE The Tri-Valley has been fortunate (0 aman a diversiry of growing and competitive businesses. These businesses contribute to the 'Jri- Valley's gualicy of life in several ways-through the payment of taxes and fees (including sales [ax, property tax, and connection fees), through mostly higher-thall-average wages paid to local residents, through charitable contributions, and through volumeerism 011 local commissions and in the schools. As local businesses become more productive, they pay higher wages and purchase more products from local suppliers. As they grow, they increase the property tax base within the region. . Cities receive revenues from five major sources: sales tax; property tax; transient occupancy tax (hotds); otht.'r taxcs, fines, and pcnalties; and service fees and permits (building permits, business licenses, etc.). The most significant source of income is the sales tax. Also, local businesses are the source of wages for about 60% of residents, which allows households to buy goods and services on which they pay sales tax, as well as homes on which they pay property tax. As. such, the ability oflocal government to provide fire and police safety, maintain and improve roadways, and maintain and operate recreational services and facilities and libraries is strongly tied to the economic vitality oflocal businesses. Special districts, such as BART, EaSt Bay Regional Park District, the school districts, the se\ver and water districts, and the transit districts and transportation authorities are also runded by either sales tax (including gas taxes) or propetty tax in addition to state and federal funds. These districts provide specialized setvices outside the control of city or coumy government. Their ability to fund their services is also tied to the economic vitality ofloca! businesses. .'~ Since the mid-1980s, cities have been assessing the COStS of new development onto developers. The purpose of these a.~sessmenrs is to pay [or the extension of public roadways into the development, and to pay for that de\'e1opment's fair share of any ne": schools or parks required asa result of the contruction of new homes. These "impact fees" are then added to the COSt of a new home and can add 10% to the purchase price of lhat home. . ( 14) . . . ENHANCEMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Vision We wam a distinctive region, achieved by enhancing the amount of permanent open space, increasing the amount of highly productive agriculmralland, and improving environmental quality. A combination of perm a- oem open space and highly productive agriculture will preserve our rural heritage and landscape by 2010 and beyond. It will ensure that residents in our urban core can enjoy the visual, recreational, and other benefits of (he surrounding rural landscape. And, by including an emphasis on environmental quality, we will ensure that urban and rural uses complement rather than detract from one another. In faCt, our urban, open, and agricul- [Ural spaces will be connected. woven into an overall regional fabric. We also believe that by preserving the rural character of the region, we will also encourage a homegrown economy of dean, high-wage, knowledge-intensive industry. Preservation ofTri-Valley's natural environment will help ensure that the region remains an attractive location for the New Economy in the future-an imponant asset for attracting and retaining a highly skilled workforce. We want to enhance the special attractiveness of our region for residents and visitors alike. We want to ensure that our urban dwellers have the opponunicy to remain connected to our rural, agricuhurallandscape and lifestyles. We want to preserve our unique natural features, such as our special terrain, sensitive habitats, wildlife and riparian corridors, and biodiversity. We believe that only "economically secure~ land in the form of protected open space and highly productive agriculture is likely to withstand the inevitable pressures of urban development. Today, 22% of the region's land is protected open space. To increase this amount will require that additional land be permanently protected through private or public acquisition or other means. Today, about 2% of the region's land is in irrigated agriculture, almost entirely in grape vineyards, To increase this amount will require significant increases in water delivered to areas of the region that today have liule if any irrigation infrastructure. In achieving all these ends, we recognize the importance of private property rights, the current general plans of the cities, and the values ofTri~V:llley residents. We hope that wide acceptance and implementation of the 20 I 0 vision will provide :l higher level of certainty for residents, landowners, investors, and those responsible for planning and delivering services. We expect that it will stimulate creative thinking and action to enhance open space, agriculture, and environmental quality, while making progress on other aspects of the 2010 vision for the Golden Valley, (151 "jl7" believe that only 'economically secure' land in the fonn of protected open space and highly productive agriculture is likely to withstand the inevitable pressures of urban development. " \'XO' ,. ~"":'.< :. ~";'< -,:_' ;';', o ., !.,fj'.l!';::T" ':.~"~' ~/'l' ~~ -Ad~~ Measures of Progress Measure #1: Amount of Pennanent Open Space and Highl, ProduCOVe Agriculture Two kinds of rural land uses will be critical to providing a realistic ahernative to the pressures of future urban development. The entire regional vision is at risk if the acreage of permanently protected open space and highly productive agriculture is /lor increased significamly in the next decade. Without effons co enhance these rural uses, namral market forces will inevitably lead to the expansion of urban boundaries. Polirically determined urban growth boundaries have proved permeable without strong countervailing economic forces. Our vision is to creatc these economic forces by removing land from possible purchase for urban use and shifting land imo higher-value agricultural uses that can compece with urban developmem in the marketplace, How Are we Doing? Only a Small Fraction ofOllr Region Is Pennanent Open Space or Highly Productive Agriculture . Twemy~two percem of the land of the Tri- Valley region is currently permanently protected open space. Some nOllurban, nonagricuhuralland that is open for recreationalllse (e.g., urban parks and other open spaces under five acres, golf courses, public school fields) is not included in this percenragc-making the (Otal acreage likely (0 remain in nonllrban use somewhat higher than 22%, . '1".'0 percent of the land of the 'Ii-i-Valley region is currently devoted (0 producing grapes. ( 16) .' . e \ \ ,V Future Study Area N Sphere of Influence of lVR Cities :',,/ Urban Limit line D ClryUmlh; N County line D Publicly Acce&/loible Protected Land FiJI Other Protecled Land D Developed Area. D Vineyard& D Potential Irrigated ~riculture -0- Ca. Hjghwa~ .fir Inlel"6tate Routel> . G;.. /;::\ . " Tri-Valley Region As of 1999 " '- . ~~ o ~ G,eenlnfo Network ( 17) /Jmm ~~ we must be particularly creative about how we use our current urban land and land designated for fitture urban development under city general plans. " Measure #2: Enicient land and Resource Use Because the vision ends the unlimited expansion of our urban core into the mrallandscapt, we must be panicu- larly creative about how we use our current urban land and land designated for future urban development under city general plans. In short, we must be efficient in our use oEland. One way (Q keep track oEhow efficiently we develop in the future is to compare our population growth rate and the rate at which we consume our previously undeveloped land for urban use. In other words, we will monitor how many new people we add per acre of newly developed land. We also want CO be mindful of how efflciently we use other important resources. As an indicator of resource efficiency, we will monitor our per capim use of water. . How Are we Doing? Our Region Has Begun to Use Land and water More Efficiently in the Past Decade . The Tri-Valley region is consuming fewer acres per person in 1995 than it did in 1985. In 1995, there were 4.8 people per acre, and in 1985 there were 4,2 people per acre, . Water use has increased steadily between 1990 and 1998, increasing at an average annual rate of 1 %, though at a lower rate than population growth. The region's population has increased 24% in the past eight years, so per capita use of water has actually declined. Water Use, Population Growth. and Housing Inventorv.199o through 1998 Source:Zone7,EBMUD.CalilomiaDepartmentofFinance Region Using Water More Efficiently 300,000 . 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 1990 -+- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 4-Population 1996 1997 1998 ~Housin9 Water Use in Acre-Feet , (18) I . Measure #3: Cenneeled Onen Soaee The 2010 vision calls for no urban core surrounded by a connected greenbelt comvosed of permanent open space and highly productive agriculture. One important measure of progress toward the vision is how well we afe connecting our open spaces-both to protect our rural landscape and to ensure that the people of the Tri- Valley have wide access co open space. An indicator of connected open space is (he number of miles of trails and how the amount and location of these trails changes over time. How Are U7e Doing? Our Regions Open Space Is Not Well-Connected by Trails . Currently, there are a cora] of 126 miles of trails in the Tri-Valley region, with only eight miles having been added in the past ten years. In addition, Zone 7 has, wherever possible, worked closely with cities and park districts to allow trails on access roads and even bridges over arroyos. Measure #4: OOldoor Reereadon Uses We value our open space for many reasons. One important aspect of our quality of life is outdoor recreation. We want beautiful scenery, but we also want people to be able to experience the region through their choice of outdoor activities. Ifwe achieve our open-space goals, but do not adequately maintain and enhance our outdoor recreation for the residents of the Golden Valley, we will not have succeeded. We wam to ensure and encourage wide access and use of our open spaces (including parks and athletic fields). A:; a measure, we surveyed residents about their outdoor recreation activities. How Are we Doing? Tri- Valley Residents Value Outdoor Recreation and Use Local and Regional Parks Frequently . Overall, about four in ten residems could be called "active" users of open space. Most users visit neighbor- hood parks (62% of residents visit such parks at least once per month). A smaller percentage actively use a bicycle or jogging trail (47%), visir a regional park (39%), use a hiking or horseback rrail, or use athleric field (33%). A fifth of residents use a public golf course at least once a month. . % Tri-Vallcv Residents Engaging in the Following Outdoor Activities At least Once a Month Source: Tri.Valley Communily Survsy Many Residents Active Uses of the Outdoors 70% 62% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Visit a neighborhood park Use a bicycle or jogging trail Use an athletic field Use a public golf course Visit a regional parkin Alameda or Contra Costa County Use a hiking or horseback trail t (19 ) < r&ha /J;~ ~-1J ':.. w" want beautiful scenery, but we also want people to be able to experience the region through their choice of outdoor activities. " ~IB ~Bm "'W~ . n"'~,__ "~I, j ,.