12-5-11 Response To SB375 Alternatives

9
City of Palo Alto
(ID # 2210)
City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/5/2011 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Response to SB375 Alternatives Title: Response to Alternative Scenarios for Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375), Designation of Planned Development Areas, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process (RHNA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding the Citys next steps to respond to the SB375 Alternative Scenarios, including a) working with the SB375 Council Committee and the Planning and Transportation Commission to review Priority Development Area (PDA) designations for El Camino Real and for Downtown, and b) responding to the Association of Bay Area Governments regarding allocating Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) to the County for Stanford campus housing. Executive Summary Staff has provided multiple updates to the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On September 12, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the release of Alternative Scenarios for the SCS. The scenarios assume that employment in the Bay Area will increase by approximately 995,000 jobs from 2010-2040 and that an additional 770,000 new housing units will be needed in the region within that timeframe. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), who are jointly preparing the Plan Bay Area effort, are currently evaluating three scenarios as to their potential impacts on greenhouse gases (GHG) and other factors. Community meetings are being scheduled in each county for January and cities are expected to comment on the alternatives by February 2012. A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in the spring of 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area is to be finalized by early 2013. Staff has now met four times since August with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt and has developed an approach that includes: 1) recommending a third party peer review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2) reaching out to State legislators to pursue this issue at the State and regional level, 3) identifying and coordinating
December 05, 2011 (ID # 2210) Page 1 of 7
Packet Pg. 316
with cities who share Palo Altos concerns; 4) directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5) extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Staff has also engaged limited consultant assistance to support coordination of these issues, particularly relative to the demographic and economic analysis. On November 21, 2011, the Council approved a letter commenting to MTC regarding the Citys concerns and objections to the proposed One Bay Area Transportation Grant funding criteria. Pending issues for consideration in the coming month include: a) whether the City should designate the El Camino Real corridor and/or Downtown as additional priority development areas (PDAs), allowing those areas to become eligible for future transportation grants, and b) working with Santa Clara County, Stanford University and ABAG to assure that housing to be constructed on the Stanford campus is allocated to the Countys housing target, rather than to the Citys. Staff recommends proceeding forward on both of these issues. Staff will continue to meet with the Council committee to stay abreast of issues of concern to the City of Palo Alto and to develop strategy to seek support from other local officials and State legislators to request independent peer review of the One Bay Area scenario demographic and employment projections. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps, including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC. Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Councils August recess and to then present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative
Packet Pg. 317
land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on September 1st (http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/). Community meetings are being scheduled in each county for January and cities are expected to comment on the alternatives by February 2012. A Community Meeting is scheduled for Santa Clara County at the County Government Building at 70 W. Hedding on Wednesday, January 18, 2012, at 5:30 p.m. The related Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times, and the Committees progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. More background information is provided in the September 12, 2011 Council staff report (Attachment I). Attachment J provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning (SB 375) process. Timeline ABAG has modified its schedule for the SCS and RHNA several times. The current schedule contemplates that the SCS Preferred Alternative will be available in March 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area is to be finalized by early 2013. ABAG will release its draft RHNA methodology in May 2012. ABAG will then conduct hearings in June 2012 followed by adoption of the RHNA methodology and draft allocations anticipated in July 2012, beginning a 60-day review and comment period. Discussion Alternative Land Use Scenarios The Alternative Land Use Scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011, clarified on September 1, and identify three (3) primary options: Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Planned Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) in the Inner Bay Area along the regions core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. A summary of the scenarios and potential housing and employment projections are included in the September 1st memo from the agencies (Attachment H) and online at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. The objective of each of these scenarios is to accommodate population growth of approximately 770,000 persons and almost 1 million new jobs in the Bay Area by the year 2040. The tables at the back of the memo outline estimated
