HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12101991 - H.6 H. 6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 10, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Hearing on Bay Vision 2020 and Other Concepts
for Regional Government
The Chair convened the hearing on Bay Vision 2020 and other
concepts for Regional Government. Valentin Alexeeff, Director,
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, spoke on the
concept of growth management and its companion regional government.
He noted that the new Countywide General Plan addresses the issue of
growth management through its integration of land use, transporta-
tion, and air quality issues. Mr. Alexeeff advised that Bay Vision
2020 evolved from the interaction and discussion of representatives
of the many. bay area agencies and governments and referred to the
action taken by theBoard on February 12, 1991 endorsing the concept
of merging the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) , the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) , and the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District .(BAAQMD) . At the conclusion of his
comments the following persons spoke:
Janet McBride, Association of Bay Area Governments;
Diane Longshore, Contra Costa Council, One Anabel Lane, #24,
San Ramon;
Ted Weinstein, 'Bay Area Council, 200 Pine Street, #300 ,
San Francisco;
Gregg Manning, IMayor, City of Clayton;
Susanna Schlendorf, Bay Vision Action Coalition, Danville;
Martin Gottlieb, _4666 San Pablo Dam Road, El Sobrante;
Mary Horton, Councilmember, City of Pinole, 2131 Pear Street,
Pinole; and
Steve Roberti, ' 525 Green Street, Martinez.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
Board members spoke on issues relative to the positions of the
executive boards ofABAG and MTC on regional government; the current
roles of the respective agencies in the area of _planning and
enforcement; the feasibility of establishing a regional agency on an
interim basis and the development of the plan for a permanent agency;
fiscal savings that might be realized from. a regional government
structure; authority of regional government to veto or overrule
decisions of local governments; and the composition of the regional
governing body.
Supervisor Schroder advised that he did not believe the general
public is in favor of developing another governmental agency in the
Bay Area with taxing powers, but that the general public strongly
favors local control on land use decisions and the coordination of
land use decisions of local governments with mobility (moving people
and goods around the nine bay area counties) . Supervisor Schroder
expressed the belief that the institutions to accomplish these goals
are already in place and that there is no need to create another
agency. He advised that he could not vote for the proposal presented
this day.
There being no further discussion, the Board then approved the
following actions:
1. ENDORSED the concept of merging the Association of Bay Area
Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as an interim
step in creating regional governance. This could occur
without being a part of the larger regional governance.
issue.
2. CONCURRED that an interim agency would develop the regional
plan over three years with a bottoms up approach with
existing cities and counties and on a sub-regional basis
where deemed appropriate by local govenment.
3 . CONCURRED that a further dialogue on how regional policies
are set is desirable and declare the County' s intent to
become actively involved in this discussion.
4. SUPPORTED dialogue on how tax revenues are distributed
among local and state agencies and insist that financial
issues must be dealt with as part of this State legislation
and that increased costs are fully State funded.
5. ENDORSED the alternative that locally elected officials or
their alternatives would initially serve on a Regional
Commission. After the initial three-year period, the issue
of elected representation should be reconsidered.
6. CONCURRED that the authorizing legislation should sunset at
the end of the initial three-year period thereby dissolving
the entity unless additional legislation is enacted to
either reauthorize the merged organization or restructure
it.
7. GAVE cautious endorsement to the concept of a regional
commission, but withheld full endorsement until the details
of the program have been put in place. The final report
should consider inclusion of financial incentives to obtain
cooperation and compliance with regional planning.
8. REFERRED the issue of Regional Governance to the Internal
Operations Committee and DIRECT the Community Development
Department to carefully monitor this program and to take
action as guided by that committee and coordinate a
response with other affected County departments.
9. URGED immediate establishment of a feasibility/implementa-
tion task', force comprised of administration and policy
makers of° the three agencies to identify (a) the
appropriate incentives for regional cooperation to achieve
compliance with the existing transportation, air quality,
and land use law (and any new growth management framework) ;
and (b) the critical path for administration and functional
integration of the three agencies.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of .
an action takon and entered on the minutes of the
cc• Director, GMEDA Board of Superviscx:. r.r. 'sir:,'.ate shown.
Director, CDD ATTESTED:
County Administrator PHIL DATCH' r. . yirk of the Board
Internal Operations Cte. of Supervisors and County Administrator
Deputy