HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Subregional Plan Pilot Proj
"'11;,.,.
~
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 14,1994
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
ABAG Comprehensive Subregional Planning Pilot Project
Laurence Tong, Planning Director if
Exhibit A: /ABAG Request for Proposals: Comprehensive
Subregional Planning Pilot Project
Exhibit B: ./Cover Memorandum and Revised Draft
Resolution of Commitment
Exhibit C: / ABAG Menu of Subregional Land Use Policies
SUBJECT:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Discuss and consider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
4!vtt/
Unknown impact on City staff, however there are few staff
resources available to support the effort given projects currently
authorized by the City Council. ABAG would provide:
1) 1 full time equivalent staff and consultant for up to 6 months.
2) $20,000 to the lead agency for staff time and expenses.
3) $35,000 to other participating agencies for staff time and
expenses.
DESCRIPTION:
ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments) has released a request for proposals for a
comprehensive subregional planning pilot project (see Exhibit A)
The overall purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate coordinated, multi-jurisdictional local planning
(at a subregional level) to achieve region wide goals and objectives. The project would produce 1) a process for
reviewing ABAG's Menu of Subregional Land Use Policies (see Exhibit C) and selecting appropriate policies and
2) a draft subregional strategy with model goals, objectives and policy language for potential inclusion in local
general plans.
The request invites Bay Area cities and counties to submit proposals and a statement of commitment.
The Tri-Valley Council has created an ad hoc committee to consider submitting a proposal by the deadline of
November 30, 1994. The committee has prepared a draft resolution of commitment. Staff members from the
Tri-Valley cities are also preparing a draft scope of work for consideration by the committee. The project is to be
completed within six (6) months of awarding. The estimated time frame is from January 1995 to June 1995.
Staff recommends the City Council discuss and consider participating in the project, including the staff
resources available. Should the City Council decide to participate, the City Council should adopt the draft
resolution as revised (see Exhibit B).
ITEM NO.
COPIES TO: Agenda File
1
I
/1
------------------------------------------ ~------------~------------
COPIES TO: 7-
ITEM NO. 8.1
CITY CLERK
FILE ~
NOV-01-1994 10:39 TOWN OF DANVILLE
~~0~~~~ ~~~~ .
;' ~.,,~'t"iJ:':f:f.. !.:~..e.~.;-~..,. ",' .~ ._.....~~~,: ...~~
>"""'L~,~~ . ,',' ,,.:',~':' ' " " "'~~1~i'~
.. .'. ~.'"' ..,," .-.!, ';'~" y.. i..'.~.~,:.:,.'.:.~.":.;...~.:~'~.'.~....'~.:::.~~.:."',:_"':,,~.,,~~''''~'..''.~....'''.'.....~',''.:'.-%;-''':'::::O_. '-~,.;' ~"'~:.;. :. ..>~.:.~:~~~~.~:~ .., ·
,:~;,S0;f21j.~.,~~..r?~. ,>.~.~:. - 'u,..';, ,:,.: '.,;,.,.
- ~,I. .',':;,-:", ..... '~....~~ :,
P.04
......
,J':'
rii
~jf~~~~', .
~. ,
. ....~~~:., ", ....~' .i;,....~ ~'. I'"
.~.::. ~. ~ .... :
'.'....
..
I
,<~i~!>.
,......j.); ",
':jp- .
r
.;;.....~;..:.
",'r
f
~.~ .:"".,:",,' , ";: "
I!:
I
.
"'!1"t
I.~:
':~6#~'"
.,
;."
. ,
request for proposals,
:,ft~t.;....>~'"t"~ .:. .. .. ' .r.,:.,=\,
.:.:A~;,L$ ..
.;....;... ".~'. "";' ':~~,1;~,
.. ',,,' cbft1prehensive:,:}ff~'
sUbregional planninrt~:~'
pilot project'l~3'$
. .. :'i.j;i~
'.1\'.'"
. ""I..:
'..,0' .
".. .' ';';J+~ ::~,:'i:: ~i\r:: .:;;.~_...,
, . :. .r".,
.'..:,!~ '/' . ".
......
, .~: .". .
ExIIIt
A-
..... .
.....--. .
.. ,:.~. ,
" .
NOV-01-1994 10:39
TOWN OF DANVILLE
1-'.11~
,.,
.
.
. '
AuguSt 30. 1994
To:
From:
Re:
All Bav Area Cities ilIld Counties
Plannine: Director. Association of Bav Area Governments
Request for Proposals - ComprehenSive Subregional Planning Pilot Project
I.
Introduction
The Association of Bav Area "Governments invites Bav Area cities and counties to submit
proposals and statements of commitment to receIve support for a Comprehensive
Subregional Planning (CSP) pilot project.
II. Background
Locally elected officials throughout the Bay Area have long been seeking effective solutions
to traffic congestion. housing affordability, air and water pollution. loss of farm and open
"pace lands. economic stagnation and the myriad other problems that transcC!:nd the
noundaries or' individual cities und counties in our rellian. Because or' the current
t'ragmented system of land use planning. the challenge facing elected oflicia.ls is to cre:ue a
planning process that respects the individual characteristics of the region's localities and
subregions while effectively addressing the problems that affect all of them.
For more than five years. ABAG's members have been working together to develop a more
effective approach to coordinated planning in the Bay Area.. Charged with updating the
regional plan. they focused on determining broad-based policy objectives and on
developing the means of accomplishing them. Steps in this process include the
development of the Proposed Land Use Policy Framework in t 990. the General
Assembly's endorsement of the Platfomt on Growth Management in 1992. nnd the creation
of a Menu of Sl4bregional Land Use Policies in 1994.
Simultaneously, ABAG and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District have co-
developed a comprehensive guidebook. Improving Air QualifY Through Local Plans and
Programs. ABAG has also entered into an agreement with the US Environmental
Protection Agency and the SF Bay Regional Water Qualiry Control Board to produce a
gUldebook highlighting how local land uSe programs C<lIl incorporate estuary prOtection and
enhancement measures. Other regional agencies. including the-Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, have incorporated similar multi-issue and multi-jurisdiction concerns in their
regional planning efforts.
Together, these steps represent a collaborative land use planning approach tailored to the
unique needs of the Bay Area. The emphasis throughout has been on local planning
coordinated at the subregional level to achieve regionwide ~oals and ob~ecti~s. As the
next step in this planning process. based on the regional goals and oDJectives and the
subregional policy menus developed earlier. ABAG will provide extensive support to a
county or other subregion for a pilot project to demonstrate coordinated multi-iurisdictional
. PI~g. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has agreed to provide financial
an other suppan for this pilot project..
"
-Page 1-
NOV-01-1994 10:40 TOWN OF DANVILLE P.05
..- . .