Packet Pg. 318
increases for each jurisdiction in the Bay Area, including breaking down how much of the total growth would be located in either PDAs (California Avenue area in Palo Alto) or GOAs (El Camino Real corridor and/or Downtown in Palo Alto). There is no indication of where the agencies expect the remainder of the growth to be located. In summary, the total growth in housing and employment for the City from 2010-2040 breaks down as follows: Core Concentration Households Jobs 12,250 26,630 Focused Growth 12,250 27,820 Outer Bay Area 6,110 19,360
The Core Concentration and Focused Growth scenarios vary in that more of the projected growth would occur in the PDAs and GOAs in the Core Concentration scenario. Staff will need to obtain and analyze data based on traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to determine where the remaining development would potentially be located. Statewide and Regional Projections Staff has met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt four times now, beginning in August, and the underlying assumptions for population and employment estimates have been one of the primary topics of discussion. Councilmember Schmid has reviewed and discussed demographic and economic information from several sources and has provided a summary memo (Attachment B) that outlines some of the key discrepancies between the projections and the reality represented by the 2010 Census and past trends. Additional information is attached in the September 12th staff report and in attached articles and a table further outlining these issues (Attachments C-E). Since these statewide and regional projections underlie the entire distribution of housing and population for the Sustainable Communities Strategy planning, the Councilmembers and staff expressed a strong desire to request that a peer review, perhaps by University of California or Stanford demographic and econometric analysts, be conducted to verify or dispute the estimates. Such a review, however, should be accomplished at the initiation of State and regional officials, however, rather than by local agencies. Coordination with State Legislators and Other Cities The Councilmember committee and staff are coordinating efforts through the areas State delegation, members of the ABAG and MTC Boards, and cities (elected officials and staff) to develop support for the Citys position that a peer review be initiated on a broader (regionwide or state) level. The contacts are proceeding slowly, however, and ABAG has deferred several meetings recently that might have provided better insight into how the assumptions were prepared. At its last meeting, the Council committee assigned contact responsibilities for following up, and will use the attached Summary of Key Issues document (Attachment A) as a handout for those discussions. Staff expects to take a request to the Planning Directors of Santa
Packet Pg. 319
Clara County cities in early January to support the City of Palo Altos efforts for an independent study, and believes that the majority of staff members in those cities concur with the request. Attachment A provides an initial summary of Sustainable Communities Strategy issues and concerns, to be distributed to legislators, other cities, and the broader community. Some of the highlighted concerns include: Employment projections appear to be substantially overstated and do not recognize the evolving economic model in the Bay Area, particularly in Silicon Valley; Housing projections are driven by unrealistic employment projections and are substantially higher than recent trends in natural increase and migration, as reflected in the 2010 Census; The basic goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not well served by overstating projections, which then require even more extensive resources and more dramatic land use and transportation changes than would be required with more realistic estimates; and Alternatives to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions should be provided to allow cities to propose ways they may otherwise accomplish similar reductions that would exceed those proposed by the Alternative Land Use Scenarios.
