Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01261999 - D1 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Mark DeSaulnier Costa DATE: January 26, 1999 County SUBJECT: Report on the Inter-Regional Partnership SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ') The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa accepts the report of Supervisor DeSaulnier and the Association of Bay Area Governments on the Inter-Regional Partnership (IRP). 2) The Board supports the County's participation in the Inter-Regional Partnership and directs the CAO to identify available fiends up to the amount of$5,000 to match those of the other participating counties. The purpose of these funds will be to further develop and promote collaborative planning and the principles of Smart Growth. Staffing and financial support for the Partnership in its formative year have been provided by ABAG. ABAG, Stanislaus Area Association of Governments and the San Joaquin Council of Governments will continue to provide staff. Additional funding sources will need to be identified for the future. 3) The Board supports in concept IRP's development of an Inter-Regional Smart Growth collaborative strategy. 4) The Board supports the Mayors' Conference and the City County Relations Committee's work on similar issues (P.M.A.'s Quality of Life) and ask City County Relations Committee to consider establishing a process for Contra Costa County to develop a countywide Smart Growth strategy. This process should include key stakeholders, including, but not limited to environmental, business, labor, agricultural, non-profit and community-based organizations and other governmental entities. These key stakeholders could act in an advisory position to City County Relations Committee CONTINUER ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: i RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)- ACTION OF BOARD ON J 3 1 q c -APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER_ SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VO'T'E OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(.ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: T, I I,I V NOES: T T T, V AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none _ OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR,C ERK O HE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND UNTY ADMfNISTRATOR Contact: Betty Fisher,Supv.DeSaulnier`s Office cc:Phil Batchelor,CAO Dennis Barry,Community Development BY ,DEPUTY ADDENDUM D.1 January 26, 1999 On this date, the Board considered a report of Supervisor DeSaulnier and the Association of Bay Area Governments on the Inter-Regional Partnership (IRP). The Board members discussed the matter and took the following actions; 1. ACCEPTED the report on the Inter-Regional Partnership (IRP); 2. SUPPORTED the County's participation in the IRP; 3. DIRECTED that the County Administrator identify available funds to match other counties for the development and promotion of Smart Growth; 4. SUPPORTED the concept of the IRP development of an Inter-Regional Smart growth collaborative strategy, with emphasis on "concept", on which Supervisor DeSaulnier will report back to the Board in March, 1999; 5. SUPPORTED the work of the Mayor's Conference and the City County Relations Committee on similar issues; 6. REQUESTED the City County Relations Committee consider establishing a process for Contra Costa. County to develop a countywide Smart Growth strategy, and requested that Supervisor DeSaulnier report back on the issue. RECEIVED l INTER-REGIONAL > $.`3i ..; .. 9:4u PARTNERSHIP Alameda County # Contra Costa County San Joaquin County t Santa Clara Count4. y Stanislaus County Organization and Membership The Inter-Itegional Partnership (IRP) is a group of elected officials from five counties who have agreed to focus on issues related to jobslhousing balance, transportation and air quality which cut across county and regional boundaries. The IRP membership includes one board of supervisor member and two city council members from Contra Costa,Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Santa Clara.The three councils of government(COGS)for the Bay Area, San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County have agreed to provide staffing, financial support and regional expertise. Process and Meetings The IRP has held a series of five meetings. Staffs from the CODs, and the involved counties have presented areas of existing and anticipated growth for the time frame up to 2020. Representatives of the air quality and transit authorities are have presented planned improvements to transit and road infrastructure, and anticipated impacts to commuters and existing and future air quality. Existing models in use for inter-regional and inter-governmental communications have been discussed and considered. An upcoming meeting will provide the opportunity for interested members of the public and special interest groups to inject their views into the IRI:' process. The final meeting will allow the IRP membership to review all of the information presented in prior meetings, and create a plan of action to carry forward the IRP work. Goals The IRP has been convened to establish a framework that allows local policy makers from the member counties and cities to address the interrelationships between future jobs/housing balance, and the concurrent impacts on transportation and air quality. The intent is to spend a year building trust, establishing and enhancing communications and laying groundwork for a long-term relationship between the stakeholders. Each meeting described above is meant to build on a framework of information and ideas that can be used to address long- term regional growth issues. Members Name Position Jurisdiction Dan Bilbrey Mayor City of Tracy Nick Blore Supervisor