III. Scope of Project
A. Regional Goals and Objectives
In conducting the CSP pilot project. the efforts of the participants shall be guided by and
achieve consistency with the following regionally.adopted goals. The overall goal of these
objectives is to more effectively address economic vitaliry. environmental enhancement and
social equity issues within the San Francisco Bay Area.
1 , A pattern of compact, city~entered growth in the urban areas of the
San Francisco Bay Area. with a balance of land uses guided into or
around existing communities in order to preserve surrounding open
space and agricultural land, as well as environmentally sensitive
areas.
,Growth directed to where infrastructure capacity is available or
committed including. but not limited to. freeway. transit. water.
solid waste disposal and sewage tre~ltment. and where natural
resources will not be overburdened, and discourage urban erowth in
unincorporated are:'l..S. ....
Development patterns and policies that discourage long distance.
single.occupant automobile commuting and increase resident aCCess
to employment, shopping and recreation by transit or other non.auto
means.
""~,, 7.
'If~.
.
."
:$ \
..', .
..,
...
,).
4.
Finn urban growth boundaries. with streamlined procedures thilt
perotit and direCt development within these boundaries.
Increased housing supply. with a range of types and affordability
and a suitable living environment to accommodate current and future
workers and households.
Long-term protection and enhancement of agriculturill land.
ecologically sensitive areas :1nd open space. and of other
irreplaceable natural reSOUrces necessary to the health. economy and
well.being of present and future generations. and to the sustainable
ecology of the region.
Economic development which provides jobs for current and future
residents, increases the tax base. supports and enhances California's
position in the global marketplace, and helps provide the reSOurces
necessary to meet vital environmental, housing. transportation and
other needs.
5.
6.
B. Designation of Subregion
Proposals for the CSP pilot project shall be submitted on behalf of a subregion. While
subregion is usually defined. as a counry and the localities and local agencies within it,
applications may also be submitted by the localities and local agencies within a subregion
whose boundaries cross those of two or more counties.
All applications must. be submitted by an existing or newly-established subregional lead
agency (Lead Agency) on behalf of the: localities and local agencies within the applying
subregion. This agency shall be the same agency that would conduct, and coordinate local
participation in, the CSP pilot project.
-Page 2-
NOV-01-1994 10:41
TOWN OF DANVILLE
r. ~.Jr
.
.
C. CSP Pilot Project Planning Process
With assistance from ABAG. the Lead Agency shall conduct the CSP pilot project
according to the following process;
1.
Confirm participation and commitment from appropriate local
technical and policy making bodies and key interest groups.
Review and analyze existing local plans. policies and procedures to
identify k.ey subregional issues. opponunities and constraints.
Wark with local technical and policy making bodies. staffs and
public input to review and analyze the Menu of Subregional Land
U.se Policies prepared by ABAG and select policies that are
<- appropnate to local and subregional conditions and meet reglOnwlde
-goals and oojectives.
Prepare a draft subregional strategy, to be comprised of: .
a. Model oals. ob'ectives and olic Ian ua e for inclusion in
ocal ,gene pans.
Suggested modifications to other local planning regulations
and progr.1II1S. including
· zoning and subdivision ordinances
· capital improvement programs
· CEQA review procedures
· redevelopment activities
· conununity design standards
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Implementation procedures. including self..cenification and
monitoring
"'l
w,
3. '
4.
Ve.\e~ ~~
-i'\('Jle."~~.
(fi'l'ti~
b.
c.
d.
All of the above should be completed within six months of grant award.
D. Resources Provided by Sponsor
ABAG will provide extensive suppan to the subregion chosen to conduct the CSP pilot
project. The provided resources will include:
1. 1 full til;ile equivalent of technical assistance apd project support
from ABAG staff and consultants for up to six months,
2. $20.000 in direct grants to the sUbregional lead agency for CSP pilot
project staff time and direct. expenses
3. $35.000 in direct grants to be divided among the participating
localities and local agencies for CSP pilot projec~ staff time and
direct expenses '
- Page 3 -
NOV-01-1994 10:41
TOWN OF DANVILLE
r".ICJt:l
.
.
.
IV. Submittal Guidelines
Applicants are directed to submit five (5) copies of their proposal no later than November
30. 1994 at 4:30 p.m. to ABAG. Attn.: CSP Pilot Project. The submittal shouid include
the following;
1.
3.
-+
Work program describing the approach to be taken to accomplish the
tasks identified above.
formal statement of cnmmitmr:nt frnm rhr- gnvr-ming hnnrti or
council of each participating locality and agency.
Description of lead agency and composition of the governing board.
Identification of individuals who will work directly on this project.
including organizational affIliation. qualifications. ;md projected time
commitments.
..,
5. Summary of all resources that each participating locality and agency
will contribute to the CSP pilot project.
6. Project schedule showing completion dates for various project
stages. The schedule should indicate assumptions regarding suppon
md participation from ABAG.
7. Detailed description oithe proposed work product.
V . Selettion Criteria
. Proposals will be judged on the range of issues to be addressed and the feasibility of the
approach. The selection of subregion to conduct the CSP pilot project will be based on
consideration of the following factors:
1 . Degre~ of prior cooperative subregional planning.
:2 . Project participation from the greatest proponion of localities and
~gencies within the applying subregion.
3. Demonstrated degree of commitment to the project from localities
and agencies. including resolutions of support and in~kind
contributions.
4. Demonstration that subregional lead agency and governing board is
representative of sub~gional participants.
5 . Viability of the project to serve as a pilot or prototype for future
subregional planning efforts. .
Applicants should provide adequate information to enable a complete evaluation of to
evaluate their proposal on each of these factors. ABAG will review the proposal and may
request an interview with the applicants. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact Gary Binger. ABAG Planning DireCtor, at 510464-7900.
...
GB:rw:cs\efp\6.4\d
-page4-
TOTAL P.08
,-"
~ I
CIT~ LIVERMORE
FAX NO. 510illJ135
P. 02
NOV~ 7-94 MON 15:04
CITY OF LIVERMORE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1, 1994
TO: Debra Acosta, Pleasanton
Joe Calabriqo, Danville
Rich Ambrose, Dublin
Herb Moniz, San Ramon
FROM: Tri-Valley Council
comprehensive Subregional Planning Committee
SUBjECT: Resolution of Commitment and Support for the Application
to ABAG
Attached is the resolution of support the grant application to ABAG
for the Comprehensive Subregional planning pilot program which was
reviewed by the Committee at their meeting of November 7, 1994.
The sUbmittal deadline for the grant application is November 3D,
1994. Since the submittal requirements include the resolutions of
support from each of the participating jurisdictions, please sched-
ule consideration of this resolution with your respective city
councils during November.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Joe
calabrigo, Town Manager of Danville, at (510) a20-0154.