One Bay Area Transportation Grant Proposal On November 21, 2011, the City Council approved a letter to the MTC outlining the Citys concerns and objections to the proposed One Bay Area Transportation Grant funding criteria. Of greatest concern is the potential requirement that grant funding would be allocated only to cities with certified housing elements, which vests considerable authority in the States Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and will make housing compliance even more problematic. The City suggested that housing element certification be one of 5 or 6 criteria, and that other criteria be more clearly defined. Another proposed provision of the program would limit grant funding so that at least 70% of the grants would be focused only on priority development areas (PDAs). The California Avenue area is the Citys only PDA, though the El Camino Real corridor and the Downtown area are considered growth opportunity areas and are targeted for considerable increases in development under the Alternative Scenarios. Designation of Additional Priority Development Areas (PDAs) ABAG staff has recently noted that identified Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), such as the El Camino Real corridor and the Downtown area, may be designated by cities as Priority Development Areas (PDA)s, as noted in Attachment F. These GOAs have generally been treated similar to PDAs in assigning growth potential in the Alternative Scenarios. However, under the proposed criteria for the One Bay Area Transportation Grants, most (70%) of the available transportation funding would be targeted to PDAs, but not GOAs. Thus, to assure cities are able to obtain transportation funding, ABAG has requested that staff from affected cities prepare forms for such designations by December 16, 2011. City Council would then need to consider and submit the required resolution not later than January 30, 2012. The disadvantage to the designation is some uncertainty that ABAG may suggest further intensification of those areas in
Packet Pg. 320
refining the scenarios. Staff believes, however, that it is worth the effort to at least evaluate the potential for development in both areas, present that information to the SB375 Committee and the Planning and Transportation Commission, and then come forth with a specific proposal to the Committee and Council by mid or late January. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee and Spheres of Influence The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times through September and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. The RHNA Committee is not scheduled to meet again until February 2012, while the Alternative SCS Scenarios are analyzed. RHNA Sphere of Influence (Stanford Campus) In the meantime, however, ABAG has indicated that housing allocations to a citys sphere of influence (SOI) would be directed to the city rather than the unincorporated county (Attachment G). This has been the policy in the past for most counties in the ABAG area, and is proposed again, with the intent of encouraging cities to annex areas outside their city limits. In the case of Palo Alto, however, most of the Citys SOI is the Stanford campus lands. In the most recent RHNA allocations for the 2007-2014 housing element timeframe, the City argued to ABAG that Stanfords campus housing should be considered in the Santa Clara County allocation, since by agreement the City of Palo Alto cannot annex lands on the Stanford campus. The County and Stanford concurred at the time and over 600 housing units were deleted from the Citys allocation and redirected to the County. Staff expects to make a similar request to vary the ABAG process for the coming RHNA cycle and, in fact, the County staff has already acknowledged in a November 24th letter to ABAG that such a transfer should occur again. Unless Council directs otherwise, City staff will prepare a letter to ABAG making a similar request. The number of units assigned to the County will need to be determined by ABAG, but staff expects at least several hundred housing units would be transferred. Community Outreach A Community Meeting is being sponsored by ABAG and MTC on Wednesday, December 18th, at 5:30 p.m. at 70 W. Hedding Street in San Jose (County Government Center). Further community outreach should also be requested of the regional agencies to assure that all affected communities will have a common understanding of the implications of the analysis and proposed Alternative Scenarios. Staff expects to provide this report and Attachment A to neighborhood and school groups in December and January to raise the level of awareness throughout the community. Subsequent updates will also be provided to the Planning and Transportation Commission (a November 30 update was deferred due to continued postponement of ABAG meetings and deferral of a Council committee meeting). Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 20December 05, 2011 (ID # 2210) Page 6 of 7
Packet Pg. 321
30 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. Staff has also retained a consultant to review and coordinate the effort, particularly with Santa Clara County cities, to address the demographic and economic assumptions of the Alternative Land Use Scenarios. Staff estimates that the cost of such assistance will not exceed $25,000, as was authorized by the Council at the September 12th meeting. The funds were absorbed within the current budget of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Next Steps 1. Set up meetings with State legislators and interested cities to outline the need for independent analysis of the projections and econometrics underlying the Alternative Land Use Scenarios and to inform them of other critical issues. 2. Review with the SB375 Committee and the Planning and Transportation Commission potential for designating the El Camino Real corridor and/or Downtown areas as Priority Development Areas (PDAs), and then return to Council with a recommendation. 3. Prepare a letter to ABAG requesting that Stanford campus housing be allocated to Santa Clara County as part of its RHNA requirements and not be included in the Citys allocation. Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council.