Stanislaus County Bob Cabral Supervisor San Joaquin County Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Contra Costa County Trisha Dixon Council Member City of Milpitas Stan.Dobbs Council Member City of Modesto Richard Dodds Mayor City of Patterson Millie Greenberg Council Member City of Danville Scott Haggerty Supervisor Alameda County Quintin Kidd Mayor City of Brentwood Pete McHugh Supervisor Santa Clara County Charlotte Powers Council Member City of San Jose Tom Reitter Vice Mayor City of Livermore Gloryanna Rhodes Council Member City of Lathrop Bob Wasserman Council Member City of Fremont LAND USE AND THE JOBS-HOUSING MISMATCH (THE IILOHWOT" CHALLENGE) A WORKING PAPER OF THE INTER-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP OCTOBER 19, 1998 INTER-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP Alameda County Contra Costa County San Joaquin County Santa Clara County Stanislaus County with Association of Bay Area Governments San Joaquin County Council of Governments Stanislaus Area Association of Governments INTRODUCTION The current distribution of jobs and housing in the five county IRP study area is markedly uneven. The result is increasing numbers of people who spend more time and energy commuting on already congested roads. This paper examines the problem and suggests a number of strategies designed to help the area cope with continued growth, lengthening commute times and related land use conflicts. LOHW OGT(live over here, work over there) is a term for this problem of long commute times associated with living far from work. In the case of the IRP study area,jobs and housing mismatch issues are spread across county and regional lines, complicating solutions. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSLNG GROWTH IN THE IRI"AREA In the San Francisco Bay Area today,job growth is far exceeding the growth in housing units(see graph below). The reverse is true in parts of San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. The Association of Bay.Area Governments predicts that by 2020 the nine counties around the Bay will add approximately 1.4 million new residents and an �$y Area Jobs and Housing Growth: I995-7 equal number of new jobs. During the same period, 10% it is expected that only 508,000 new housing units 14% Woos will be added to an already very costly and 12% MHousing units competitive housing market(ABAG, 1997). On 10% average, one housing unit supports 1A to 1.6 jobs rr% (Cervero, 1991). This means that close to half of the % new workers coming to the Bay Area may encounter a% difficulty finding appropriate housing. This 2% situation will continue to pressure the rapid 0% residential growth occurring in Central Valley cities 41 like Modesto,Tracy and Patterson. P�a�* � �� �,.ti' ���r s a The following graphs show the current distribution of jobs and housing and projected growth for the five IRP counties. They clearly indicate that the number of people not living close to their jobs will increase substantially over the next 25 years and that an increasingly common commute will be from the Central Valley to South Bay and East Bay destinations via the Altamont Pass. Housing In 1RP Counties:Actual and Projected Jobs In lRP Counties: Actual and Projected 1400 — 1400 4200 132020— 12OG 02020 , .-1000 19951 000 B1995 800 800 800 90.5 800 400 400 200 200 o tr SanJoaqulr+ Stanlslaus A?amada Contra Costa Santa Clara San Joaquin Stsrtslaus Aiameds Contra Costa Santa Clara Two overarching strategies can be employed to permit continued growth and economic prosperity in a region with a geographic mismatch is jobs and housing: 1. Bring jobs and housing physically closer together. 2. Establish more sustainable methods of moving and connecting people between distant jobs and homes. 1 STRATEGY 1: BRING JOBS AND HOUSING CLOSER TOGETHER The closer employees live to work,the less time and energy is consumed in transporting them to and from their lobs every day. • Time saved by not commuting long distances or suffering severe congestion delays can be used Supportive Evidence: A study done E in the Greater Seattle-racoma area for other purposes. Employees with short, free found that in census tracts with fairly flowing commutes are able to spend more equal numbers of jobs and employed productive time at work or more family time at residents, commute times were an home than those who travel long distances. average of 29%shorter than In unbalanced tracts. This translates to greater productivity and a source: Ce"ro 8 Landis,1995. higher general quality of life. • Not commuting long distances saves energy and helps sustain a healthier environment while reducing consumer costs for cars and fuel and taxpayer costs for infrastructure provision and maintenance. When communities produce new jobs at a faster rate than new housing(as in many Bay Area counties today), or more housing than jobs(as in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties) longer commutes and their associated economic, social and environmental costs ensue. It is therefore important to strive for a closer match between jobs and housing. An effective jobs/housing balance requires more than simply providing an equal number of housing units and jobs. In order to give people the option of living close to their jobs, it is vital that a community's housing stock match the economic profile of its workers. For example, if 15%of community's employees are in low-income professions,then approximately 15%of that area's housing ought to be "affordable"to that group of people. Considerations 1 actions for bringing lobs and housing into balance Staff suggests a number of approaches to correct the jobs/housing imbalance for IRI' consideration. Create more Mousing opportunities near employment centers. This is probably the most effective method of enabling people