~'!<~ ' F'IO;:, '~ ~~ ~.__ I \ "}---~'~~:' 0 1ij\1fl~", J.;~... Q., , , Measure #5: Air Quain, Our vision is one of maiIHaining or improving the level of quality in urban and rural settings in the Golden Valley-the quality ofborh our urban and rural environments. Air quality is a filOdamemaI indicuor of bow well we are achieving our goal. It is a measure of how well we are managing to address (he sources of poor air quality: auwmobile traffic, including congestion caused by traffic originating outside the region. Whereas we are not solely w blame for our air-pollution problem, we will have to take responsibility for solving it, \vorking with surrounding regions, or allow our region to suffer the consequences. t How Are \.fie Doing? The Region E\:ceeds Ozone Standards More Often) Even Allowing for Climate Vtlriatiol1s . Whereas climate variations have caused significant year-w-year fluctuations in the air quality of the Tri- Valley region, the long-term trend in the past decade is wward increasing violations of state and federal ozone standards. The region typically exceeded federal ozone standatds less than three days per year in the early 19905; after 1995, the region exceeded these standards about rwice as often-six or more days per year. The exception was 1997, when rhe region met dIe federal standard every day of the year, thanks to beneficial weather patterns. With changing climatic conditions, 1998 resumed the long-term trend of increasing violations of ozone st<lndatds. . The Tri- Valley region tailed to meet California's more stringent ozone standards on 20 or more days during three of the pasr four years. Before that time, the region exceeded the California standard mostly in the range of 5 to 15 days. " . I, Source:BAAQMD Ozone Pollution Increasing 18.00 1600 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -+-- C~lifomia .......... F"!d"!r~1 ...... Linear (Califomia) .....Linear(Federal) 'B",.donthrecycaraverag. . (20 ) I . . . HOW QUALITY OF LIFE CONTRIBUTES TO ECONOMIC VITALITY Quality of life is the product of continuous collaboration benveen the economy and community. Businesses rely on the community's assets-skilled workers, information networks, quality of life, responsive government-for their competitive advantage. The community relies on businesses ro create opportunities for people, invest in infrastructure, and share responsibility for improving the region. Understanding the link oCf1.veen a region's economic vitality and quality oflife is an impor- tam foundation for the collaborative effort among the region's business, government, education, and community leaders to move toward the vision of the Golden Valley. In the New Economy, quality of life is an increasingly important facror to businesses, because people are their most importam asset. People-particularly skilled workers and enrrepreneurs- choose to live in places that offer both attractive career opportunities and an attractive lifestyle. Companies increasingly move to, start up, and grow wherever the talent for the New Economy wants to live. Firms in technology businesses-communications, sofrware or scientific/biomedical devices, and materials-ot that employ highly skilled workers place more importance on quality-of- life facwrs when making business location decisions. And once setrled in a community, they work hard to main their skilled workers; if their workers perceive the quality oflife to be declining, they will leave. New Economy workers are attracted TO economic regions that have a distinctive quality oflife. Few economic regions can compare with the Tri-Valley's pastoral, small-town ambiance-its rolling hills, hidden valleys, meandering rivers, fields of vineyards, and unique, historical downtowns. In the Tri-Valley, New Economy workers can live within minutes of outdoor recreation, historic inns, wine tasting, and the countryside. Agriculture, especially vineyards, and natural areas are a unique asset and provide economic valuc to thc companies located in the region in rim they attract skilled workers to the region and to the companies. The Tri-Valley's wine, lifestyle, and hospirality industry plays an integral part of the Tei-Valley's quality of life. The wineries are both an importalH part of the quality of life of local residents and an anracror for visitors. The global market for wine and tourism is growing, and other California wine regions have enjoyed signil1calH growth in visitor spending. A5 the number of highly educated, younger households grows in the Tri- Valley, so will the local demand for wine, lifestyle, and hospi- tality services. And, as the number of wineries grows, so will the number of visitors to the tegion, adding ro the regional economy and further supporting irs quality oflife. People have always been attracted to places of natural beauty. Increasingly, the New Economy recognizes that protecting the natural environment is in its long-term self-interest. Quality of life has become a community's most valuable asset. Quality-of-life resources need to be managed for theit long-rerm contribution to the community. Just as companies now compete on quality, so too will communities compete on quality of life. (21 ) ~ ~/Ie ~~ '~ ,",' i~~: ."'~:il , ,<', ~ :- 1i\QI (1- ':.1.,."..'\<, ,,]i'i ;ji,,;,' "Vital centers and connected neighborhoods create a distinctive identity for the region. " 1 VITAL CENTERS AND CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS . Vision We want a vibrant urban core, where people aft strongly satisfied with the neighborhoods in which to live and the downtowns, business districts, and other centers in which thr:y SOC~'dh2e, shop, and enjoy a range of commu- nity arnenities. We wall[ vibrant, walkable regional and city centers, and connected neighborhoods where hous- ing, jobs, cultural activities, education, places of worship, shopping, emenainmem, and parks are clustered rogether. Vital centers and connected neighborhoods create a distinctive identity for the region. Together, they tell the story of the region's history and culture through its buildings, plazas, events, and monuments. They are places where distinctive amenities are found-such as performing arts cetHers or botanical gardens. And, they are the incubators of its futute, places where people mect to cxchange ideas, initiate new projects, and stan new ven- TUres. Vital ceruns and connened neighborhoods have many benefits-helping achieve many aspects of the overall 2010 vision of the Golden Valley. Vibrant centers are places for people-to walk, shop, socialize, play, and conducl business. Investment in vibrant centers encourages social activity, through attention to the scale, design and use of its buildings, the design of its streets, and the mix and proximity of uses. When places to live, work, shop, and socialize are close to one another and designed to create a sense of safety and facilitate interaction, people have more choices for meeting their needs. Mobility is easier because walking, biking, and using public transit are safer and more convenient. Public resources are conserved because infra- Structure is used more efficiently. People drive less, so less pressure is put on air quality. Urban deve10pmeru is focused within regional and city centers instead of at the peripheries, allowing agriculture to remain economically viable. . Measures of Progress Measure #1: Resident SaUslaction with Ihe Region and Neighborhnods The bottom-line measure for whether or not the region has produced a mix of vital centers and connected neighborhoods is simply how residents feel about where they live. We want people to feel strongly positive about their region as a place to live. We also value this region as a place to raise a family and want to ensure that we stay strong on that measure as we progress toward our 2010 vision. How Are W7e Doing? Almost All Residents Believe That Our Region Is a Good Place to Live and Raise a Family . Mote than 90% of residents rate the region as an excellent or good place to live (95%) and raise a family (93%). In each case, 55% rated rhe region as "excellent," the highest level of sarisfaction. Although survey results suggest that virTUally all residents feel good about living in the tegion, at least 45% or more presumably believe that room still exists to improve-to enhance the already "good" quality oflife of the Golden Valley. . Similarly, 95% of residents rate their neighborhood as an excellent or good place to live. In this case, 60% say [heir neighborhood is an "excellent" place ro live, . (22 ) . . . Measure #2: Regional and Neighborhood SlIfe" Another basic measure oEvital centers and connected neighborhoods is safety. When measures of safety are low or decline, we believe that it is an indicator of disconnected neighbors and a lack of broader regional cohesion. We believe that safety is barh realicy and perception-and that both aspects are important. We will monitor both actual violent crime rates and how safe people feel in their neighborhoods to get a fuller picture of regional and neighborhood safety. How Are we Doing? Residents Believe That Their Neighborhoods Are Safe and the Regions Crime Rate Is Low . Tri-Valley residents were asked in a survey how safe they believe their neighborhood is for children. We asked this question assuming that if a neighborhood is safe for its most vulnerable members (i.e., chil- dren), it is safe fot othets. Almost evety survey respondent (96%) agreed that their neighborhood is safe for children. About seven in ten residents said they "agree Strongly"; about three in ten residents felt less strongly, saying that they "agree somewhat" that their neighborhood is safe for children. . Relative to the state, the Tri-Valley region h~s a low crime rate. In addition, violent crimes dropped 11 % bef\.veen 1990 and 1997; crimes per 100,000 population dropped from 240 to 156 compared to thesrate's highet tate of 1 ,050 to 790. Violent Crime Per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1990 through 1991 VIolent Clime- Willful Homicide. Forcible Rape, Aggravated Assault Source: FBI. California Dept 01 Justica Low Crime Rate 12DO 1000 ~ 800 .,. coo <00 - 200 - 1990 1991 1996 1997 1992 ~California 1993 1994 1995 _Tri-Valley (23 ) r/?) C@/le ~tB~ I~~ <i~,1!!l~12 ...it~" . rlJ)he fj;ol>>m ~a#~ "Residents are more likely to report that their neighbors are active in putting together orga- nized activities if there is a place in the neighbor- hood where neighbors can meet and socialize. J) Measure #3: Neiuhborllood Connectedness We value mong, connected neighborhoods, where residems have opportunities to get CO know their neighbors, socialize with them, and work together to make their neighborhoods bener. We asked residents several survey questions to evaluate the level of neighborhood connectedness-focusing on the level of neighbor-to-neighbor interaction, . How Are we Doing? Neighborhoods Are Loosely Connected, but Not Isolated Most residents believe tha.t their neighborhood achieves at least a basic measure of connection. A totaJ of 82% agree that "my neighbors talk and socialize with each other"; 73% disagree that "my neighborhood feels isolated from surrounding neighborhoods." . However, on a measure of broader and deeper neighborhood connection, only 50% of residents agree that "people in my neighborhood are active in putting together organized activities such as picnics, block parties, and volunteer effortS." People certainly do look for and make deeper connections beyond their neighborhood (e.g., sports leagues and a variery of clubs and volunteer opportunities on a city or regional level), bur it does appear that the level of neighborhood connectedness in the region could be enhanced. . Residents are more likely to report that their neighbors are active in putting together organized activiTies if there is a place in the neighborhood where neighbors can meet and socialize. 