Attachments: a: Attachment A: SB375 Issues Summary (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) b: Attachment B: Demographic Forecasting in California c: Attachment C: SCS Projections v. Census Trends
d: Attachment D: Silicon Valley Can No Longer Save California -- Or The U_S_ Newgeography_com (PDF) e: Attachment E: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data 2010-2011 (PDF) f: Attachment F: ABAG Applications for Planned Development Area Designation h: Attachment H: Alternative Scenarios (PDF) i: Attachment I: September 12, 2011 City Council Staff Report (w/o Attachments) (PDF) (PDF) j: Attachment J: SB375 Glossary (PDF) g: Attachment G: ABAG Memo re: Housing Allocations for Sphere of Influence (SOI)(PDF)
Prepared By: Department Head: City Manager Approval:

December 05, 2011 (ID # 2210)
Curtis Williams, Director Curtis Williams, Director ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager
Page 7 of 7
Packet Pg. 322
9.a
City of Palo Alto

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios November 28, 2011
Attachment: Attachment A: SB375 Issues Summary (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB 375) is based on the premise that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be reduced significantly by land use patterns and transportation facilities and programs to reduce vehicle-miles traveled. The potential for GHG reductions relates to the extent to which land uses and transportation systems accommodate an unknown future of population increase, economic growth, market forces, and transportation funding availability and pricing approaches. As such, realistic basic demographic and growth assumptions for such a strategy are imperative to derive the appropriate strategies and to assure that cities and counties in the Bay Area region (and other regions) plan accordingly. Similarly, all alternatives to provide for GHG reduction strategies must be considered to provide the appropriate mix of programs to cost-effectively meet regional and statewide goals. To ensure these issues are adequately addressed, the City of Palo Alto believes that further independent analysis of many of the assumed demographic and economic projections and GHG benefits must be provided at the State and regional level, and the following key questions must be answered: Demographic and Economic Projections Are the assumptions for the demographic and economic projections realistic? Or are they overstated and reflective of a different time period when the economy of the region was manufacturing-heavy and migration to California and the Bay Area was rapid and substantial? 1. The States Department of Finance (DOF) is working with a forecast model that projected a population growth of 9.9% for 2000-2010 for the Bay Area, whereas the Census showed a growth rate of 5.4% over that period. This represents a 45% overestimation of population in the region. For the West Bay counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara), the DOF projected a 10.2% growth, while actual growth was 4.3%, thus an overestimate of 58%. A similar overestimate occurred for statewide population. See the attached memo from Councilmember Schmid for further background. 2. Natural population increase (births deaths) was 3.1 million for the past decade, the single largest factor of growth in the state. This increase is expected to fall from about 260,000 annually today to about 90,000 in 2040, due to the gradually aging population and a longterm decline in fertility rates that are now approaching a long-term replacement level. 3. Migration to the state has slowed substantially in the past decade and is not expected to rise dramatically in the future, due to factors beyond just the state or national economy. The primary contributor to in-migration in California is and will be from Mexico. However, the institutions studying migration (Dept. of Homeland Security, Pew Charitable Trust Hispanic Center, and the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton) all agree that immigration has slowed due to the economy and stricter immigration enforcement. Some of the studies, particularly from Princeton, also suggest that this is a long-term trend due to
Packet Pg. 323
9.a
SB375 Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios Page 2 declining fertility rates, higher educational levels, and a lesser wage disparity in Mexico than in the U.S. than in prior years. 4. The proposed Alternative Land Use Scenarios anticipate an increase of 33,000 jobs annually in the region, as compared to 10,000 jobs annually in the past two decades. The attached table compares these growth rates through 2040 to past trends and a straight-line projection of the past 20 years. This is a dramatic increase as Silicon Valley and many other technology centers continue to find ways to provide value with fewer jobs, not more (see attached article re: Silicon Valley Can No Longer Save California or the U.S.). 5. Projections for the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (OC SCS) estimate increased employment of 10.8% (175,000 jobs) over the 2008-2035 time period, similar to the timeframe for the Plan Bay Area (2010-2040). The Alternative Scenarios for the Bay Area, however, project a 30% increase in employment. The housing estimates for Orange County are awaiting the RHNA allocations to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Orange County. Nevetheless, the preliminary estimates for Orange County would result in housing growth of 13.5%, again considerably less than the approximately 30% outlined in the Alternatives Scenario. An independent analysis of projects for the SCS process should evaluate all of the regional estimates to assure consistency in the approach and that the sum of the parts is aligned with projections statewide. Staff notes that the Orange County SCS will need to be integrated into the overall SCAG SCS. A more detailed summary of the Orange County estimates is attached. The City of Palo Alto suggests that experts at Stanford University, the University of California, and/or the Public Policy Institute, among others, be consulted to provide independent auditing of the projections offered to date by ABAG and MTC, as well as those in other regions statewide.