to live closer to their jobs. Building new housing within existing Bay Area communities (and often right in urban cores) can accommodate significant numbers of residents and workers. A number of things can.be done to encourage such development. e Identify vacant and underutilized residential, commercial and industrial sites (including brownfields)that could accommodate a significant amount of future growth demand. Consider modifying existing policies and regulations to foster reuse. • Modify land use policies, zoning cordes, and development charges to encourage private development in central areas. Rewrite obsolete zoning codes requiring strict separation of uses to allow housing production in or near employment centers. • Streamline the permitting process for residential and mixed use developments meeting location and density requirements. This serves two functions: It makes such development projects more attractive to investors because of less red-tape and a shorter time-to- completion, and it allows needed new housing units to come on-line sooner. e Encourage business leaders to advocate new housing near employment centers. It is in the best interest of major employers to encourage construction of new housing in proximity to their facilities. Not only are people more productive at work when they have short 2 commutes, it is easier to attract high quality employees if sufficient quantities of affordable housing is available in a community. Stress local planning which is sensitive to the housing needs of the region. Revenue- driven land use decision-making aimed at maximizing tax profits by encouraging retail and commercial construction over other uses has led to the types of problems now being addressed by the IRP. Attract employment to areas which have a large supply of workforce housing. Decentralizing jobs into areas which are currently housing-rich helps to equalize the balance in both the community from which the jobs are moving and the community receiving the jobs. Such jobs should however, match the skills of local residents. Staff are currently identifying potential research directions for inter-regional economic development efforts. • San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties economic development efforts could target existing companies expanding in currently jobs-rich IRP areas -specifically employers who already have employees living in the Central Valley. 'Thus far, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties have not been able to attract significant numbers of jobs from the major employment centers in the Bay Area. • Existing employment centers with more jobs than housing units might develop referral programs to expose new companies to Central Valley communities with less costly housing and reduced congestion. • Identify commuters and where they work. The Stanislaus County Economic Development Corporation(SCEDCO)and the San Joaquin Partnership could collaborate and target those businesses with their joint marketing efforts. Both SCEDCO and the San Joaquin Partnership have resources in place to work directly with any business that expresses interest in the Central Valley as a potential location. Encourage people to locate (or relocate) closer to their jobs Assuming housing in the appropriate price range is available, several things may be done to entice employees to search out housing in close proximity to their workplace. • Bonuses (monetary or otherwise)may be Example: As part of a larger program granted to people who buy or rent homes near called Smart Growth, The State of their jobs in an effort to reduce public costs Maryland has begun awarding$3,000 incurred through providing infrastructure for closing bonuses to people who are willing the same people if they choose to live in new to buy homes in established neighborhoods close to their jobs_ subdivisions on the urban fringe. source: rLtarytand oma of Planning, 1997. • Employers can be encouraged to hire local workers. Though they cannot be forced to hire locally, companies requiring significant numbers of laborers (public works and construction projects for example) can be presented with references of qualified local workers and asked to make an effort to employ locals. Challen es inherent in iobslhousin2 goals Critics of attempts to achieve a balance in jobs and housing opportunities bring up several indisputably important points that must be acknowledged. • Two-worker households have become increasingly commonplace. If two working members of a household are employed in areas far apart, it is impossible for them both to live in close proximity to their jobs. 3 • Increasing job turnover is another factor. In today's economic marketplace, it is not uncommon for people to change jobs often, however they cannot be expected to move every time they switch jobs -especially if they are homeowners. STRATEGY 2: ESTABLISH MORE SUSTAINABLE METHODS OF MOVING PEOPLE As discussed above,the problems associated with the jobs/housing mismatch theory snake it clear that even achieving a perfect numerical balance in jobs and housing in every community will not completely solve the commuting problems in the IRP area. Because of this, staff offers a number of strategies designed to effectively support transit and alternative commuting schedules for your consideration. Create a more efficient pattern of land use • Urban Growth Boundaries (L.tGBs) and compact community land use patterns encourage creative solutions for accommodating future growth within existing urbanized areas. • Consider Transfer of Development Rights Example: Maryland's TDR program allows (TDR.