ExIM.P
"
I ".J
CITY OF LIVERMORE
.
FAX NO, 5103735135
.
R&V L<bCP fAAFf
,
p, 03
NOV- 7-94 MON 15:04
. "
IN THE CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE CITY/COUNTY OF
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TRI. V ALLEY COUNCIL
COMPREHENSNE SUBREGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Tri.Ya11ey Council composed of the Town of Danville, the Cities of Dublin,
Livermore~ Pleasantonl and San Ramon, and the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa was created
in 1984;
WHEREAS, the Tn-Valley Council was formed to address issues of regional concern;
WHEREAS, the Tri-Yalley Council has a proven record of supporting subregional.
cooperation as evidenced by the efforts of the Tri-Yalley Transportation Council;
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments has issued a request for proposals for
the Comprehensive Subregi.onal Planning Pilot Program to develop a draft subregional strategy of
model goals, objectives and policies for inclusion in local general plans;
WHEREAS, the Tri-Va11ey Council has formed the Tri-Valley Council Comprehensive
Subregional Planning Committee to further subregional cooperation and the development of a draft
subregional strategy; -
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council/aoard of Supervisors that the
City/County of hereby supports the application to the Association of Bay Area
Governments for a grant to assist in development of a Tri-Yalley Comprehensive Subregional
Planning Pilot Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City/County of ,,' supports the Tn-Valley
Council's establishment of the Tn-Valley Council Comprehensive Subregional Planning Committee
to prepare and submit the grant application and to develop the subsequent..oompranensive
~1;lbregioftal peliey phm: Ov'"o...{t ~V"~\~ s1Ya.1€~ 0 ~.,-'
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City/County of
in the preparation of the draft subregional 1>olicy plan,- S~t>,:te~ lj ·
On the motion by Councilmember/Board Member , seconded by Councilmember/Board
Member , the foregoing resolution was adopted at the City Coun~il/Board of
Supervisors M:eeting of November ,1994, by the following vote:
agrees to participate
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
.~i . \ ~ ~:;. :)/}.;f'.\;~,~~' .~~'-;
" ,~,'.
. '.'-' .
. ,'~
'';,.~.^
C""'lt .. ~\. ';--r.
, .... ~ 1" .. " ..
., ',:'1" Ii" '.
'. " ~ '. . ,
. '. ,
_ _,l.~",:. ..~..~:.;. \,.:'~~,.':'. ,~::':
.: ,.'
..: ,~.~.';'. :" .:. ,,' .
\.' , .' .~.- : : .
. . ;.
" , ,.': . ..'
;....
<. ~.~. , "
,"",-.
.
menu of subregional
land use policies
Accepted by the Executive Board
Association of Bay Area Governments
March 1994
ExIIit --C "
.
.
Menu of Subregional
Land Use Policies
The following "menu" of subregional land use policies is designed to
encourage consideration of a wide range of possible approaches and policy
choices while allowing them to be tailored to individual subregions.
The individual policies are intended as generic examples that could be
modified to suit local conditions. Sub-headings are included for conve-
nience, to group policies that address similar issues. Local officials are
encouraged to mix and modify policies in this menu, and to incorporate
their own innovations in developing a comprehensive strategy that meets
the diverse needs and desires of their subregion.
Policies are arranged in three categories: Basic, Moderate, and Dynamic. The
Basic category presents policies which, if adopted by a subregion, would
indicate that local jurisdictions are "on-board" in fostering a comprehensive
conservation and development strategy. The Moderate category includes
policies that would commit localities to pursue innovative approaches to
coordinated conservation and development. The Dynamic category in-
cludes policies that call for a creative and significant commitment to
interjurisdictionalland use coordination.
Developed by tire Regional Planning Committee of tire Association of Bay Area Governments,
For more information, contact Ceil Scandone at (510) 464-7961, fax (510) 464-7970.
Policy Menus - Introduction
page 1 :
L ~ ~-; ~l~.n t~
i~~..,~ ~
.
.
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 5
Urban Growth Boundaries
Annexation and Urban Expansion
Infrastructure
Land Use and Development Intensity
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT 11
Conservation of Ecological Resources
Preservation of Agricultural Resources
Protection of Community Identity
Air Quality
Water Quality
MOBILITY
19
Transit-Centered Development
Auto-Oriented Development
Mixed Land Use
Non-Auto Use Through Site Design
HOUSING SUPPLY AND AFFORDABILITY
23
Increasing Housing Supply
Increasing Housing Affordability
ECONOMIC VITALITY
27
Policy Menus - Introduction
page 3
.
.
LoeA TION AND INTENSITY
OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES
Addressing the future form of urban development
is key to developing a viable subregional strategy.
I3y first determining the overall location and inten-
sity of urban development, subregions build a
foundation on which to base other more specific
policies.
OBJECTIVES
There are three main objectives in developing a
desired urban form:
A. Ensure that the cumulative effect of new de-
velopment emphasizes a compact city-cen.
tered subregional pattern to:
a. support existing urban centers, large and
small;
b. improve mobility of people, goods and
information;
c. optimize efficient public infrastructure
which minimizes environmental costs;
d. protect agriculture, open space and other
natural resources; and
e. support economic activity.
B. Maintain adequate performance standards and
levels of service for infrastructure, amenities,
transportation and public services provided
by municipalities or special districts within
the subregion.
C. Optimize maintenance and use of existing
infrastructure while pursuing more efficient
and less costly technologies.
Policy Menu 1- Location and Intensity of Urban Development
page 5 .
Basic
Moderate
Dynamic
.
.
..P "'" ~
'.if & '-0
# ~ :f
t: () CJ::Y ~
~ :f t ~"l;
CJg. ~o .QO $
;)4 t;
<,1 tl
,,',1 to:
I .,' :r~
,) ,,"
iJ!
~ :
\ ~'
J. ~;
POLICIES
The following subregional policies are intended to
achieve an efficient and desirable urban develop-
ment form.
Urban Growth Boundaries
1. Encourage firm urban growth boundaries that
enable achievement of objectives for housing,
jobs and other development and for the con-
servation of agriculture, environmentally sen-
sitive and other open space lands.
2. Encourage urban development inside urban
growth boundaries while discouraging it out-
side such boundaries by establishing develop-
ment incentives and preservation criteria.
3. Establish urban growth boundaries and des-
ignate an adequate amount, range and density
of land use within these boundaries to meet
projected needs.
4. Establish and permit only appropriate land
uses outside urban growth boundaries, possi-
bly including public parks and recreation ar-
eas, open space, privately-opera ted recreation
areas and agricultural uses.
5. Pursue urban uses near urban growth bound-
aries that are compatible with activities out-
side urban growth boundaries.