65% of the survey respondents who have a place in their neighborhood where people can meet and socialize agree "strongly" or "somewhat" That neighbors are active in putting together organized activities such as picnics, block parties, and volunteer efforts. On the orher hand, 40% of respondents who did not have such places in their neighborhood agreed "strongly" or "somewhat" that neighbors are active in putting together orga- nized activities. NeighbOrS are active in puning together organized activities such as picnics, block parties and volunteer efforts Not reported 3% Strongly agree 21% . Strongly disagree 21% Somewhat disagree 26% Source: Tri-ValleyCommunilySuNey ,~ 6~ . ,~ ,~ '" ;~ ,~ ,~ ~ Hav..pl.ce'oneighb<Jrhoodwheren.'ghborsme.l.nd sod.r;,e Oonothave.pl.cetomeet.odsoci.lile (24 ) . . We also sought to measure the physical dimensions of connectedness. We gave survey respondems a list of common neighborhood amenities. Large percentages of residents report that neighborhood-serving places and services, such as parks (97%); access to places for path walking, hiking, or other outdoor activities (93%); elementary schools (92%); grocery stores (85%); and cafes and restaurants (65%) con- tribute either "a great deal" or "somewlm" to the qualit)' of their neighborhoods. . We asked them how much they thought having each amenity contributed to the quality of a neighbor- hood. In every case, the percentage of residents who said they had such an amenity in theiT neighborhood exceeded the percentage of residems who believed that having such an amenity contributed a "great deal" to the quality of the neighborhood, . Overall, 44% said they had a "place in their neighborhood where neighbors meet and socialize." About four in ten residents (39%) believed that having such a place contributes a "great deal" to the quality of a neighborhood, and another 36% believed that it contributed "somewhat" to neighborhood quality. . Overall, residems who have these amenities within their neighborhoods are more likely to believe that they comribute to their neighborhood's quality. For insrance, 85% of residents repon that grocety stotes contribute either a great deal or somewhat to the quality of their neighborhoods. Of those who actually have a grocery store in their neighborhood, a highet percentage (97%) report that it contributes to the quality of their neighborhood. . . In interpreting these findings, it is important to define the size of a neighborhood. We asked people to define their neighborhood: about half said that it was the immediate block and surrounding blocks, and about half defined their neighborhood as a larget area. Thus, a large percentage of residents believed that they had these amenities in their neighborhood as they defined it. For some people, having these amenities more than a few blocks away was fine; they defined their neighborhood as a larger area, so believed that they had access to the range of amenities. Moasure #4: Resident Use el Tri-Vallev City and Reulenal Contors Many ways exist to measure the "vitality" of city and regional centers. Common measures fOCllS on financial statistics, such as sales tax receipts, generated by residents and visitors. In addition to creating a baseline number for total investmenr in city and regional centers, we also chose to emphasize how much people of the Tri- Valley use the region's city and regional cemets, and for what reasons. First and foremost, we want our city and regional centers to offer a Strong variety of choices and be llsed actively by our residents. We do not fulfill our vision if these centers arc not well-used by residents, are used only for narrow purposes, or are primarily geared to visitOrs from outside the region. How Are \% Doing? Most Residents Use Tri- valley's City and Regional Centers, about Half Actively . Every city center is a regional center. When given a list of the downtown or business district of each of the five Tri-Valley cities, at least 60% of residents said they visited those places at least "a few times per year." The most visited locations were a downtown (PleasantOn) and "other regional malls and shopping cen- ters," both of which 92% of residents visit ,j[ least a few times per year. Whereas 58% of survey respon- dents visit the Dublin cemral business district at least once a. month, 90% of those visitors were not Dublin residents. Likewise, whereas 62% of survey respondents visit dowmown Pleasanton once a momh or more, 55% of those visitors are not Pleasanton residems. . When given a list of common activities, in each case, at least seven in ten survey respondents visited Tri- Valley city and regional centers to engage in these activities at least a "few times per year." Activities ranged from going out to ha.ve a me;d; to movies, music, or performanc.es; to specialty stores and busi- nesses; to visiting places with historic atmosphere. It (25 ) fl/)C(plte d?otBm 9~~ ~~ ;. '~~':.i~..{.~."'.;.' i.',i~~ ':', ,~ "; ,.;.~ '"?;.":'" ~ ". , ;! ,'~)'J I ,. r~'jt...<t,.;." '('~'lf~' , '~'l, '.~1\'" .~~{...'\ II?) r::r;/te ~~9~~ ~t7~ "".it will be important to measure how well we link jobs, hQusing, and transit, so as to create more choices fi 'de " or rest nts. (L. .tI,q .~'" i .~, ~ ',~:;---~','",-. :'-~ ,,' ",":" ,,..1 f " I. r _"_'>, l,' --"-~' ".' _i:~t.~J1;-kl>{(i;' . ,Ji\l~~.' . About half of the region's residents could be considered "active" users of Tri-Valley's city and regional centers. Fifry-five percent visit a city or regional center in the Trj- Valley "to meet people and socialize with friends" at least "1-2 times per month." A similar percentage visited city and regional ceorers as onen for "movies, music, or performances" (54%) and "specialty stores or businesses" (50%). A higher percentage (76%) go out co have a meal; smaller percentages go for "nightlife" (34%) or to visit places with historic atmosphere (19%). These wtals suggest that more resident.~ could become more active users of Tri- Valley's city and regional cemers. . . We also established a financial ba5eline for "vitality" against which w measure future performance: a total of$16.4 million was invested in theTri~Valley's city and regional centers in 1998.1 % Jri-Vallev Residents going out 01 their neighborhood lor tbe lollowing at least once a montb Source: TM-Valley Communily Survey 80% - l- I- - - - ~ I- - I- ,l- f- . 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% " " E ~~ :g'o. v~ ,,0 " " u v v c c V 0 v ro"~ a.!i'~ ~~ 0 .;5 ~5 'Vi 3:<11 > ~ ~" OO~ ~~ ~ .~ ~:E :>: , v " '<Ii <I.l o u E . crl5~ .!l;! 0 > 'to o " :>: ~ ~" ~ ~ . 0 v~ " " ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ z ro .f' o o MoasulO #5: C1ustollng 01 Now lobs, Housing, and rranslt We want more people to be able w live and work in the Tri-Valley, get back and forth between home and work quickly, and have more real choices than driving their automobile from place to place. Clearly, most residents will continue to exercise their choice of using an automobile to commute to work. But, we believe that most residents have no realistic choice beyond the automobile. They work toO far away from home to walk or bike. And they are too far from public transit to choose that option. A5 the region moves into the future, it will be important to measure how well we link jobs, housing, and transit, so as to create more choices for residents. How Are we Doing? Most New Jobs Are Close to Transit, but New Housing Is Not . Of the 3.2 million square feet of commercial/industrial space approved for construction in 1998, 3.0 million square feet (94% of the total) was located within a quarter mile of a major transit route. Of the 1,801 housing units constructed in 1998, none of them are located near a major transit toute. t (26 ) DOES DENSITY ALWAYS INCREASE TRAFFIC? The residents ofehe Tri-Valley region are split on whether or not clustering of housing, jobs, and com- mercial services is a good idea. Four in ten at lease somewhat f:1vor this approach; 49% oppose it, and 9% are uncertain. Concerns about the negative impact of density may be pan of the reason. The face is that increased densities do not necessarily increase traffic. Multifamily housing produces fewer trips than single-family detached housing. A study prepared for the Institute ofTransportarion Engineers determined that apartments and condominiums generate fewer trips per unit (5.5) than single-family detached units (0).2 At higher densities, [[amir service improves, enabling a viable alternative to the auto. Studies linking quality of transit service to density of residential areas indicate that rhe larger and more compact the residential neighborhoods are, the more reliable che transit service. To support a minimum level of transit service (30-minuee headways) a minimum of seven dwelling units per net acre is necessary. More frequent bus services would require triple the density. These studies indicate that at 50 units per acre. transit trips can oucnumber auco trips." 4 Employment centers, too, should be designed to accommo- date trips by transit. For employment centers to be well-served by transit, chey need to accommodate at least 50 employees per acre, in office districts where total employmenc is roughly 10,000 jobs. . But density and clustering, by themselves, are noc enough. Designing the layout of the residencial or office site so that it facilitates walking to adjacent sites and transit stops is critical to whether people will walk. Building walls or other barriers around the development will impede walking and encourage people to use their cars. Many ciries have developed site-design guidelines to give specific guidance to developers on how to facilitate walking. Also, by designing residencial streets primarily for the pedes- trian and secondarily for the car, we will increase the safety of our streets for walkers and bicyclists and encourage less use ofautomobiJes. . ( 27) II?) C(j;/~ ~tBm ..