$)programs to preserve greenbelt lands owners of undeveloped or agricultural lands on the urban fringe and intensify land use in designated zones to sell the development within existing developed areas. potential of their land for application to other more appropriate sites for development. • Support location efficient mortgages Source: Planning Commissioners JoumaL 1998. (LEMs). LEMS recognize that people who live near work or transit facilities tend to spend less on transportation and therefore have more money to invest in a home. • Encourage mixed-use,transit-oriented development (TOD) around ACE stations as an integral part of the implementation plan for the new service. The commuter train creates a unique opportunity to plan efficient TODs from the ground up. • Encourage new commercial and residential development near transit by lowering impact fees for developments close to transit stations and raising fees for development not near transit. • Encourage local transit connections to ACE and BART by working with local transit providers on route modifications. • Explore ways to make transit work better in existing lower density areas. Programs like dial-a-ride may be more effective at providing flexible transit service to existing suburban areas than conventional fixed bus routes. • Development on the fringes of urbanized areas should be required to pay the full Example: The Southern CaliforniaUrn City of Lancaster has adapted an Urban Structure costs of development. Adding the true Program which includes distance surcharges. costs of infrastructure provision and Charges are levied for new developments maintenance, and environmental impacts to 3 based on how far they are from existing the price of such developments will make ' service providers located in the core. I source: Cffil of Lancaster. l living at slightly higher densities in central - areas or in transit-friendly clusters more economically attractive. Promote strong and vibrant urban cores Directing new investment into older urban areas maintains the strength of a region and is an efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. 4 * Create and support designation of redevelopment areas in urban cores and give these areas the highest planning priority. Advocate rezoning of undeveloped or under-utilized commercial and industrial lands. Promote mixed-use developmentslzoning. Encourage regional institutions and services to locate in downtown areas. Advocate for regional transportation priority to improve existing public transit infrastructure in urban cores. Create new towns with a mix of housing types and commercial land uses Though the success of new towns is mixed,they could serve as a preferable alternative to continued sprawl around existing urban areas. • New towns may be planned from the ground up to be transit-oriented and can complement infill in existing urban areas (Calthorpe, 1993). Planners and architects of new towns can consider the best possible layouts for various land uses and locations for transit facilities which is never possible when working with existing cities. The introduction of the ACE train service creates an opportunity for the development of transit-oriented new towns around stations. • New towns are intended to become communities, not simply isolated attachments to existing ones. This model allows for a potential future,jobs/housing balance and, with local shopping and schools, a successful new town could have less of an impact on the regional transportation system than typical suburban housing developments. Encourage alternative commuting solutions • Telecommuting, even if only for one or two days per week, dramatically reduces the time an employee spends traveling between home and work and significantly reduces impacts on transportation infrastructure. Employers should be encouraged to promote telecommuting wherever possible. The benefits for employees are obvious. * Alternative work schedules can also improve the commute for people living far from their jobs by not requiring them to drive or use transit during peak hours. This promotes a more efficient use of existing infrastructure. ® Advocate programs like Ecopass (employer-subsidized transit passes)for all employers located near transit facilities. Tax incentives may be offered to participating employers based on the public savings associated with reduced traffic during peak hours. • Encourage the elimination of free employee parking and persuade workers to use transit and carpools wherever feasible. * Encourage programs like "don't drive one in five" for employers to recommend and implement with employees. ® Support employer sponsored carpool programs and shuttle bus services. CONCLUSION 1t is clear that the current mismatch of jobs and housing production in the 112.1' area is severe and continues to worsen. This paper has suggested a number of actions for both equalizing the distribution of jobs and housing, and fostering more sustainable land use patterns. The Partnership is an excellent foram for promoting inter-regional change, and continuing discussion of these issues. 5 SOURCES Association of Bay Area Governments. Interdependence: The Changing dynamic Between Cities and Suburbs in the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG,November 1996. Association of Bay Area Governments. Making Better Communities by Linking Land Use and Transportation. ABAG, April 1997. Association of Bay Area Governments. Trends and Challenges. ABAG, April 1998. Bank of America, California Resources Agency, Greenbelt Alliance, &Low Income Housing Fund. "Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California". Handout, 1995, Bay Area Council. "Transportation in the Bay Area: A Call To Action". Handout. San Francisco: BAC, April 1998. Calthorpe, Peter. The Next American Metropolis:Ecology, Community, and the American .Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993. Cervero, Robert &Landis, John. "Me Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters". in Access, Fall 1995. Cervero, Robert. "Jobs/Housing Balance As Public Policy". in Urban Land. October 10, 1991. Lancaster', City of. "Urban Structure Program". Brochure, no date. Levine, Jonathan. "Rethinking Accessibility and Jobs-Housing Balance". in APA Journal. American Planning Association, Spring 1998. Maryland Office of Planning. "Smart Growth Fact Sheet". Brochure, no date. Pruetz, Rick. "Putting Growth In Its Place". in Planning Commissioners Journal. Burlington: Champlain Planning Press, Summer 1998. Richen, Yoruba&Binger, Gary. "How Cities and Counties can Encourage Employment Opportunities for Local Residents". ABAG, 1998. Urban Ecology Inc. Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area. Urban Ecology, 1995. Liu, Kang-Li &Cervero, Robert. "Jobs-Housing Balance, Self-Containment, and Commuting: Evidence from the Bay Area, 1980-1990". Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, June 1997. 6 RECOMMENDED IRP ACTION PLAN Although the LOHWOT{live over here, work over there)problem in the TRP area is serious and continues to worsen, a multitude of actions have been suggested which together could make a significant difference. Due to the urgency of the current situation, all of the suggested solutions for both equalizing the distribution of housing and fostering more sustainable land use patterns should be seriously considered. As a first step,the Partnership is considering establishing a memorandum of understanding to pursue the following actions: I. Develop a program whereby all cities and counties would volunteer to self-certify that they have considered and/or adopted those strategies discussed in the attached LOHWOT working paper that could be established at the local level. • Evaluate in detail the San Diego County system of self-certification by checklist. • Prepare and test an initial draft checklist for use in the IRP counties. • Educate and engage local jurisdictions in the value of participating in a voluntary checklist process. Z. Assume the responsibility (or create an organization/subcommittee) to review and comment on the implications of major general plan changes in the IPP area. • Examine models from other areas and identify elements potentially applicable in the IRP area. • Set thresholds for evaluation/circulation of plans/projects. • Consider formation of IRP subcommittee to manage this program and address staffing/funding concerns. 3. Develop a program to promote coordination of economic development efforts across the five Partnership counties. • Formalize and encourage communication between economic development departments in IRP aunties and cities. • Incorporate private business development consortiums into the process as a way to solicit feedback. 4< Monitor changes in the inter-regional jobsihousing relationship at regular intervals, and work with the councils of governments to collect and integrate important data sources. • Establish reliable regional data records -COG's to collaborate on collecting and sharing comparable data. • Consider establishing joint info-gathering and periodic TRP meetings to review changes and trends in the jobs/housing relationship. 5. undertake a public education campaign which identifies issues/problems and describes the benefits of implementing solutions. • Present the LOHWOT paper and other IRP reference material to government bodies. • Hold semiannual public forums to present progress made by the Partnership and solicit feedback and ideas. 6. Seek funding and legislation which would stabilize local finances while providing incentives to improve the inter-regional land use and jobs-housing mismatch, • Research tax-sharing programs/models around the country(Twin Cities example and others). • Develop potential program options for future tax sharing in the IRP area and undertake preliminary analysis of probable impacts/benefits. Agenda Inter-Regional Partnership Meeting Agenda Pleasanton Library Meeting Room June 17, 1998 2:00—5:00 PM I. WELCOME, OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTIONS The chair for this meeting, Supervisor Robert Cabral of San Joaquin County, will make opening remarks. Partnership members will be asked to introduce themselves. H. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Transportation issues and impacts are crucial to Partnership discussions. Key staff from transportation agencies have agreed to share their views and respond to questions on the following issues: • What opportunities exist for improvement in commuting between the counties involved in this Partnership? • What specific actions could Partnership members advocate to improve accessibility? Presenters: • Andy Chesley, Deputy Executive Director- San Joaquin County Council of Governments • Gary Dickson, Executive Director- Stanislaus Area Association of Governments • Chris Brittle, Manager of Planning-Metropolitan Transportation Commission • Dennis Fay, Executive Director- Alameda County Congestion Management Authority (CMA) a Michael Evanhoe, CMP Director- Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/CMP • Robert McCleary, Executive Director- Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Action Requested: Identify and discuss inter-jurisdictional issues of greatest interest. III. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Partnership members have noted, at previous meetings, that they are interested in seeing some action coming from the IRP process. One way to initiate and evaluate such "action items" is to formulate position (white) papers on them. Staff will distribute a series of ideas that might lead to such position papers, and or other ideas from Partnership members. Staff will need to follow-up this brainstorming session by discussing proposed subjects with key policy and administrative people in the greater region. A refined list of study areas will be brought back to the next Partnership meeting. Action Requested: Review suggested topics and add to or delete from the list. Provide guidance to staff on those subjects Partnership members wish to see pursued. IV. DETERMINE FUTURE MEETING DATES Since all Partnership members are on board, it is essential to review and agree upon the following meeting dates: August 19 Air Quality September lb Collaborative/Cooperative Models November 21 (Sat.) Special Interest and Public Input January 20 Recommendations for Improvement Notes: The August 19 meeting has been added to allow for presentations related to air quality issues, since that portion of the program was removed from the June 17 meeting. The November 21 ,Saturdays meeting was suggested at an earlier IRP meeting to accommodate the needsof special interest groups and the public who might not be able to attend a weekday afternoon meeting. Members have noted, and may wish to discuss an interest in at least one meeting being held in the Central Valley. Action Re uec seed: Review and set meeting calendar. V. PUBLIC COMMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Inter-Regional Partnership Meeting Agenda Dublin Civic Center-Regional Meeting Roam August 26, 1998 1:00—4.00 PM L WELCOME,OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTIONS (5 minutes) The chair for this meeting, Supervisor Scott Haggerty of Alameda County, will make opening remarks. Partnership members will be asked to introduce themselves. IL RESULTS OF PARTNERSHIP MEMBERS SURVEY ON POTENTIAL,FOCUS AREAS (15 minutes) At the last meeting of the Partnership, staff requested that members rank possible study subjects. The resulting rankings offer an initial view of priorities. A copy of the results is attached. Action Re nested: Discuss results and reprioritize giving particular thought to interest areas for future discussions. Make suggestions about staff research directions. III. FUTURE MEETING DATES(15 minutes) Since all Partnership members are on board, it is essential to review and agree upon the following meeting dates: September 23 1 p.m. -4 p.m. Collaborative/Cooperative Models November 21 (Sat.) 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Special Interest and Public Input January 2'7 1 p.m. -4 p.m. Recommendations for Improvement (Note: Partnership members agreed at the June meeting to hold future meetings on the fourth Wednesday of the month) The November 21 (Saturday)meeting was suggested at an earlier IRP meeting to accommodate the needs of special interest groups and the public who might not be able to attend a weekday afternoon meeting. Partnership members may wish to discuss the organization and format of this meeting. (presentations, invitations, specific groups to target?) Action Requested: Review and verify meeting calendar. IV. AIR QUALITY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES (I hour) Interregional air quality issues have been identified as an area of interest by Partnership participants. Representatives from key agencies have agreed to share their views and respond to the following questions: ® What is your area of responsibility and the current conformity status of air quality with your standards? (briefly) • How is air quality in the Central Valley affected by Bay Area activities, and vice versa? (pollutant transport between them) a What do your projections show about the future of air quality? • What non-compliance issues need to be faced in the near future? • What are your recommendations for strategies that need to be implemented to improve air quality? Presenters: • David Crow Executive Director, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District(SJVUAPCD) • Ellen Garvey Executive Officer, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) • Debbie Jordan Assistant Director, Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Air Division(EPA) • Doug Thompson Representative, California Air Resources Board(CARE) Action Requested: Discuss IRP role in meaningful future actions (possible interregional strategies, lobbying?) Vo JOBS, HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSION(I hour) Facilitator Bob Stockwell will lead a discussion on the issues presented in the attached working paper"Land Use and the Jobs-Housing Mismatch: the LOHWOT Challenge." Action Requested: Discuss tlae main issues presented in the paper and consider the recommended courses of action for the Partnership. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT VII. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Inter-Regional Partnership :Meeting Agenda Dublin Civic Center-Regional Meeting Room September 23, 1998 1:00 0 4:00 PM 1, WELCOME,OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTIONS The chair for this meeting, Supervisor Nick Blom of Stanislaus County, will make opening remarks. Partnership members will be asked to introduce themselves. IL MODELS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION/COORDINATION (1 hour 15 minutes) Three governmental professionals will present examples of intergovernmental cooperaticnlcoordination. These panelists have worked with successful multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-agency programs. They will address the general format of the cooperative effort, successful outcomes,and discovered challenges. Each panelist will make a brief(approx. 10 minutes) presentation, with time for discussion after the presentations. Presenters: Julia Greene, Executive Director SJCOG Tampa Bay, Florida program Jon Elam, City Manager Brentwood Twin Cities, Minnesota program Mike McLaughlin, SANDAG San Diego County, California program Action Requested: Discuss the different options for coordination. Direct staff to develop a draft coordination effort that might suit the needs of the Partnership. III. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION (1 hour 15 minutes) Partnership members requested a discussion centered on issues of possible collaboration on economic development matters. Presenters from several economic development organizations have been invited to respond to the following questions: I. Give a brief overview of your agency/group representation. What do you view as the key role of your organization? 2. What economic development efforts are essential to your constituency's needs? 3. ghat actions would be of value if undertaken at an interregional or state level? Each panelist will make a brief(approx. 10 minutes)presentation, with time for discussion after the presentations. Presenters: Vicki Doll, Vice President, Stanislaus County Economic Development Corporation Mike Locke, President/CEO, San Joaquin County Partnership Leslie Parks, Director of Economic Development, City of San Jose Keith Sutton, Business Development Coordinator, Alameda County Economic Development Alliance for Business Tom Terrill, President, Contra Costa Economic Partnership IV. PUBLIC COMMENT V. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Inter-Regional Partnership Meeting Dublin Civic. Center- Regional Meeting Room Saturday, November 21, 1998 10:00 AM— 1:00 PM L WELCOME, OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTIONS The chair for this meeting, Supervisor Pete McHugh of Santa Clara County, will make opening remarks. Partnership members will be asked to introduce themselves. H. PUBLIC INPUT ON IRP ACTION PLAN (1 hour 30 minutes) This is an opportunity for the Partnership to receive feedback from the public on the direction of the group. An updated version of the Land Use and the Jobs-Housing Mismatch paper and the accompanying IRP Action Plan has been circulated to 80 interested parties, agencies and organizations for comments. Copies of all written comments received are included. The Partnership will hear from members of the public wishing to make short (approximately 3 minutes) statements regarding the direction of this effort. Action Requested: Receive and discuss public comments. Consider possible adjustments to the paper and action Man. IIL PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST PRESENTATION (15 minutes) At previous meetings, the Partnership expressed interest in creating a self-certification program for all IRP localities based on the issues/recommendations included in the Land Use and the Jobs-Housing Mismatch paper. Staff will bring a proposed checklist to the meeting for review. Action Requested: Review checklist and provide direction. IV. POTENTIAL SANDAO VISIT (5 minutes) A delegation of IRP members may want to consider travelling to San Diego to deet with key elected officials and SANDAG staff. This effort would allow IRP members to gain a clear understanding about issues likely to be encountered in administering a self- certification elfcertification process. Action Requested: Discuss Partnership members to attend and dates to consider. V. FUNDING/IRP CONTINUATION (30 minutes) The next meeting (January 27, 1998) is the last scheduled meeting of the W. So that the Partnership can continue to work on the issues discussed over the past year, direction (and funding) for an ongoing work plan will be required. Action Requested: Discuss continuation of IRP. Consider funding opportunities and available resources. VZ. PUBLIC COMMENT VIL ADJOURNMENT EDITORIALS ry Group t4 brings BayArea � m� Players to the table �. a T'S hope it works --- the In- counties. And everyone, everywhere e.rE ter-Regional Partnership, at within the inter-region is struggling with this moment a fledgling experi- traffic, and more traffic. ZF� mental effort among represen Lawsuits —such as the lawsuit against ! i ; tatives of Alam, Contra the planned 5,500-home Tracy Hills o r:� Costa, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Sta- project— are a sloppy and costly way to nislaas counties. Its goal: to seek some resolve regional issues. Alameda County, consensus on regional roblems that y ; J.,�► j g p Livermore and the Sierra Club have have begun to spawn more lawsuits than ;pined in the Tracy Hills suit against solutions. Tracy on transportation and environ- n I xd m� Transportation heads the problems mental grounds, while Fresno County ; 0 that confront the partnership. Add to has sued to halt the transfer of water that the jobs-housing imbalance in Santa rights for the planned homes. Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa coon- It's unlikely the Inter-Regional Part- ties; the rapid consumption of some of nership will be able to head off all such the world's prime farmland by housing lawsuits in the future, but any progress it fenced into San Joaquint and Stanislaus makes in forging a united voice on inter- 04 counties; and con- region problems fli-ts over waterwill be welcomed. c� transfers and rL p?"07eSS 2ri2,0YZ?2 e services. a 7 nitted voice on inter-regional So we salute sews � gthose heading the There's no p'Y'oblenL will be welc(7!?7,d effort: Supervi- shortage of issues sors Scott Hag- for the part- gerty of Alameda nership to tackle. County, Mark DeSaulnier of Contra Thal,said, don't set expectations too Costa, Robert Cabral of San Joaquin and high for the partnership. Home rule re- Pete McHugh of Santa Clara (the Stanis mains king when it comes to land-use Taus supervisor has yet to be named); planning. The partnership's greatest po- and representatives from cities within tential is as a forum for more orderly those counties: Fremont, Livermore, consideration: of the regional impacts of Brentwood, Danville, Tracy, Lathrop, Mil- present land-use, development and trans- pitas, San Jose, Modesto and Patterson. 