6. Establish an urban growth plan for the subre-
gion that defines areas within urban growth
boundaries suitable" for varying levels and
intensities of urban development, designates
which development should occur first, and
develops a hierarchy of areas for subsequent
development.
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
Policy Menu 1 - Location and Intensity of Urban Development
page 6 .
. .
b ~
}j :t ~
ff ~ .U
e s<. ?Z
?; "5 9-
~ ~ ,.... '\'
:9. :::, !;" '!<..
Vj:::' SO cl $
7. Designate as greenbelt all lands beyond urban 0 0 0 0
growth boundaries and protect such lands
through open space zoning, joint agreements
and, where necessary, acquisition, to ensure
greenbelt uses are appropriate.
Annexation and Urban Expansion
Basic 8. Encourage annexations that conform to an 0 0 0 0
orderly expansion of city boundaries within
planned urban growth areas and provide for a
contiguous development pattern.
Moderate 9. Develop vacant or underutilized land within 0 0 0 0
existing city limits whenever and wherever
possible, prior to an extension of development
outside of incorporated areas.
Dynamic 10. Establish criteria for evaluating proposed an- 0 0 D D
nexations of land to cities which assure that:
a. the land is within urban growth bound-
aries;
b. water, sewer, police, fire, and school ser-
vices have adequate capacity;
c. the land within incorporated areas is un-
suitable or insufficient to meet current
land use needs;
d. the land abuts incorporated areas or exist-
ing or planned city streets on at least one
side; and
e. the land is not under an agricultural pre-
serve or open space contract.
lI. Work with LAFCO to add the above criteria to D 0 0 D
those required by existing state law.
Infrastructure
Basic 12. Encourage growth to be directed to where 0 0 0 0
infrastructure capacity is available or commit-
ted including, but not limited to, road, transit,
water, solid waste disposal and sewage treat-
ment.
page 7 ~
Policy Menu 1 - Location and Intensity of Urban Development
Moderate
Dynamic
. :'i
. .
~
-& :.<. ~
's & ~
~ ~ JJ
cJ ~ ~
!:: C5 9;
~ ~ ,.... '\'
~ :::, t: ....
C5 .# 1;)0 ~
13. Encourage interjurisdictional cooperation to D D D D
eliminate costly duplication of capital infra-
structure, public facilities and services.
14. Encourage cost-effective maintenance of ex- D D 0 D
isting public facilities and services as well as
new invesbnent to keep up with demand and
achieve subregional objectives.
15. Discourage "leap frog" development by pro- D D D D
gramming the extension of water and sewer
lines only to areas contiguous with existing
developmeri t.
16. Invest in major public facilities and urban D D D D
amenities that support the further develop-
ment of urban centers.
17. Ensure that special purpose districts and other 0 D 0 0
service providers have capacity and will pro-
vide, in a timely manner, necessary services
where the subregion agrees that development
is planned or expected.
18. Pursue efforts to combine special districts to D 0 D D
service subregional areas where efficiencies
will result.
19. Establish and maintain levels of service and D 0 0 0
recommended standards for various compo-
nents of the subregional infrastructure..
20. Phase and limit extension of urban services to D D 0 0
occur only within urban growth boundaries.
21. Identify needed public facilities of regional D D D D
and subregional significance, and assure that
new development planning and approval is
accompanied by firm commibnents to pro-
vide such infrastructure.
22. Coordinate development of long range poli- O 0 0 0
cies and capital improvement programs of all
levels of government and special districts to
ensure that infrastructure and services sup-
port achievement of subregional objectives
through the timely and cost-effective action.
page 8 .
Policy Menu 1 - Location and Intensity of Urban Development
Basic
Moderate
Dynamic
.
.
~
.~ !:: :#
! ~ .rJ
o :9; -;:;
!:: 0 C/).::J' ~
ff # t ....'\'
C/)#. ~o t:f ::F
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
23. Adopt development mitigation programs to
ensure that new development meets subre-
gional objectives and pays its fair share of the
cost of providing police, fire, parks, water,
sewer and flood control facilities and services.
Land Use and Development Intensity
24. Encourage employment, commercial, residen-
tial and social activities to be located close
together to help contain growth and reduce
the need for travel.
25. Encourage higher density residential devel-
opment to be located within convenient walk-
ing distance of downtowns and near major
offiee developments, retail centers and transit
stations.
26. Establish minimum densities in areas desig~
nated as high density, for redevelopment, and
in areas with existing infrastructure capacity
able to handle growth.
27. Develop incentive programs to encourage in-
fill, redevelopment and reuse of vacant and
underused parcels within existing urban ar-
eas.
28. Implement programs to identify and over-
come potential difficulties associated with re-
development and infill, such as on-site toxies
in industrial areas and neighborhood opposi-
tion.
Policy Menu 1- Location and Intensity ~f Urban Development
page 9
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
AND MANAGEMENT
ISSUES
As the Bay Area has grown, so have concerns for
maintaining air and water quality, protecting open
space streams and wetlands, restoring the health
of the Bay, ensuring the availability of land for
parks and wildlife preserves and retaining agri-
cultural activities.
OBJECTIVES
There are six main objectives in protecting natural
resources and environmental quality:
A. Preserve environmental resources in order to
maintain and enhance ecological health and
diversity of plant and animal communities.
B. Preserve economically productive lands and
waterways, including crop and grazing land,
forests, and fisheries.
C. Ensure availability of open lands for public
purposes, including recreation and watershed
protection.
D. Create and enhance community identity
through protection of conuriunity separators,
hillsides, ridge lines and viewsheds, riparian
corridors and key landscape features.
E. Use conservation of open land to guide needed
and anticipated new development into areas
where it is best provided for, avoiding areas
with high risk of landslide, flood, fire or other
natural hazard.
F. Preserve and enhance air and water quality.
Policy Menu 2 - Natural Resource Protection and Management
page 11 _
Basic
Moderate
.
.
J:: "" ~
.'Jj & -.0
~ ~ .CJ
cJ ff. ~
?; C5 9-
!f.#t3'
er;#- 2-0 i:f :!
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
POLICIES
The following subregional policies are intended to
improve natural resource protection and manage.
ment.
Conservation of Ecological Resources
1. Inventory and encourage preservation of sig-
nificant plant communities, aquatic resources
and wildlife habitats and movement corridors
as well as significant historic, visual and cul-
tural resources, including views, landmarks
and archaeological sites.
2. Carry out requirements of state and federal
legislation protecting endangered species.
3. Encourage efficient use of existing water sup-
plies, including conservation by urban, agri-
cultural and industrial users, and use of re-
claimed water.
4. Support implementation of the Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan for
the San Francisco Bay. Delta Estuary.