~~ J~ U\\!e want opportunities for our workforce, ... to live in OUT region and be part of our communities. " .~.;~;..! '-~'-~ - .. ":'. -:-:"-.-":.'., '- ""'~~'.( '-.-.'..- - " , ;(:J;-;::" \ ~. ^ .,. 1'~Pf' ~ . - -""",-";c~=_~'="dj----",- . .. -. ~.,+:<> ,--,- <l- HOUSING CHOICES Vision We want our region to offer a range of attractive housing choices for people of various incomes. In striving for this goal, we want to maimain high standards for quality and design. We value communities with a variery of residents. We fall shon of our vision if we create homogeneous cities and isolated neighborhoods. We want a regional mix of households that reflect the richness of people of different backgrounds, talents, and generations. '~7e want 10 be able [0 provide appropriate housing options for residents as they pass through various life stages (e.g., adults without children. families with children, retired residents). We want opportunities for our wotkforce, especially aUf critical setvice professionals (e.g., teachers, police, firefighters, nurses, and chiJd-c:J.re workers) to be able (Q live in our region and be part of our communities. Providing sufficient housing choices is the collective responsibility of all the cities of the region. Measures of Progress Measure #1: Regional JobS/Housing Matcb We believe it is important to work towatd a regional jobs/housing "match"-in other words, sufficient housing for people who work in our tegion. In the long term, we believe it is bener fot the Tri- Valley that the people who work ill our region have the opportunity to be part of our communities. The alrernative is large numbers of daytime workets whose homes and community ties lay far beyond our region-most of whom must use our roads and freeways to travel back and forth between regions. We seek a Jobs/housing "match" as opposed to simply jobs/housing "balance." Simple balance is achieved when the number of employed residents (i.e., total housing units multiplied by the numbet of workers per house- . hold) is equal to the llumber of jobs in the region. Job/housing balance, however, does nor address the issue of where people work relative to where they live. A community may have jobs/housing balance and still have large numbers of people commuting into and out of the region-as the Tri- Valley docs. Whereas we will always have some residents who choose to commme to work outside the Tri- V:J.llcy region, we would like our housing stock and job base to be more in sync providing more people with the opportunity (Q live and work in the same regIOn. To measure jobs/housing match, we look first at total housing llIlits, then derive total employed residents based on the average number of workers per household. Thc Association ofEay Area Governments (ABAG) Projec- tions '98 indicates that employed residents per household in the Tri- Valley region in 1995 was 1.48. Next, given census data and lhe Tri-Valley Community Survey, we estimatc the percentage of residents who work in the Tri- Valley-a number that changed very li[de in the 1990s (58% in 1990 to 59% in 1999) after a significant increase in the 1980s (from 48% to 58%). Third, 011 the basis of these pcrcenrages, we account for the toeal number of jobs held by Tri- Vallcy residems, with the remainder of jobs held by people commuting to the region. This adjustlnent gives us a better ovetall picture of how much housing is available for people who work in the Tri-Valley region. .f: . (28 ) How Are W'e Doing? Our Region Has a Growing jobs/Housing Mismatch . In ,he 1990s, the region experienced strong job growth and slow housing growth. It also experienced little change in the percentage of residents who work in the Tri-Valley. This combination of facts has produced a widening mismatch between jobs and available housing units in the region. In 1992, the Tri-Valley housed 56% of its workforce. By 1999, the region housed 49% of its workforce. This figure means that about 76,000 commuters travel into the Tri-Valley for work, Monday through Friday. This figure does not include those commuting through the region to Silicon Valley and other locations. Regional Jobs/Housing Match Source: Tri-ValleyCommunity Survey, CA Deptof Financa Employment Development Depl. ABAG Jobs/Housing Mismatch is Growing 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80.000 60,000 40,000 . 20,000 0 ~ Tri-Valley Jobs Held by Commuters ~Tri-ValleyJobsHeldbyLocal ~Resldents Total Housing Total Jobs .1992 .1998 Measure #2: Availabilitv of Housing Choices A basic measure of housing choice in the Th- Valley is the relative density of housing and housing type. We recognize that in the past the Tri- y.1.lley region built its housing stock to meet rhe demand for suburban, single- family detached homes. The region had plenty of available land, willing developers, and ;,ntnested buyers. The current housing mix is the natural omgrowrh of that set of circumstances-and has, overall, brought the region a high quality of housing, We don't want to compromise our quality in the future, but want to offer more choices. So it is important to measure how well we are diversifying our housing mix as we add new housing each year. Over time, to achieve the vision, we want to see a gradual adjustment in overall housing mix. It is also important to monitor our apartment vacancy rate to assess how well we are ofTering that housing choice to residents. How Are we Doing? Housing Choices Are Mostly Limited to Single-Family, Detached Homes . Single-family detached homes constitme 69% of the region's total housing stock; single-family attached homes represent 10%, and multifamily units cOllStitute 20% of the region's total housing stock. How- ever, of the 1,801 units added to the region's housing stock in 1998, 87% were single-family detached; only 13% were multifamily units. . (29 ) .. rt;/ie fjp(Bm ~ "Over time, to achieve the vision, we want to see a gradual adjustment in overall housing mix. " ,J?)VPhe ~~ ~a#~ . The density of residential development appears to be increasing, indicating greater choice in housing. As of the end of 1997, residential development had been built at an average density of approximately 3 units per acre. Based on residential development plans approved in 1998, and excluding residential develop- ments approved in the South Livermore area which has set-aside requirements for vineyards, the density of new residential development CO be built in the [mute averages over 5 units per acre. . Apartment vacancy rates, an indicator of rhe adequacy of the supply of housing, have generally decreased by more than a quarter-from a high of 4% in 1993 to 2.7% in 1998. Low vacancy rates are indicative of high demand for housing and an inadequate supply relative to the number of households wanting to live in the region. DensilV of Residential Development . Source: Tri.Valley City Planning Depts Overall, Housing Choices are Growing... ~ 4 . o .~ 3. 4 a As 01 Decamber, 1997 New units approved in 1998 Tri-Vallev Apartment Vacancy Rates, December 1993 through December 1998 Source: REAL Fact. " ., '" '.0 " . 0 " " " G' '.0 1993 1994 ...Bul Some Choices are not. 1998 4 1995 1996 1997 (30 ) Moasure #3: Wortllerce Housing ler Critioal Servloo Professionals We believe that a good indicator of housing choice and affordability is the extent to which a region's critical service proFessionals-its teachers, firefighters, police officers, child-care workers, receptionists, and others- live in the region. For some professions, we are able to measure the percentage who actually live and work in the region. For other professions, we can only examine the likely affordability of housing by comparing people's monthly wages and the prevailing remal rates of apanmell(s. Clearly, some of these professionals choose to live outside the region for personal lifestyle or other rea5ons. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that more would like to live in the region where they work. In addition, we believe it is in our region's intere~t to have a high percentage of such professionals living and working in the Tri~Vallcy, For example, it is valuable to have teachers be more available for after-school meetings with parents and other school activities, rather than having to stan on a long commute home. To compute this measure, we looked at the percentage of teachers, firefighters, and police officers who actually live in the region, based on public records. Intormation about [he reasons for living inside or outside the region and data on other critical service professionals-such as child-care workers-are important, but not readily available at this time. For other critical service professionals, we have compared the average monthly wages for several key service occupations with th~ average rental rates of apartments in the region, How Are 'We Doing? Many of Our Critical Service Pmfessionals Do Not Live in the Region . Only about four in ten police officers (39%) and firefighters (40%) live and work in the Tri-Valley, Sixty- one percent of the public school teachers live and work in the region. In general, workers living alone and working in common service occupations-child-care provider, cook, home health aide, ground~kceperJ maid, receptionist, or salesperson-must spend between 50% and 70% of their monthly income to secure a one-bedroom apartment in the Tri-Valley region. Realistically, given additional living expenses, people working in these occupations have to live outside the region or share the COSt of housing with others to live in the region. . Tri-Vallev Rental Anordabilitv for Kev Service Professionals SouJce;REALFacts Alameda and Contra Costa Occupational Outlooks Housing Choices for Key Workers Are Few 90% 80% . 10% . .~ " 60% " ~ 50% 1 . ) 40% 30% .. . . , 20% ~ "\C% 0% 0-. cP'\\~ . _oo~s _,H!> ~f".~ ~ ".. " .db~P"- v.f".~'I> ".t#\~'J' se~# ,.o'(f:i''(<'' c-~GtO ~>P'. ~o'J' ~,- O(i,c~ seO ~-i,l.O<;) ~et\Y'~ V#'" ...."" ;.Of".\ e"e~'l;. ~ <<," ~~ ,,0 ,..'" '" D1Bedroom .2 Bedroom (31 ) ... ~lB ~~ ~llfAJ "...workers living alone and working in common service occUptltions- child-care provide); cook, home health aide, groundskeeper, maid, receptionist, or salesperson - must spend between 50% and 70% of their monthly income to secure a one- bedroom apartment in the Tri- Valley region. " I '" 1~~:' o r ~1$1!DDflDJGl8, ~ {,~,~~ '{:'i"1,'1;.~, "~,-.. ': .I;;;~:, '~~,! :(~.r' {, "'. ,..~_:.,,"~'.:~'.Ii>,'~"...' .::I,~.I:' ., -I' ' ';:" ",...;' . ~ . \ , , ~lte /Jto~ :q;~ Measure #4: Expansion 01 Housing lor Moderale- and low-Income Residenls Another measure of housing choices is the amounc of housing specificaJly built for low and moderate income households and offered at below market rates. This measure would be the number of new housing units built for and offered to households making between 50% and 120% of the region's median income-which in 1998 was a household income of $63,300. How Are we Doing? 