1 portation policies. The partnership pians to hold a series For the first time, we have the makings of five meetings over a 10-month period, for something more than an ad hoc beginning on May 20. After the test pe- group representing all the players in a riod, it will be determined whether or not newiv evolved and unnamed lobs-housing the group will continue. inter-region. Contra Costa Supervisor DeSaulnier The nine-county Association of Bay insists the partnership will emphasize re- Area Governments, the maior resource sults over rhetoric. Results — the devel- for tracking trends and projecting jobs, opment of a consensus on how to housing and transportation in the San address inter-regional problems— are Francisco Bay Area, doesn't include San badly needed, but if the partnership does Joaquin or Stanislaus counties. Yet these no more than increase the willingness of counties are feeling the direct impact of inter-regional communities to sit down what's happening in Santa Clara together to understand one another's County's Silicon Valley and expanding needs and concerns, it will be a worth- job centers in Alameda and Contra Costa while experiment. 046 itstt to�'A IW,, tom.. t'j r+ � � � � td Pat c �~� A V R. K 48 .., �. ' . Rol S-0 Ell It .4 It UAW 01 pA , # 1 q",'� ' •�, . , , llv 1pft 4's Caen oi/25I99 MON 12:31 FAX 5104647970 ABAG fou w � �`• �� �:. �� a t� �cuP`x` '"�,�}.r� }� f � v 115 rAas f ate. a30 �. silo � L4CL 4. saairy l ' "' R'e w wi '. � ! y 14s '� � ...14f ."-s ..P F` L Vi '� ci' . . " �.. ga Fj e� �,' N, o v Mall a o M jig 40 E r w t .. .. 6 tt _ r o yyy r Uq Y v - N a✓ r fi 1 Jy 4N su �f 'n L ti r , �s , p • , s� Y m cr r ,,9 Q1.a. d in d J _ 1� IE 9 k 1 1 IN i s i r:?>ii$'y'.'f+•J::•f � •� .-- ::. -ice_._--.F _ x ZZ � I ✓ i b _ j c�� ' � �'r�'� 0 0 \� .: '� --- � � il '.. .E` ` •. � it i x E � ✓ z~ � .\(o ! S.-• � i x 7 £hN oRG®e�W ....._.._.. ..._ _. ..__... x,y�`. 4 Jr'4 J n c- a za s ' � l} i � i oo:rnrs•�•v,s -j,.,_.... � � i \ "r c { _._,._ -.. � ...®.. _.._. ... _... i J ^ 9 .� LL , 4 f a v te� I X44 I b. i �• � t' I � 6 i' 7 i U lo i C r¢ ✓ Q�F4L ` o � � v. s? A U 1 I -[ i i 0 .122/99 13;20 05109448989 Coca COUNCIL MEN ITS CONTRA COSTA R � 3 0 U N C I L � a.z 877 Ygnado Va#ey$toad,,etc.202 WSW=Cfn CA 94596i F.hmc;(925)944-8975 Fax:(925)958 1, 3 res . . January 22, 1 Mj! &M.%Mdaft red P tam 7e8eeno*'m 'SIA FIM (92 ) *1913 a-V W,craft Adr cow costa county Board of supervimrs 1 CaOSLOV Gmvp Phle streetfi wxrlw P nt 94653 Baty= Beam Aganda I fOM, MonDI Bio a }t up �� ulnje's , on the I Intal PmM m ipa he is one of the posdMe stakeholders In this Procow, 'the C Costa Council wrould like to Indite our wOlkWm to pmOdpate and offer our jiupport of WIS cmoW. M believe a PMvew that Is of a WAU rarw ~f stakettoWers can ;Dint In tfm butler of a mmemis �, and,� ,a lam to rain our or vand �of life)rt vie comhv Years, t We k fonmrd t �ng the OppWItUnityto pM1101pate With Ow Bomd of T0011 van 4%g SupervWors in dbmtosions,iiri both countywideand sub- lance sUstegles, PA-iowl I Okstft Li7! ys � J (i 7 ILI Jim JawExeculNe Director i V JJ/PW it I! i i; �f �r i' 7' JPN- 1 16:13 SUPERVISOR GERBER 510 820 662? P.03 CONSIDER d'i'n Y ,SAN 2 2 s --LERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO, 47 , -� �s� REQUEST To SPEAK FORK (THREE (3) XXNUTE LXXXT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before $addressing the Board. Name: Phone. Address: City: I am speaking for myself or organization: �. (now of or ,szatio,) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item mate My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: low Kequest to S00cak roan F ( THREE ) MINUTE LIMIT) Clete this fo nn► wW ice b in dw box MW toe W"ems' mdmm before the , � iifiNk rYfYYorIYrYIYYY�YwYrrlrrYliilr�ry�lr�w�.a I r�rr+irrl ! am si ng foc 4w oumv of f npwfl di'_" ONE: rr/Ya ! wish to Weed an the skied of I & not with to "A bnt leave &ems cemn11te ftr the n"M toC=551�'"��1 1�ifi1011YII iI�i711Y1�If1�11Yl�lliY.._ .._..__.__. _.__ .eiWlWfYiMwIYYMYIIT'FIIYIfY � � ;2(,- 77 C ° BACKGROUND Over the past year Contra Costa County, by the direction of the Board of Supervisors at the request of Supervisor DeSaulnier has participated with the counties of Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Santa Clara counties in establishing the Inter-Regional Partnership. The goal of this collaborative effort is to develop a workable Smart Growth strategy on a scale which transcends regional boundaries. Models of Smart Growth around the country in the cities of San Diego and Portland and in the states of Florida and Minnesota have been reviewed. A series of presentations were made by experts in the areas of economics, air quality, transportation and land use to Drovide a common information base. From all areas of the state there has been increased concern over the problems of growth, specifically housing,transportation and impacts on the environment. It has become clear that planning, as it has been known in the past, cannot continue. The imperative exists to solve old problems in new ways. Contra Costa County has led the way with its leadership in the Inter- Regional Partnership. Now the next step must be taken to develop processes that will make Smart Growth a reality. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT The activities of the Inter-Regional Partnership, endorsed by action of the Board of Supervisors, supports all five of Contra Costa County's community outcomes,but especially##5--Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. It is the goal of the Partnership to provide an improved environment for all, especially our children, which would be safe and healthful. By addressing regional long range planning issues it is hoped that there would be a positive impact on the economy and transportation of the area, enabling parents to reduce time commuting to employment, to significantly shorten the childcare day,to mitigate the impacts of development and enhance our neighborhoods. z