5. Pursue programs which identify and protect
the availability of significant rock, sand, gravel
and other mineral resource areas and which
balance their use with ecological conservation
objectives.
6. Pursue the use of conservation easements,
density transfer or purchase using in.lieu fees
and dedications in order to preserve open
space that cannot otherwise be protected. '
7. Establish anon.profit land trustto acquire and
preserve open space.
8. Pursue all methods of acquiring land for parks,
permanent easements, and open space pre-
serves that contribute to the subregional open
space network from state and federal govern.
ments, individuals, and foundations.
Policy Menu 2. Natural Resource Protection and Management
page 12 :
Dynamic
Basic
.
.
~
~ !; ~
.~ 0 ~
S' R .v
!: cJ VJ~ j
~ # t 3'
VJ~.# qO :!
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
9. Develop watershed management strategies to
protect, enhance and restore wetlands and
riparian areas, and reduce pollutants and run~
off within the estuary.
10. Promote land use, design, and development
practices that minimize pollution and man-
age the flow of stormwater and urban runoff
into the Bay and its tributaries.
11. Permanently preserve a continuous system of
open space adjacent to urban growth bound-
aries, through planning enforcement, joint
agreements and/ or acquisition.
12. Develop proposal for new funding for special
open space acquisition program considering
bonds, parcel, sales and other taxes and fees.
13. Require dedications of all lands needed for
maintaining and improving animal movement
corridors and establish zoning to ensure long
term viability of large scale plant and animal
habitats.
14. Require conservation and, where necessary,
restoration of all riparian and wetland habi-
tats to support historic levels of wildlife and
plants.
15. Implement land use and transportation pat-
terns and practices that protect, enhance/and
restore the Estuary's open waters, adjacent
wetlands, uplands habitats, and tributary
waterways.
Preservation of Agricultural Resources
16. Retain land in large, contiguous blocks of suf-
ficient size and quality to enable economically
viable grazing or agriculture.
f
Policy Menu 2 - Natural Resource Protection and Management
page 13
. .
!...
~ !:; ~
'", 0 ';@
~ ~ .0
t: cJ ~ ~
G? 9.
~ ;# t :!
CIJ~ ~O QO ~
Moderate 17. Discourage actions which would preclude 0 0 0 0
future agricultural use on agricultural lands
not currently used for farming, but which
have soils or other characteristics that make
them suitable for farming.
18. Protect and enhance the economic viability of 0 DO D
agricultural land by: facilitating preservation
agreements, conservation easements, and
transfer of development rights; establishing
right to farm ordinances; and undertaking
public education about agriculture.
Dynamic 19. Identify and protect any watershed lands that 0 DO D
are part of an agricultural production area.
20. Define agricultural production zones for all 0 DO 0
significant crop and grazing uses and perma-
nently prohibit any development or subdivi-
sion of land in those zones.
21- Establish finn urban growth boundaries and 0 DO D
require the establishment of buffer zones in all
developed areas next to agricultural produc-
tion zones, in order to reduce urban. farm con-
flicts and to clearly signify where urban devel-
opment ends.
22. Maintain a viable agricultural land market by D DO 0
limiting future development on agricultural
land to uses and structures necessary for agri-
cultural operations.
23. Prevent the transfer of water resources from 0 0 D D
agricultural parcels to urban uses when it will
threaten viable agricultural use.
24. Prevent overdrafting of groundwater. D DO 0
Protection of Community Character
Basic 25. Encourage actions which maintain the integ. D 0 0 D
rity of hillside areas as major scenic and natu-
ral resources by limiting development to low-
intensity uses compatible with open space.
Policy Menu 2 - Natural Resource Protection and Management
page 14 :
. .
J; IZi
.';ti J" .;s
! ~ j'
;: () "J.:;y ~
~#t ....'{'
"J~ ~O .QO ::?
Moderate 26. Direct future urban development away from 0 DO 0
areas that have steep hillsides and that are
adjacent to major water courses.
27. Define and establish long term planning goals 0 00 0
that encourage large scale urban separators
between communities (which have not already
grown together).
Dynamic 28. Preserve hillside areas of at least 15% average D DD D
slope by discouraging higher density devel-
opment, encouraging clustering, requiring
open space preservation and ensuring the pro-
tection of natural features such as trees, creeks,
knoUs, ridgelines and rock outcroppings.
29. Establish a dedication and acquisition pro- D DO 0
gram to acquire community separator lands.
Air Quality
Basic 30. Support the Air District's development of D DD D
improved ambient air quality monitoring ca-
pabilities and the establishment of standards,
thresholds and rules to more adequately ad-
dress the air quality impacts of proposed
project plans and proposals.
31. Encourage modes of transportation that mini- D D D 0
mize impacts on air quality.
Moderate 32. Adopt air quality policies and programs and D DO 0
integrate them into local general plans and
implementation mechanisms.
33. Promote ancillary employee services, such as D DO 0
child care, restaurants, banks, or convenience
markets at major employment centers to re-
duce vehicle trips.
34. Require pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-ori- 0 DO 0
ented features in new development and rede-
velopment projects.
Policy Menu 2 - Natural Resource Protection and Management
page 15
. .
JJ ~
.'tT t -SJ
i;j 'll'
&' e. ~
?:; () 0.::r ~
~ ~ ,... ~
9; .::r f; .....
0.::r ~O QO :,f
Dynamic 35. Discourage single-occupant vehicle trips 0 DO 0
through parking supply and pricing controls
or other similar measures.
36. Preserve rights-of-way and land for station 0 DD 0
sites along future transit corridors and secure
adequate funding for transit agencies in the ,f
subregion to make transit a viable alternative
to the automobile. ,
~
37. Encourage compact, city-centered develop- 0 0 0 0
ment featuring amix of uses that locates homes
near jobs and services to reduce vehicle trips
and vehicle miles traveled.
Water Quality
Basic 38. Carry out requirements of state and federal D D D 0
legislation protecting wetlands; discourage
any filling of wetlands except for small levees,
piers or walkways necessary for public access
or study of the shoreline or baylands.
39. Encourage the preservation of adequate veg~ D DO 0
etative cover and prevent development which
increases erosion and sedimentation potential
along streams or in unstable soil areas.
40. Identify, protect and conserve groundwater. 0 DO 0
Moderate 41. Retain natural riparian and stream-side areas D DO 0
in their natural state to prevent degradation
and provide soil percolation, wildlife habitat, ,
.
aesthetic relief, and recreational uses. ,
42. Improve wetlands protection and the man- D D 0 D
agement and control of urban runoff into,the
Bay and its tributaries from public and private
sources.