1Iery Little Expamion of This Choice of Housing . Of all the housing units built in 1998, 9% were built for households earning between 50% and 120% of the region's median household income, primarily by nonprofit housing developers. In order (0 construct such units, nonprofit housing developers, often working in partnership with for-profit developers and with the cities, must obtain "gap financing" from a multitude of sources, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CA Housing and Community Development, Redevelop- mem Agency Tax Incremem Finance monies, foundations, charities, and other nonprofit organizarions. It is this "gap financing" that enables housing units to be built to meet all zoning, building and architec- tural design codes and be offered at rents affordable to lower-income households. EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICES HAS MANY BENEFITS It can help us meet the challenge of the new demographics and the new economy The Tri-Valley's growing software and communications industries employ people of varying lifestyles and housing needs. They range from the young, multimedia software developer who prefers to live in an interest- ing, urban environment with entertainment and dining options to the two-parent professional household needing convenient access to schools, parks, and jobs. Nationwide, 32% of households have children living in them, and by 2010 rhe proporrion will decline co 27%. The Trj- ValJeycUfrenrly has a reJariveJylarge supply of housing for families with children. In face 69% of all housing units arc single-family detached units. As the Tri-Yalley's new industries prosper and as the number and variety of workers grows, so will the need for ~ housing that is attractive to New Economy workers and affordable to our nurses, reachers, child-care workers, 11 firefighters, and police oB-lcers. Our seniors on fixed incomes and persons with disabiliries will also need affordable housing. It can help us solve our transportation problem Clustering housing near jobs and transit reduces the number of trips by car. People living in multifamily housing near jobs or transit are more likely to walk to work or take transit. And, according to a report by the Instirute of Transportation Engineers, mu]tifamily housing generates fev.'er trips and vehicle miles traveled than single-family homes. Compact housing clustered at transit nodes increases the economic feasibility of transit, providing residents and workers more options for traveling around and through the region. Increased travel on mnsit leads to improvements in transit service, with reduced transfer times and waits between buses or trains. This reduction increases rhe amactiveness of transit as an alternative to automobile travel, leading to additional increases in ridership. Air quality and livability of the region are improved, especially for youth and seniors, who are more sensitive to air pollution than young or middle-aged adults It Cdn help us preserlle open space and agriculture Building housing within the urban core reduces the pressure to build at the periphery of the region.This option protects land that is better suited For agriculwre. The Tri-Valley region's agriculture, especially rhe vineyards, are an imporrant element of the region's economic vitality and quality of life. Protecting these assers from the pressure of utban development enhances the region's attraniveness to workers and businesses. It can help us ensure vital downtown fwd business districts Compan, multifamily housing is ao effective catalyst for renewed investment in declining downtowns or in revitalization effons. Cteating interesting urban environments through well-designed multifamily housing that incorporates some retail, such as cafes, offers a suburban option for some young, weaIthy high-tech workers who might othetv.,ise live in central cities. Empty-nesters with dual incomes and no children are also attracted to more urbanlike environments. Roth groups, with their relatively high disposable incomes, in- crease market opportunities for a broader range of retail and commercial services in an otherwise stagnant city core. And last, when designed to blend with the prevailing design and scale of existing housing, in-fill multi- family housing actually improves the value of adjacent properties. ~ (32 ) To sustain our economic vitality and quality oflife, we must have a system of efficient, user~friendly options for the mobility of people and goods within and through the region. We must design our communities and road~ ways to minimize congestion-expanding the mix of realistic choices for moving people and goods around the Golden Valley. Regions with communities designed to allow safe, reliable, and convenient access to work, shopping, recreation, and social activities will have an economic advantage over other regions. They will capture more economic and cultural activity because businesses and artS centers will want to locate there. The greater size of theil" public coffers will allow fat more community services so families and workers will want to live there. An efficient transportation system consists of a safe, integrated system of bikeways, walkways, public transit, and roadways. It allows for the safe and convenient mobility of people of all ages, including seniors and chil- dren, and supports the region's distinctive open space and cultural attractions. The transportation system is a vital element of the tegion's economic infrastructure and ensures ease of access of goods and people to ports and apptopriately located distribution centers, manufacturing plants, and all places of commercial and industrial activity. Measures of Progress Measure #1: How long the Commute 10 Wortl Takes Our time is dear to us. More time spent driving to work, running errands, or chauffeuring children means less time for more enjoyable activities. Longer commute times have a damaging effect on business recruitment and retention efforts. As traffic congescion and commute times increase, people consider other options for getring to work (ridesharing) or ways to avoid traveling to work (i.e., telecommuting). If options are not available, they may look for jobs closer to their home. A5 it becomes more difficult for businesses to recruit and retain workers, they too become more active in increasing transportation options. How Are 'We Doing? It's Taking Longer for Tri~ Valley Residents to Get to WOrk . Despite the fact that a gteater percentage of residents are working within the Tri-Valley region, commute times have increased since 1990. In 1990 Tri-Valley residents took 27 minutes, on average, to commute to their work ~ites. In 1999, that commute increased to an average of33 minutes. The simplest and most significant measure of how well our transportation system is performing is to periodically track changes in the amount of time necessary to travel bet"..een two points along the same route. Although data is not available to track changes in the time to travel the same rOllte between two fixed points in 1990 and 1999, a region-wide average increase of 5 minutes per one-way commute is significant. . In addition, 37% of local residents report that the amount of time spent moving around the Tri-Valley region "increased a lot" in the past five years. Another 25% reponed that it "increased a little," and 32% reporred "no change." . (33 ) "jVe must design our communities and roadways to minimize congestion - expanding the mix of realistic choices for moving people and goods around the Golden Valley." II?) ~lte d#o~ ~ Source:CalTrans Measure #2: Freewav CongeSUon through .he Region We want a safe and effccrjye interregional transportation system that supports the susrainabiliry of our commu- nities and our environment, including the air we breathe. Interstates 1-580 and 1-680 ate our region's two major links to other regions in California. 1-580 links the Central Valley with the metropolitan Bay Area and the Oakland POft and accommodates a large amount of commercial vehicle traffic. I-GBD links the Tri-Valley with (he North Bay and with Silicon Valley by way of [he Sunol Grade. Increasing traffic congestion on the5e major imerstate routes inhibits Tri-Valley residents' and businesses' ability to navel within and through their region in,a timely manner. It also generates unhealthy levels of air pollution and polluted water runoff. How Are 'We Doing? The Tri- Valley Regions Freeways Are Increasingly Congested with Interregional Travel . Congestion on Tri-Valley freeways, 1-580 and 1-680, increased by 100% in the past four years, growing from 5,000 vehide hours of delay to more than 10,000 vehicle hours of delay. The Sunol Grade has the worst level of congestion, accounting for 65% of all freeway delay. Other segments ofTri-Valley freeways are becoming more congested as well. Each year, Caltrans collects information on travel time for free- ways in the Bay Area in order to locate where congestion occurs, how long it lasts, and during what time of day. In 1994, Calnans identified only one segment of freeway within the TriNalley region that was congested-a small stretch of 1-580 near Pleasanton. Since then, the number of congested freeway segments in the Tri- Valley has grown to five. Peak Period Congestion on Tri-Vallev Frewavs, 1995-1998 Traffic Congestion Way Up ,,= 10000 8000 .00 2000 ,w, ,~ 1997 '9g8 1998 Peak Period Congestion on Tri-Vallev Freewavs . Where The Freeway Congestion Is .1_'8aWB.Va'coRD.dtDRI.84.r>dli""rmor."'EIC~a"" .1-680SB,SunoIRd,ooulllofRou,o262 1-f;80SB, ~IC."",alvo.lR"ogearToSycamoroValloyRo [ 1.580EB, Fro,"ill," EICIl."QRd (34 ) M.....'. #3: C.OUBSlI.o 00 lac.' Ro.dW.ys We wanr to be able to travel within the region in a comfonable, safe, and timely manner. Most of the trips we take-whether by driving, walking, or bicycling-are by way of our local Streets. A5 these roadways become more congested and waits at traffic lights increase, the time we spend traveling increases, taking time away from other activities. Increasing traffic volumes increase the opportunities for crashes, reducing the safety of our transporration system. How Are we Doing? Major Roadways Have Enough Capacity to Meet Existing Travel Volumes . Working with the five Tri-Valley cities and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, we selected 36 intersec- tions of regional significance to monitor over time. Of these intersections, only 5 had a level of service (LOS) of D or below in 1998. LOS is a universal means of communicating the performance of roadway segments and intersections. LOS can be rated A to F, with A being the highest level of service and F being rhe worst, stop and go. LOS D is the lowest level of service stilled deemed "adequate," with minimal delay. Six of the intersections selected have no LOS raring, but should be studied in the future. Though existing conditions are fairly good, future growth will increasingly crowd arterials ifintervenrions are not implemented soon. Level of Service At Tri-Vallev Intersections, 1998 Source: Tri-Valley Cily Traffic Engineering Dept"TJKM Local Roadway Capacity Adequate So Far .......~ v...., , , , r-__.. , ' \:-' Ef ~-"'--- I . ONAotFuture $A-c .D iI North Not to Scale (35 ) Livermore .~ I , ! , ~~ \ ~!tB ~m I )~M/f ~ "Almost half of employed r;'i- Valley residents (45%) work from home at least some of the time... JJ ~ - ~~ ~-'--.'~tt':"j;,--,--:~, i , "". ;.,l).:'f, ,'j;{;~ ~~}-~-;1?~' {1 { ,,'~. t -;"",';,,;;c,"", <;;1';":':"""'" ,; "" ~ ,~.,_., <'- Measure #4: llpansion 01 Transponation Chalces We want people to have more options for moving around than just their private automobiles. Increasing OUf travel options-walking, biking, ridesharing, or riding a bus-allows us to improve our health, save fuel and money, and safeguard the air we breath. Fewer people driving means cleaner air and healthier children and adults. How Are U7e Doing? U7e Have Had an Increase in Transit Availability and a Slight Improvement in Proportion afCommuters Using Alternatives to Private Auto . Between 1990 and 1999, the percent of residents driving alone to work dropped slightly. In 1990,84% usually got to work by driving alone; in 1993, that percentage dropped to 80%, . Likewise, use of all alternatives-including walking, bicycling, carpooling, and using transit-increased from 16% to 20%. Increases in Bus Routes and Rapid Rail Create Dramatic Rise in Transit Ridership . Two bus services, BART and ACE, increased options for commuters from Tri- Valley and Central Valley. Berween 1994 and 1997, ridership on Tri-Valley transit systems increased 129010, primarily because of the opening of [he Pleasanton/Dublin BART station. Ridership grew another 42% between 1997 and 1998 with the opening of [he ACE stations in Livermore and Pleasamon. . Comparing data from the 1990 Census and the 1999 Tri- Valley Community Survey, [he percent of residents using lransit to commute to work changed dramatically, from 2% in 1990 [Q 8% in 1999. This change is due primarily to an increase in the availability of transit as discussed above, . A significant percentage ofTri~Valley residents are choosing to travel [Q work less often by either working at home or working longer but fewer days each week. Almost half of employed Tri-Valley residents (45%) work from home at least some of the time, while ,%% of employed residents work longer days or a compressed work week (4/40 or 9180) [Q have more days off. III addition, 13% work from a location closer to home than to their regular workplace Average Annual Transit Ridership. 1994 thrOUgh 1998 Source: ACE,BSAT,LAVTA,CCTA Transit Ridership Way Up 5.000.000 , 4,5Q0,000 4,000.000 3,500.000 3,000,000 . 2,500,000 , . ~ 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 5QO,OOO 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 .1 (36 ) . HOW TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ARE CONNECTED Why has traffic congestion increased, and what can be done to prevent it from getting worser The answer is in how we design our communities The Tri-Valley's growing traffic congestion is due, in part, to the same factors causing increasing traffic volumes throughoUt the United States and worldwide: rising incomes and relatively cheap fuel coStS, but also land-use policies that favor large-lot residential development separated from stores and jobs. An increasing amount of research links our travel behavior to the design of the communities in which we live and work. That research indicates that the density, size, and land-use mix of employment centers and residential neighborhoods have a significant impact on people's travel patterns-the number of trips they take, the length of the trips, and the method of travel (walk, bike, transit, autO). . The design of our neighborhoods and communities has a major influence on how we choose to travel. A study recently completed by Fehr and Peers, a transpormtion consulting firm, showed rim people living in more uaditional pre- WWII neighborhoods were less likely to use a private vehicle for their daily trip needs than people living in a post-WWII suburban neighborhood. In traditional neighborhoods, residents took an average of9 nips pef day; in suburban neighborhoods, they averaged 11 nips. Use of an automobile averaged 77% in the traditional neighborhoods; use averaged 86% in suburban neighborhoods.' Another study looked at three different neighborhoods in the Easr Bay: Rockridge, Walnut Creek, and Oanville, Total miles of navel varied measurably benveen the three. The most traditional, pre-\X1Wll neighborhood, Rockridge, which has a BART station, had the lowest vehicle miles traveled (vmt), averag- ing 15,000 miles per year. On the other hand, residents of Walnut Creek, a post-WWIl suburban commu- nity that also has a BART sration averaged 20,000 vmt. Oanville, however, a suburban community with no BART station, averaged 30,000 vmt per year.6 The transportation costs associated with driving were also less for a more traditional neighborhood: $9,000 per year versus $18,000 per year for a suburban neighborhood. Work sites, too, can be developed to increase the use of commute alternatives. Large suburban employ- ment centers can attract fewer nips by amo by increasing the mix of land uses within the center. Research by Cervera and others demonstrates that employment centers with mixed uses are more likely to support trips by means other than auto, including ridesharing, transit, walking and biking. Where services and retail establishments, including restaurants, dry cleaners, and child care are available, workers have less need for their own vehicle to run errands during the day. When developers build housing within walking distance of offices, more workers walk [Q work. Communiries developed where work sires, mail and commercial services, and housing are built in a compact and integrated manner increase the opportunities to walk and decrease the need to drive. . ( 37) (1/) 'C(pIIB ~tBm .1~J!m; < rt;;/1JJ ~..~ J~ "Our children and adult residents must be able to keep up with the pace of economic change if they are to have the choice to remain and prosper in our region. " ~ :~~-;~;:;, -J~~t: ~ ^ ~i__~V ,,""; ~. Q EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY . Vision We wam a lifelong educational system tlm is accountable to the highest community standards. Critical to the overall vision oFTri- Valley's hlture is high-quality educational opportunity-from prc-K-12 through postsecondary education to lifelong learning. OUf region is becoming morc advanced economically, driven by a growing mix of knowledge-illlensive indusrries. Our children and adult residents must be able to keep up with the pace of economic change if they are to have the choice to remain and prosper in our region. Job_~ at virtually all levels of the occupational spectmm will require higher levels of skills than they do today- including the creation of new kinds of jobs that we can't even imagine today. Residents may have twO, three, or more careers in their lifetimes. Ten years ago, who would have been able to guess that one of the fastest-growing and well-paid jobs would be "Web designer?" The only way to ensure that our residents can keep pace is to ensure access to high-quality educational opportunities at all stages of their lives. Our vision is for the region's educational system to distinguish itself as one that employs state-of-the-art meth- ods .and facilities to design and deliver the highest quality education and training to all tesidents, regardless of age, income, and ability. Strong parental involvement at the K-12lcvd will be critical to our success. Pattner- ships with businesses and our national laboratories will enhance the curriculum and support the atea's competi- tive advantage. Given the fast pace of change, it is essential that business and education work closer together than ever before to make changes necessary to prepare people for the economy and society. MeasU1-es of Progress Measure #1: Public Scbool Capacity A basic indicator of educational opportunity is school capacity-how well are we meeting the volume ofK-12 education need in our region. We compared enrollment and capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, based on a widely accepted, statewide methodolob'Y for calculating space per student. How Are we Doing? In Some Areas, School Enrollments Are Close to or Exceeding Capacity- though Facility Expansion Is Under way. . The Pleasanton elementary and middle school enrollment and the San R-,mon Valley middle schoo] enrollmem exceed current capacities-most by a small percentage, with the sole exception of the Pleasanton middle school enrollment, which exceeds capacity by nearly 20%. High school enrollment in Livermore Valley, Pleasanron, and San Ramon Valley are at 90% to 100% ofcapaclt)'. San Ramon Valley elementary enrollment is also near 100% capacity. To achieve a basic level of educational opponuniry, dearly enroJl- mem should not exceed capacity. Became new school comtrunion is now under way to address these capacity issues, this indicaror should improve in the future. . School Enrolllment as a Portion ot Capacitv Level in Yri-Vallev School Districts Source: Tri.valley School Districls Some Schools at Near Capacity 140% 120% e '00% eo% W% ,~ ~% 0% PI".",nron SanRamonV.llev OElemenlarySchOOI .MiddleSohool HighSohool (38 ) . . . Measure #2: Sludern Perfermance allhallememarv Scheel and Hloh Scheollevels An importanr way to judge whether the region is providing quality educational opportunities is to look at outcomes. Student performance, especially in the early grades, is a good indicator of later educational success and the ability [0 take advantage of further educational opportunities. Because a widespread, multidimensional measure of student performance is not available, we chose to look at the best available measure at the elementary level that is common across all public schools in California: scores on the scate's STAR test. At the high school level, we chose to examine SAT scores as an indicaw[ of preparation for further educational opportunity. Ideally, in order to meet the highest community standards, students attending K-12 public schools in the Golden Valley should show high achievement on measures including bur not limited to California's STAR testing program, Golden State examinations, Advanced Placement tests, and Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT). How Are we Doing? Most Students Score Above the National Average, but Too Many Do Not. . Most tbird-graders score above the national average, but too many do not. The STAR tests administered to third-gtaders in the spring of 1998 indicated that 70% of studelHs are reading above the national average, whereas 30% are reading below the national average. Also, 32% of third-graders scored below the n:ltional average on the math test. We believe that our region cannot settle for having almost one-third of our children with sllch a low level of reading and math skills. We mllst do better to reach the "highest community standards." . Tbose higb scbool students taking the SAT score above the national avemge, but mimy do not take the test. Tri-Valley's overall educational achievement scores on the SAT are well above the averages for California. Whereas California's average SAT scores range from 990 to 10lD, Tri-Valley high school students' scores on the SAT have steadily increased from an average of 1070 to 1110 between 1990 and 1998. Tri-Vailey students perform bener on the Math SAT than on the Verbal SAT. The diffetential between the two has widened over time. Between 1990 and 1998, math scores increased 25 points, from 540 to 565; verbal scores increased 10 points, from 530 to 540. The percentage of Grade 12 students in the region taking the SAT is 49%. Tri-Vallev School Districts Average 3rd Grade STAR Scores. Spring 1998 Sourca:Tri-Valley School DislriClS Too Many Third Graders Below Average 80 70 " 60 ~ ~ ~ 50 ~ ~ " 1; f 30 ~ 20 10 Readina Math . Below national average . Above national average (39 ) "we believe tbat our region cannot settle for baving almost one-tbird of our children with such a low level of reading and matb skills. " , ~lle /jomm ~J~ Average SAT Scores. 