Policy Menu 2 - Natural Resource Protection and Management
page 16 _
. .
tJ ~
.'R &' -!:i
! ~ j'
!: () V)/::1 9:-
~ '# t ;:
V)ff. ~o ,(f .:!
Dynamic 43. Estab lish actions which protect wa ter resources 0 0 0 0
by:
a. preserving areas with prime soil percola-
tion capabilities and preventing placement
of all potential sources of pollution in such
areas;
b. minimizing sedimentation and erosion
through control of grading, quarrying,
cutting of trees, vegetation removal, place-
ment of roads and bridges, use of off-road
vehicles and animal-related disturbances
of soil;
c. controlling pollution from land uses pro-
ducing potentially harmful substances or
contaminants;
d. preventing establishment of excessive con-
centrations of septic systems over large
land areas and mitigating water quality
impacts from existing concentrations; and
e. reducing motor vehicle related pollutants
in runoff from paved surfaces, and in dis-
charges from stormwaterdrains.
44. Enhance and restore wetlands and stream D 0 0 0
environments.
page 17
Policy Menu 2 - Natural Resource Protection and Management
.
.
MOBILITY
ISSUES
Land use is often adapted to the types of transpor-
tation facilities that are available. When the choice
of transportation modes is limited or lacking, the
result can be to hinder or steer development in an
unbalanced or undesirable way. Reliance on the
auto for all trips increases the number of cars on
the road, which in turn increases congestion and
air pollution.
OBJECTIVES
There are four main objectives in providing ad-
equate mobility:
A. Create an efficient cost-effective multi-modal
transportation system by focusing investment
and development in designated transporta-
tion corridors.
B. Integrate land use and transportation plan-
ning in order to ensure land use and support-
ing transportation patterns that facilitate safe,
convenient and reasonably priced mobility of -
people and goods, and increased use of tran-
sit.
C. Discourage long-distance, single-occupant au-
tomobile commuting while increasing resi-
dent access to employment, shopping, and
recreation by transit or other alternatives to
single-occupant vehicle use in order to reduce
congestion, time lost to travel, and air pollu-
tion.
D. Provide more streamlined transit service by
establishing a unified and coordinated transit
network consisting of all transportation agen-
cies in the Bay Area.
Policy Menu 3 - Mobility
page 19
Basic
Moderate
Dynamic
.
.
f.,
.".tf !: -:&
". 0 ~
~ R .C;
l'. cJ ~ ??
~ C5:9;
~#t '<v~
VJf. ~O c? ,;f
DODD
! .
.
POLICIES
The following subregional policies are intended to
improve mobility.
Transit-Centered Development
1. Encourage transit-compatible infill develop-
ment or redevelopment near transit sta tions in
central business districts, and intensify subur-
ban business parks to create effective destina-
tion centers for transit.
2. Promote pedestrian-oriented mixed-use cen-
ters, including residential, commercial and
employment activities, easily accessible by foot,
bicycle, or transit.
3. Promote pedestrian activities in the immedi-
ate vicinity of transit stations by providing
safe, direct, attractive pedestrian access be-
tween transit stations and neighboring devel-
opment.
4. Establish higher residential and commercial
densities along transit routes and roadway
arterials,neartransit stops, transporta tion hubs
and activity centers, and as part of mixed-use
developments.
5. Establish highest intensity office and _ other
employment uses within convenient walking
distance (1/4 mile) of existing or planned
transit stations or transportation hubs to pro-
mote transit use, optimize transit investments
and reduce the adverse auto impacts of devel-
opment.
6. Designate a hierarchy of housing and com~
mercial densities that varies based on proxim~
ity to transit stations and corridors, with. the
highest densities located within convenient
walking distance of transit stations and bus
lines, and densities decreasing as distance from
existing or planned transit service increases.
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
Policy Menu 3 - Mobility
page 20
Moderate
Basic
Moderate
Dynamic
.
.
il ~
:g J' ~
tJ ~ .fJ
t; 00 ":is. 1
~ ~ f" ~'\'
VJ~ ~o QO :;.0
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
Policy Menu 3 - Mobility
page 21
7. Establish incentives such as sliding scale de~
velopment fee schedules that favor higher
density transit-oriented development in order
to discourage low density sprawl and encour-
age the production of transit60riented devel-
opment.
Auto-Oriented Development
8. Discourage the development or expansion of
major commercial, office and institutional cen-
ters in areas not adequately served by transit.
9. Discourage projects that generate more than a
set threshold of automobile traffic or exceed
certain levels of service on local streets and
arterials in areas not served by existing or
future transit.
Mixed Land Use
10. Encourageneighborhood-serving commercial
uses within walking distance (1/4 mile) of
defined residential areas.
11. Encourage local policies which promote and
do not restrict home-based work opportuni6
ties.
12. Promote mixed-use development that pro6
vides opportunities for residents to live and
work in the same neighborhood or commu-
nity.
13. Facilitate the conversion of underused indus-
trial sites for residential, mixed use or live/
work activities
14. Establish small scale neighborhood tele-com-
muting centers that provide fax machines,
telephones, computers with networkingcapa-
bilities, and other office equipment allowing
workers to work close to home.
Basic
Moderate
Dynamic
Policy Menu 3 - Mobility
.
.
Non-Auto Use Through Site Design
15. Encourage transit connections between resi-
dential areas, commercial areas, and centers of
employment.
16. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections
between employment centers and nearby per-
sonal services such as restaurants, stores, post
offices and banks.
17. Encourage direct, safe and convenient pedes-
trian and bicycle routes on residential streets
in new subdivisions which provide conve-
nient access to bus and rail service.
18. Promote road networks and circulation pat-
terns within subdivisions with multiple ac-
cess points and other amenities that readily
accommodate public transportation vehicles.
19. Promote pedestrian and bicycle connections
within residential neighborhoods and between
residential areas and nearby transit stations or
stops, commercial areas, centers of employ-
ment, and schools.
20. Establish design guidelines that emphasize
safe, attractive streetscapes in developments
near transit and that maximize pedestrian and
bicycle access to transit.
~
oS :<.. ~
'S' ~ ":0
# ~ 4
;;- 0 Ct).::J =f.
roO .J1 ,.... '\'
r'I' .::J ;;; !-.
Ct)~"" ~o ,cf ::F
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
page 22
.
.
HOUSING SUPPLY AND
AFFORDABILlTY
ISSUES
The lack of an adequate supply of housing in the
Bay Area is widely recognized. Strategies are
needed to improve the supply and affordability of
needed housing.
A locality that restricts or severely limits housing
may cause spill-over effects into neighboring com-
munities. Greater cooperation between commu-
nities can relieve tensions and serve the larger goal
of providing an adequate supply of housing af-
fordable to all the region's residents.
OBJECTIVES
There are three major objectives in providing ad-
equate housing:
A. Promote fair and equal access to housing for
all persons regardless of race, color, religion,
gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, na-
tional origin, or family status.
B. Strengthen interjurisdictional efforts to en-
sure a fair, equitable and rational distribution
of low-income, moderate-income and special
needs housing throughou t the region and sub-
region consistent with land use policies, trans-
portation services and employment locations.
C. Facilitate the development of affordable hous-
ing near areas with superior transit service.
Policy Menu 4 - Housing Supply and 'Affordability
page 23
Basic
Moderate
.
.
~'
f,
'i'-
I,
.'
I~'
!I
b ~
."6 "o!:: "f;)
c; 'b'
rS ~ ":#
!; () V).:i ~
nO J? ,.... 'I\'
r-,...... :::i f; '!',o
V)5".s.-0 1::)0 :;?
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
POLICIES
The following subregional policies are intended to
maintain and improve adequate housing supply
and afford ability.
Increasing Housing Supply
1. Encourage the designation ofland near transit
for multi-family housing and neighborhood~
serving uses.
2. Encourage the development of special hous-
ing facilities, including small community care
facilities for the elderly, mentally disabled,
and dependent or neglected children, in resi-
dential and mixed-use zones near transit and
other services.
3. Promote the provision of a range of unit sizes,
types and lot designs in major new develop-
ments.
4. Promote residential development at or above
the midpoint of the designated density range
and discourage development at densities lower
than the minimum density prescribed for each
residential land use category.
5. Promote the development of second units,
and allow shared housing among unrelated
adults in single family residential areas.
6. Designate vacant office and industrial sites for
residential use and encourage the reuse of
older commercial or industrial buildings for
residential or live-work space.
Policy Menu 4 - Housing Supply and Affordability
page 24
Dynamic
Basic
.
.
b ~
:~ J' -()
~ :9:, ,{J
~ cJ V:Jff. I
~ ~ t 3'
V:Jff. ~o .Qo ~
7. Promote a variety of techniques for increasing
the supply of housing such as:
a. incentives for development of multi~fam-
ily housing with units large enough to
accommodate families with children;
b. mixed use developments that combine
residential uses with compatible commer-
cial and industrial uses;
c. using air rights to construct housing over
parking lots, etc.;
d. minimum density levels;
e. designating land for residential and work-
place mixed use developments; and
f. incentives and guidelines for construct-
ing residential uses above ground floor
commercial establishments.
8. Establish employer participation programs
and offer incentives to encourage employers
to contribute in some way to housing that is
affordable to its workers (sites, fees, actual
units).
Increasing Housing Affordability
9. Encourage coordinated local effort to jointly
designate specific sites, including vacant build-
ings, for the provision of temporary homeless
shelters, transitional housing, and housing for
seasonal workers and to investigate private
and public sources of funding for such facili-
ties.
10. Encourage the development of programs, such
as joint development of affordable units by
two or more localities, designed to provide
housing for very 10w~1 low~ and moderate-
income households.
11. Encourage the construction and preservation
of second dwelling units in single~family resi-
dential neighborhoods.
0000
0000
DODO
DODO
DODD
Policy Menu 4 - Housing Supply and Affordability
page 25
~
Moderate
Dynamic
.
.
b ~
.;V ;S ~
# !f- ~
!: () CtJ:i ~
~ # t ....~
CtJ~ ~o qO ::f
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
12. Establish a public/private partnership to en-
sure mutual understanding of subregional
housing needs and practices of the develop~
ment and finance market and to develop ways
to improve housing production and lower
housing costs.
13. Promote programs whereby new residential
projects involving demolition of moderate- or
low~priced single family homes include an
equal number of equivalently priced units in
any replacement development, and ensure
that previous residents are given first priority
for occupancy.
14. Promote the preservation of all existing af."
fordable housing located near transit, and pro-
mote institutional and financial mechanisms
to provide for additional affordable housing
near all transit centers.
15. Promote the use of new manufactured homes
to realize potential cost reductions in housing.
16. Establish an linc1usionary" program whereby
new residential developments must provide a
minimum percentage of units affordable to
very-low or low income households, either on
site or through the payment of in-lieu fees for
the construction of affordable units.
17. Establish housing impact fees on all non-resi-
dential developments including office, retail,
and industrial uses to be used to assist in
providing affordable dwelling units.
Policy Menu 4 - Housing Supply and Affordability
page 26
...-
,
.
.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
ISSUES
The entire Bay Area has been hit hard by an
economic slowdown in recent years. Resolving
this prob lem will depend in part on improvements
in the national economy.
General economic conditions are compounded by
state fiscal policies that cause local jurisdictions to
"fiscalize" land use and compete for revenue-
producing development. Coordinated efforts are
needed to achieve fiscal reform and equitable dis-
tribution of economic opporhmity. Other compo-
nents of economic health include providing qual-
ity education, producing affordable housing, in-
vesting in transportation, and maintaining envi-
ronmental quality.
OBJECTIVES
There are three objectives to consider in strength-
ening economic vitality.
A. Retain and allow for the orderly expansion of
existing businesses.
B. Attract new businesses.
C. Offset revenue-driven development through
fiscal reform and interjurisdictional coopera-
tion.
Policy Menu 5 - Economic Vitality
page 27
I,
~!
. . ,,'
~,
!-.
~ l'.. ~
t;v & ~ t:
& ~ -# ~:
!: 0 e,,;::J' :f- V
ff '# t ;:- I
e,,;~ ~O qO ;f
.1.
,;
POLICIES r
:~~ ,
r"
\i.'
The following subregional policies are intended to II,
"
"
I ~
maintain and improve economic vitality.
Basic l. Develop a coordinated subregion-wide ap- D D D D
proach to economic development.
2. Encourage economic development which pro- D D D D
vides jobs at all income levels for residents of \
the subregion. ,
,
I'
3. Develop strategies to retainexisting employ- D D D 0 k
I;
ers. ;;"
4. Identify and mitigate, where appropriate, ob- D 0 D D i;:'
stacIes to the formation and expansion of local
businesses.
5. Work to remove impediments to gainful em- 0 0 D 0
ployment, such as lack of transportation, child
care, job training, vocational education, and
other factors.
6. Improve cooperation between public agen- D 0 0 0
cies and private sector representatives, such
as chambers of commerce, financial institu-
tions, plant managers and business associa-
tions, in formulating economic development
plans and programs.
7. Cooperate to develop sufficient housing in a 0 0 D 0
range of sizes and prices to meet the needs of
workers employed in the subregion and to
ensure that prospective employers have a di~
verse local labor pool.
Moderate 8. Explore special programs, including financ- 0 0 0 0
ing, to expand and attract small and medium
size firms with good growth potential.