1990 to 1998 Source: Calilomia Departmenlol Education SAT Score Well Above Slale Average "" --... / ~ ...................--- 'V' - ""' "'" 1060 "'" 1020 '''''' '''' "" .., '" 1990 1991 1992 ....- Tri-Valley 1993 1994 """ 1996 1997 1996 ..... California . Measure #3: Student Access to Postsecendary EducaDon (Percentage QualifYing lor Emrance te UC/CSU SvstemSJ We want our regional educational system to prepare students well enough to gain access to opportunities for higher eduGuian and training. For students to be adequately prepared for the sociecy and the workplace, the . perccntage of students completing high school and continuing theif education must be high. One indicator of qualification for ftmher education is the percentage of graduating high school seniors who have completed the courses required for entrance into the University of California or California State Universicy System. These courses are mathematics (3 years), science (2 years), English (4 years), social sciences (2 years), foreign languages (2 years), and visual/performing arts (I year). Although it is nor a sole predictor of later education or job success nor a comprehensive measure of the ability to gain access [Q higher education and training, this measure does provide an indicator of access to key higher education institutions in California. How Are we Doing? Four in Ten High School Seniors Complete the Courses Necessary for Entrance into the UC or CSU Systems. . Many high school seniors meet the requirements to the University of California or California State University System, but many do not. In the Tri-Valley region, 41% of high schoo! seniors have completed the basic courses required for en- trance to the UC or CSU system. Although this percentage is better than the California average (37%), the "highest community standards" require that more than four in ten high school seniors arc prepared and have the opponunicy to attend a UC or CSU campus, whether they ultimately decide to do so or decide to take a different path (e.g., through communty college, technical training or apprenticeship, or other options for post-high school skill development). (40 ) . .' Measure #4: Access 10 U1oloug, ConUnulng EducaUon We believe that to reach the 2010 vision, to keep pace with economic change, our residents will need to have access to lifelong learning opportunities. In the Tri-Valley Community Survey, we asked employed residents the following question: "In rhe past five years, have you had any difficulty getting access to adult or higher educa- rioo in the Tri-Valley Area in order to improve your job skills or change your career?" With this question, we assume that some residents are not seeking further education. We also assume that other residents get signals from their employers or the marketplace that they need to upgrade their skills or change careers, that they then look for education, and that they either do or do not have difficulty finding such education. If a significant percentage of residents are having difficulty, it would be an indicator that our region is nor providing the necessary educational opportunities for its residents-educational opportunities in sync with our changing economy. We also added a measure ofInterner access to assess how many residents have the ability to tap the growing on-line education and training opportunities. How Are we Doing? Currem(y, Most Residents Appear to Have Access to Continuing Education . About 85% ofTri-Valley residents say that they have not had difficulty gaining access to adult or higher education. Only 9% of residents polled indicared rhat they had difficulty, and another 6% were not sure. . About three-quarters of the region's residents have access to the internet from home, work, and/or school. Only 23% of residents srared that they had no access to the Internet. REGIONAL COLLABORATION Vision . To connect all aspects of the vision of the Golden Valley, we must be a region of people and jurisdictions that work well together. Too many elements of the vision are dependent on regional collaboration to hope that individual jurisdictions wotking alone is enough. Individual jurisdictions, sectors, and otganizations must all play their part, but must also find ways to integrate what they are doing with what others are doing. In this way, regional collaboration will allow us to build a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, a regional vision of the Golden Valley that is greater than the sum of the visions of the five cities making up the Tri-Valley region. . In the years ahead, we envision local issues being viewed with a regional perspective, based on reliable informa- tion on critical regional trends. We envision large numbers of involved citizens working to improve their region and jurisdictions collaborating to solve regional issues. We believe that an environment of openness, inclusive of existing organizations, can make regional collaboration commonplace. We believe that the vision can help grow and fOCllS civic engagement (including charitable contributions and volunteetism) on key needs, working with an effective regional delivery system of charitable organizations. And we believe that collaboration in Ollr region can help us connect to surrounding Bay Area and Central Valley regions to address multiregional issues and develop mulriregional solutions. (41 ) " regional collaboration will allow us to build a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts..." r;0C7i;lte ~/})m ~I Measures of Progress . Measure #1: RegionalldenUtv We believe that a basic building block for regional collaboration is whether or not residents identify as citizens of their region. Without a strong regional identity among residents, regional collaboration is unlikely to have a strong and lasting constituency. [n the Tri- Valley Communiry Survey, we asked residents about how they define their communiC)'. How Are we Doing? About Half of Tri- valley Residents Strongly Identify with Their Region and about Half Do Not. . Residents were asked "when you think of community, how oftcn do you think in terms of your neighbor- hood, the city where you live, the Tei-Valley Area, and the Bay Area?" Almost half (46%) of residents said they think in terms of the Tri-Valley Area "often" or "almos( always"; slightly more than half (54%) said "occasionally" or "hardly ever." Residents most strongly identified with their city (79% "often" or "almost always"), then with their neighborhood (68%), and least often with the Bay Area (39%). We believe that the definition of community is multilayered and important for diffetent reasons at each level. So it will be important to track community identity at alllevds in the future. When You Think About Your Communilv, How Ohen 00 You Think In Terms 01 Neighborhood. Cih. Tri-Vallev. or Dav Area Source: Tri.valley Communily SUlVey About Half of Residents Identify with the Region " eo . " eo ;0 '" '" '" w Your Neighborhood The City Where You Live TheTriValleyArea The Bay Area . (42 ) , . J . . Maasura #2: ChIlan Engagemam Another key building block for regional collaboration is the level of citizen engagement-how engaged are residents in terms of giving and vo\umeerism to make their region a better place. We believe that having a strong regional identiC}' and demonstrating a strong level of citizen engagement are critical conditions for Sllccess. How Are we Doing? More Residents Give to Charity and Volunteer Than the National Average . Almost every household (91 %) donates a percentage of income to charity. This percentage is much higher than the national average (690/0) and is higher than that of neighboring Silicon Valley (83%). In terms of the percentage of household income donated to charity, the region is close to the national average of a linle more than 2% of annual income. . The region also has a stronger-than-average level of volumeerism, with 56% of residents volunteering during past 12 months. This percentage is higher than both the national average and the Silicon Valley ,vmg' (49%). . Howevet, room exists for improvemem. About half (47%) of hi gh-earning households ($100,000+ annu- ally) gave $2,000 or less to charity. Although Tri~Valley donors naturally give to a variety of causes inside and outside the region, the Tri- Valley Community Survey found that about one-third (32%) of charitable giving among Tri~Valley residents goes to organizations outside the region. level of Giving and Volunteerism in the Region Source: Tri-Valley Commumly Survey 100% 90% 80% . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ ! ~ 70% 60% 50% ,,% ,,% 20% '0% 0% Spent time on cl1aritabJe or votuntary service ectivity in past 12 months Madtla donation of money or propenyto cl1arityirlpasl12 mOrlths .Tri-Valley . Silicon Valley Natiorl (43 ) /1/) ~/Ie ~~ ~tJI!!J~ flj!te 9!PtBm ~~ .~ >'o.:r:__.:i..! '" 'J'" -~-' 0", _'_ -~_: '~- <; ,..., ;,'. -,'1 -'- -.' j :;~,~: ,", 1~;"7:-;>,'j:~"")";~' Q ~ ;1 " '...., :~- ":> , "'Ai,,, I ~11llir ~~, rf:, '. .,. 'L'l1ft>'1' '~,f.'\ '~"'~.J!1:,.I'1 'j: , Measure #3: Commltmem to Regional CollaboraUon We believe that in addition to strong regional identity and citizen engagement, strong commitment of the concept of regional collaboration as a way of solving problems is critical to achieving the vision of (he Golden Valley. \'ile afe measuring this commitmem in twO ways: how Strongly do residents believe in the value of regional collaboration, and how well are local jurisdictions practicing regional collaboration. In ocher words, what evidence do we see of regional collaboration (e.g., joiot powers agreements) versus regional conflict (e.g., filing of lawsuits against each another). . How Are U7e Doing? Regional Cooperation Is Increasing; Regional Conflict Is Low . In the past fen years, the number of formal joint-powers agreements has been growing while lawsuits between jurisdictions have, on average, remained steady at one or two per year.] 993 was an especially litigious year. In that year, four of the five cities were involved in three Iawsui,s with each other or with the coumies. . When asked if they favored developing a cooperative regional approach to preserving the quali')' of life and economic vitality of the area, 53% of residents "strongly favor" sllch an approach. An adclitional34% "somewhat favor"; only 7% opposed a cooperative regional approach. . We find a majority Strongly supportive of regional collaboration and strongly identified with their re- gion-and a large majority at least open to the regional approach-a good foundation on which ro build. This situation is promising, given that more than four in ten residents moved to the Tri-Valley within JUSt the past ten years. It is an essenrial ingredient to ensuring progress toward the vision of the Golden Valley. Do You Favor Developing A Cooperative Regional Approach to PreSerge QualilV ollile and Economic VitalilV 01 the Area;! Source; Tri.Velley CommUMySurvey Strong Support for Regional Collaboration . 