9. Protect existing and future businesses by dis~ 0 0 D 0
couraging encroachment by non-compatible
uses in areas designated for commercial and
industrial use.
Policy Menu 5 - Economic Vitality
page 28 .
.
.
10. Work with local jurisdictions and the business
conununity to maintain and provide informa-
tion about economic development for govern-
mental agencies and the private sector.
Examples include:
. An inventory of commercially and indus~
trially zoned land and an estimate of its
potential for employment.
. A list of specific businesses and ind ustries
likely to provide jobs for subregional resi-
dents, and strategies for attracting them to
locate in the subregion.
. An analysis of the potential for redevelop-
ment of marginally developed land or
derelict facilities, and an inventory of sites.
. Information on existing and pending de-
velopment throughout the subregion for
use by government, business groups and
potential developers.
. Information about public sector financing
to facilitate the location of appropriate
business with a focus on financing trans-
portation, housing and necessary public
improvements.
1I. Monitor the absorption and availability of
industrial land within the subregion to ensure
a balanced supply of available land for all
sectors, including industrial suppliers and
services, and periodically assess the need to
designate additional industrial land to achieve
this end.
12. Identify appropriate sites, provide infrastruc-
ture, and facilitate development of tele-com-
muting centers.
Dynamic 13. Facilitate expansion or, if necessary, reloca~
tion of existing businesses within the subre-
gion.
!-,
."1J' !: ~
'" 0 ';{l
! ~ -#
!: () ~.:;, ~
~ :&' f.'" "!o.~
~#- ~o r::? :#
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
Policy Menu 5 - Economic Vitality
page 29.
. .
t: .,
~ IL
:~ J: ...0 :l:
ff.J' Ii;
ie
!:: () "J::J' ~ W'
~ '# ,.... ~ I'
"JU- ~O <it:; .# ","
I~;
I"
\"
14. Special-handle projects of economic signifi- D 0 D ,.
D r ~. \
cance. "
j ~
15. Expedite development review for desirable D D D D
employment generating projects.
16. Permit reuse of industrial properties (existing D D D D
structures or land plus new facilities) without
discretionary permits.
17. Develop subregion-wide strategy to expedite D D 0 0
redevelopment of military bases.
18. Support/establish employment training and 0 D D D
vocational education programs to ensure resi-
dents' skills meet the employers' current and
projected needs.
. Conduct a survey to identify the labor
force requirements and job training needs
of current and anticipated future employ-
ers.
. Encourage cooperative efforts among
school districts, community colleges and
employers to offer appropria te classes and
internships.
. Maintain an employment information
clearinghouse.
19. Identify sites within the subregion suitabie for 0 D D D
mixed use development and develop strate-
gies to expedite development, including shar-
ing of on-site development costs and tax rev-
enues, and provision of off-site infrastructure
and services.
20. Develop recommendations and advocate for 0 D D D
reform of state fiscal policies in order to offset
revenue-driven land use plans and develop-
ment programs.
Policy Menu 5 - Economic Vitality
page 30
.
Executive Board
Tom A. Torlakson, President,
Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Peter W. Snyder, Vice President,
Mayor, City of Dublin
Mary Griffin, Immediate Past President,
Supervisor, San Mateo County
Karen Anderson, Mayor, Saratoga
Jane IJartke, Mayor, El Cerrito
Paul Batlisti, Supervisor, Napa County
David F. Berto, Councilmember, Santa Rosa
Brady Bevis, Supervisor, Marin County
Gayle Bishop, Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Richard Brians, Mayor, Dixon
William J. Carroll, Supervisor, Solano County
Rod Diridon, Supervisor, Santa Clara County
Joe Head, Councilmember, San Jose
Trixie Johnson, Councilmember, San Jose
Frank Jordon, Mayor, San Francisco
Barbara Kaufman, Supervisor, San Francisco
Willie B. Kennedy, Supervisor, San Francisco
Mary King, Supervisor, Alameda County
Paul Kloecker, Councilmember, Gilroy
Ted Lempert, Supervisor, San Mateo County
Dianne McKenna, Supervisor, Santa Clara County
Carole Migden, Supervisor, San Francisco
Doris Morse, Councilmember, Millbrae
Frank Pagliaro, Jr., Councilmember, Burlingame
Charlotte Powers, Councilmember, San Jose
Gwen Regalia, Councilmember, Walnut Creek
Kent O. Sims, Mayor's Office of Economic
Planning and Development, San Francisco
Tim Smith, Supervisor, Sonoma County
Ed Solomon, Mayor, Napa
Richard Spees, Vice Mayor, Oakland
Gail Steele, Supervisor, Alameda County
Michael Sweeney, Mayor, Hayward
Lani Valentine, Councilmember, Belvedere
Dezie Woods-Jones, Councilmember, Oakland
ABAG Staff
Gary Binger, Planning Director
Janet McBride
Ceil Scandone
Hing Wong
..............-
.
Regional Planning Committee
Paul Battisti, Chair, Supervisor, Napa County
Linda Perry, Vice Chair, Councilmember, San Leandro
Jane Baker, Chair, MTC
Brady Bevis, Supervisor, Marin County
Michael Cale, Supervisor, Sonoma County
William D. Davis, Executive Director, LAFCO,
San Mateo County
Paul DeFalco, public interest representative
Ann Draper, Bay Area Planning Directors' Association
Sandra E. (Sandy) Elles, Councilmember, Cotati
David A. Fleming, Mayor. VacaviIle
Marge Gibson Haskell, economic development representative
Mildred (Millie) Greenberg, Vice Mayor, Danville
Mary Griffin, Immediate Past President,
Supervisor, San Mateo County
Gary W. Hambly, Building Industry Association
of Northern California
Greg Harper, Councilmember, Emeryvil1e
Stana Hearne, League of Women Voters of the Bay AIea
John Holtzclaw, Sierra Club
Mary King, Supervisor, Alameda County
Claire L Mack, Councilmember, San Mateo
Jean McCown, Councilmember, Palo Alto
Karin Mohr, Councilmember, Pleasanton
Larry Onnan, Greenbelt Alliance
Jim Pachl, Bay Conservation &.
Development Commission
Tom Powers, Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Steven A. Roberti, COLAB and Central Labor
Council of Contra Costa County
Guillenno Rodriguez, Latino Issues Forum
Peter W. Snyder, Vice President, Mayor, Dublin
Ed Solomon, Mayor, Napa
William H. Steele, Jr., Chevron, Chair, ABAG Associates
Tom Torlakson, ABAG P,resident,
Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Dezie Woods-Jones, Council member, Oakland
Consultants
Institute for Community Planning Assistance,
Sonoma State University
Chandler Lee, AICP
Jason Munkus, Planning Intern
Policy Menus
page 31