60% 50% <0% 30% 20% '" " I I Strongly Favor SomewhalFavor Oppose ,...-. . (44 ) . . / . The Vision is co be used as a framework for accountability and a wellspring for action. People like living in the Tri- Valley region. This attitude must not change. At the same eime, whether we like it or not, we know that change of some kind is inevitable. The only real question is: Will change be on our terms? If we do nothing, we will still be affected by decisions made omside our region. If we try to freeze everything-no more jobs or housing growrh--our region will nor be a place where our children can live and make a living. If we let growth happen piecemeal and without regional planning, we will lose what makes our region special: a high-qualiry environment to live and work. With this vision, we are determined to shape our destiny, not stand by and accept the consequences of decisions made outside our region. We ask that each of the five cities in the Tri- Valley region add this vision to its general plan-a common "regional element" as a companion to specific local plans. That is a starring point. Next, we ask for volunteers from aU over [he Tri-Valley to become "stewards" of this regional vision-people from government, business, and the broader community who are willing to work with others in myriad ways to make this vision a reality. Are people willing to work together to fulfill the Vision? The survey results suggest that they are-and that they are willing to pay for what they want, if payment is necessary. For example, residents hold the following posi- tions even if they mean increasing local taxes: . About 7 in 10 would "strongly favor" investing in effortS to decrease traffic congestion. . Almost 6 in 10 would "strongly favor" purchasing undeveloped land to preserve the rural quality of the Tri-Valleyarea. . About 7 in 10 would at least somewhat bvor building a new performing artS center somewhere in the Tri- Valley area. . About half of residents would somewhat favor bringing in water to provide for more agriculture. The Vision aligns the shared values ofTri-Valley residents with a set of goals and specific measures w make ourselves accountable for progress wward the Vision. The nexr step is w use this foundation as a catalyst for sustained action over the next decade to fulfill the vision ofTri-Valley as the Golden Valley of the twenty-first century. CONCLUSION A Regional Call to Action The stage is set. The vision of the Golden Valley sets the direction and lays our a set of inter depend em goals that must be met. This document details a set of measures that will be used to assess progress towards the visiun. Now is the time to act. The vision will be achieved only if concerned residents come forward to serve as advocates and work together to develop and cake action over a period of years. A committed group ofTri-Valley residents have already begun to work towards the vision. But, we need your help. To join the team to create the Golden Valley, please e-mail the Tri-Valley Business Council at MLWfri- ~ or call us at (925) 890-1892. Together, we can determine the desriny of our region. Years from now, we should be able to look back and say that thousands of residents got involved and made a difference in the early 21" century-and left for fucure generations the gift of the Golden Valley. (45 ) The 1999Tri.Valle}' Community Surve}'was conduaed by Field Research Corporation on behalf of the Tri.Valley Busines_\ Council. The lamp!e was obtained using a random digit Jiaj. ing (ROD) sampling method covering rhe 'li-i.Valley area, in- cluding ml' cities of DanvilJe, Dublin, Livermore, P!ea-<..'nlon, and San Ramon. 3,300 phone lisrings were diaJed by inter- viewers which resulted in 409 complete irucrvicws. The ~nal sample matched the known frequency distributions of adulrs by geography (city). gender and race (wirhin a few percentage poims)so thatstaristical weightingo[the data wa.s unneces- sary. A sample of rhis size (IJ09) is subject to a maximum .Iam. piing error of plus or minw 5 percenragepoinrs at the 95% confidencele\'el. Resu!rs [rom subgroups of this population havehrgersamplingerrurestirT1Jtes.lnaddition,thercarcmany mherpmsiblcsoUfces ofcrrorin any slIrvcy umer than sam- piing variability, including qUC$tion wording, sequencing, or undetenoo errOt5 in sampling, inrerviewingorda!a process- ing. Every effim was made lO minimize slIch errors Acknowledgments Spdallhll>1lrs ro rk ftUow;ngpopkllnd orgll>1iZ4I;OTlS woo eomtib. uud Mr.r ,md ~"prrris~: Alamed,ClnilllyOlTtceofEJuc:lli"n Al:uneda CoUlllY Congesuon !\t:m~g.melll Agency A1"",ro. County Pl,nning Del"'Umem Associ>uon or B~y Area G",,,rnmems (ABAG) II,,)" Area Air Ou~lity M,n.gemem Oi.'triel lIayAreaR.:.pi,l'rrall,il 05mic1 (BART) C.!ifornilDopanmomotEducJriun Ciliforni>Dop.nmemorFin~"ce. Demogrophic Rc=rch Unit CaJiromi, Depmmem ofJusuce Ct!irorru, Dcpmmem "rTraml"'naliot\, Dimiet 4 CaJ;~b::'S:r~;'~~r:~,~,?:~17~i~~~:n Dep'nmonr, Cin'ofDublin: 'Ci[\'Cle,k l'u;,ning DepHtm.m Engineering Depmrn.m Poli~ & Fir< Oeparlmml' CilyofLlvcrmme CiryCkrk PlanningDcp~nmem Enginecringtkpmrnent Police & Fire DeparrmenL' O,vofPkl'M1Tnl1 'CirvClerk Pla~ningDermrnem EnginecringDepHun.m Police & Fi",Dcp:utmenu Cirv ors~n Ran",,, 'CilVCbk Pla;',Tlin);n'I''''[ln.Il' Engmee,ingLkl'arrmem Po!iee&FtreDeparrm.nt> Comra Co." Counn. Office ofEduarion Com" Com Cuumy Planning Oep~rrme[\1 Comra Co~ta Cnunt)"Traml'",r".;nll Authority Duhlitl U",i.nISchoul Diwjct u.rBayl\lunieipalUrililyDislrict Frocral Bu,,,,u nrJn''C>rigalion 2~n%fu~~r.>~rr'arion l.ivermo","A","dor Valle;. Tran'rnr~"lion Agene)' Livermore V.II"y Ullir,eJSch'Hl 11m"cl Mmopoliran Tr~mpOnaIiol1 Commi"ion PIoa,:mlOn UnificJ &/'001 DJSlrin Real&a, S~n Ramon V~llev Unified School Oistrict T]IJI,JTrampo,,;rioIlCons1lhant' 'lilWn"fD,nville PI:mning,Oepmment r.l1ginemng~pmmen' Police & Firellip:utmenu TownCbk 'Source: Ori' J'1~nning DepJJ1ment" "Viral ceme,,' i"dude: OlJhlil1 CliO; Downrown Dan,.ilk Downrown Liv<'r",.,'e: Downtown l'lca,.ullun; The J\Jarket PI,"e in S:m R.:.mon; other region.! m~lIs and .hcppinge~nlm. l Homburger. WS" et. al., Rnidtl/rW Srrm &ign, lTE, 1989. 'P~hkarev, (I. S. ,nd p,t. Zupan. Puhlit: T"'mp~t1i1'i~n and lAnd Uu PoliC)', IndiJna Uni,'miry Pre", 1~77 . S';;rde Mwo, "Encouraging l'1Jblic Tramport~tion Througb Effecti\'. L:mdU~Actions",1987. 'Friedman. B.. S.p. Gordon,J.II. Peers, "ThrEffOClof:\rorradilicnal r-.:-.ighborbooJ D",ignonlr.veICh."eteri,tiCl", Feht& PccrsAs;suci. "1<<.lne. 'Calth"rp" P.m, I'resemarion m.de ~t B~y Arel lloming, Challenges and Choi<es in rhe 21" Ccmury. GI24. Dublin. SEVEN AREAS OF REGIONAL VISION ICONOMICVlTAlm ShareofTri-Valley Employoo Residem, WorkinginrheTri.Vill.y TouJ job Growm, 1992101998 Clu>lCr Job Growrh and Employmelll C"ncen!rario[\ A,,,,ageP.yperEmployec . NewBu,ine"r"rmation,b)'Clu"et, '](otal Number of Embli,hmmll. 19n w 1998 UlBAllCUIIINT OF om SPACE, IGBIC01TUBIDO IWVJBONMDfTIl QUWJY Ac",ageofPerm~n.m1yPrO!ecredOpenSpace ;Jf,~i~~lo[!~1:~Jl~~nu~r~;eU~ricuhlltal Land. Connmed Open Space (miles of connmed u~ils) . Usco[OutJuorRc<:reJ,;oll O'i~ J'<l Year E.c.eding Sraleand Feder~1 Oz.oneStandara..1990toI99S VITIlCINTIRSUOCONHlmDNIIGHBORRODDS ResidenlS'lisf,uint1 with Region,nJl'eighh"rhooJ, Region~1 ~nd :-l'eighborhood S~fel)' . NcighborhooJC"nnectoon= (~ce"'lOcommuni:r.am.rutics, IUCha,;llOre"schoo"I,atks.rell,uram,) NeighborhoodC"nllecledne". . . ResidemUseofT,i-ValleyCiry:mdRegionalCcnre", . C1]J,teri~g of New Job" Hou,ing, a[\d Transil HOUSINGCHOICIS CurrenrMi:r:ofHousingTyf'C' EXl'ansionoflJomingChuiccs V~caJler Rat" Housing for Crilical Servicc Prof=ional, . (e,g.,tC3chers.polic.officm.firei.ghterl) ExI'~llSiollOrH"",ingforMo.Je'ale Low [ncome Jksident' BIGIOIfAlMDRUm lJow Long h Takes 10 G.t w Work I'r~ew~y:md St"el Conj;C<tion r.xP;ln.\iOnnf1;-;lmp"".,;onClwj,... EDUGmOIfAl OPPOBTUIUTl [\JblicSchooIC.padty. , . . , . . . SLUJ,1Il Perfurmance'lthe Eltmem"vSchool [n-ol College SAT Test Seom of High Seho~1 Students AccC5-< [0 Lfdong. C..ominulng r~UClllnn. . IEGIOWCOUABOBITIOII Region,lldenrity Cill;r.enEngagemenr ComrniunemroRegionalCoUaboration. SOURCES . 1~90 Ccmu" CTPP.UE. .\iTC Working Paper #7; Fidd Rc=rch, Tri-V,Uev Communi[\' Sut\'OV CaJiforniaF.mplO)'me~r ' OevdopmemOeparrnlenr C,lif()rni~Eml'l"ym"nt Developmenl Oepmmem, 2odQtr.1997lOZodQlr.1998: Collabora.cive-EconomiCi Californi> Employmem Developmem Deparrmem C.lirorniaEmploymenl Oevel"l'menrDcl'.nmen, Gm:nlnfoN'elWork; E""RayReginn"1 l'.1[k Di,tricr Crwllnf" Network A,,,,,,i,tion nfll~}' Area Government' {ABAG);Zone7, F.>.IrBayMunicipaIUriliryDi,triC! G=n[nfoNelWork rield Re.\C~rch,Tri.v.II.y Communis-' Survey BarArC3A1rQu~llty .\b~menrDistriC! FiddRe=reh. 'Iri-ValleyComlllunilySurvey ~~Id ~=;~~ r.~.\~:l:.m ofJlIStice: CommuniI}'Sllf'o'C}' ' Field Re,earcb. 'lfj-VJUey Community SUl"'ey FiddR."':uch,Tri.V,U.... CommunirySurvcy . FiddReseareh, .1;;-V~lIe)'CommunitySul".cy ~~:,~~i~~~u~:~~.ni.i~<~~~;::~l:~~~lnn, San Ramon CiliesIT""lIPI:mninglXp:mrnents: D~nvilk Dublin, Livermore. Plca.<anron,Sanll",,,,,\ (jTie</TownPlanni,:,gDel'anmenr" Dam'ille, Dublin. uvermore, Pl=nwn, SID Ramon; Realfm. CityrrownFi",&Poli<eOepartmenrs. school dislricts: Comf:l Co,,,, Occup~ li<Jn,IOurlook;AlJrnedaOccup,ti"nal Our!lluk.Rcrlf,cts Citi..rr"",nPL.nningO.p>runents: D.nville,Dublin.Livermore, Pleuamon,San JUmon . 1990CensllS,JuurnevwWorkrield R<';S..rch.Tri.v.Ueyr..ummunit}'Surv.y C:.Jlfans Dim;C! 4 omce ofHighw.y Opera,iollS;(jtirsflo"nTroffie Engineers: Danville, DubJin. Livermore, r>1"'.<a"rnn,S,nR.m"'l 1990 Cemus, CTI'I'-UE. !\tIC Working l'.per #7: Field R"ear,h. Tri_V~11ev Comm'lIlirv Surv",~ ACE, BAR1~ LrWTA. cerA . Sch.,,,IDimiw SdlOolDimicr< CaJlforni~DepmmemofEdu<arjon FiddR=ch,Tri.Vallcv C..ommuni<ySurve-y , Field Research. '1!i-V~IJey CommunirySurvey FieldR=ch,l,i-V,JJev CommunirySurvey , Field R=arch, Tri.Vallev CommurutySurve-y , (jli<<rrownClcrks;OtyAunrney, The fllfowing have spoll5ored the Vi,ion Project rhrough cl1Jh ((lIIrrihuflom or in kind serl'ias we grearly appreciate their mpporr. AlamooaCounry BbckTimeLimousine Cat/America Contra Costa Counry Ciryo[Dublin Cityo[Livc!l1lure CiryofPleasanron Ci[yofSall Ramon DeSilva Grollp East Bay Communiry Foundation The James Irvine Foundation l'<!cific Bell (SBC) [)~dficGasandflemic TJKM Transportation Consultants TownofDanviJlc Tri.Val!ey Community Fund Tri-ValleyHerald Wel1teVineyard!i -\