Attachments Councilmember Schmid Demographics Memo, dated November 15, 2011 ABAG Growth Projections v. Census Trends Orange County Key Summary
2
Packet Pg. 324
9.a
SB375 Key Issues for Alternative Land Use Scenarios Page 3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Will greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions be achievable under an unrealistically high population and employment scenario, given the extent of infrastructure (and land use change) necessary to support that growth? Are there viable alternatives to allow cities to propose means to achieve reductions at the local level to supplement the assumed savings for the region?
1. The Sustainable Communities Strategy is expected to provide for about 9% of the GHG reductions to satisfy statewide AB32 climate change objectives. These objectives are to be achieved by gaining a 15% per capita reduction in the Bay Area (actually yielding a slight total increase in GHG emissions). 2. Overestimating population and employment would mandate a level of infrastructure (particularly for transportation), new programs, and land use change that may not be warranted and almost certainly wont be affordable. 3. Many cities have adopted or are considering climate change, land use, and transportation programs to reduce GHG emissions. Examples of efforts that relate to SB375 objectives include: compact development policies and plans, protected open space buffers, bicycle and pedestrian programs and facilities to decrease vehicle ridership, and promotion of electric vehicle infrastructure and programs. Could the SCS allow cities to provide programs and facilities that may more effectively (less costly) achieve the needed GHG reductions?
3
Packet Pg. 325
9.b
California Demographic Forecasts: Why are the numbers overestimated?

November 15, 2011
Attachment: Attachment B: Demographic Forecasting in California (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
Prepared by City of Palo Alto
Actual California Population growth

Over the last decade, the state of California added 3.4 million people, to reach a total of 37.3 million. This was an increase of 10% over the decade. This growth rate follows the gradual slowing that started after 1990, down dramatically from the very high rates of the post-World War II era. Note that the Department of Finances (DOF) 2007 projections reflect a very high growth perspective. The DOF numbers are currently used as the population forecasts for all state and local projectsthey are not scheduled to be revised until 2013. Table 1. Californias population growth over the last five decades (average growth from census to census) Census 1960s 29.2 1970s 18.5 1980s 25.7 1990s 13.8 2000s 10.0 2010s 2020s 2030s Dept of Finance Projections (2007)
14.8 12.8 11.6 10.2
Source: US Census Bureau actual Census numbers; California Department of Finance 2007 Projections.
Packet Pg. 326
9.b
Recent State forecasts have been consistently over-estimated

Even after the sharp decline in growth during the 1990s, forecasters consistently tended to be overly optimistic about population growth rates through the 2000s. In 2005, the Public Policy Institute of California issued a report (California 2025: Taking on the Future) that included the population projections of all the key demographic forecasters. The consensus forecast from this group was some 40% higher than the actual outcome for the state:
Table 2. California Population Forecasts for 2010 made before 2005 (Percentage growth expected from 2000-2010) California Dept of Finance USC Population Dynamics UC Berkeley (Lee, Miller) Public Policy Institute of CA CCSCE UCLA Anderson Forecasting Average of six 2005 forecasts *=center point of band Source: Public Policy Institute of California, California 2025: Taking on the Future, 2005, Page 29. 15.2 11.6 13.9* 15.2* 17.2 16.6 15.0
The consensus forecast was some 50% above the actual numbers. The only forecaster who produced a number below the actual 10% growth was the UC Berkeley group who stated that there was a 5% chance that the growth rate would be lower than 7.1%. The 2005 PPIC Report stated that Recent trends make population projections for California especially difficultFor these reasons, planners should consider alternative population scenarios as useful alternatives for planners. (PPIC, 2005, pages 2728) Even as late as the end of 2009, on the eve of the decennial census, estimates by the California Dept. of Finance (the organization responsible for the numbers that are used for all state allocation formulas) remained strikingly high at 14.1% which was 1.5 million or 44.7% above the above the contemporaneous and more accurate Census Bureaus Current Population Estimates.
Packet Pg. 327
9.b
Critical Components of Change and the Future

The Census data provide a nice detailed perspective on the actual components of change during the decade. While the 3.1 million people added through natural increase (births minus deaths) were the largest single growth factor, the 2 million net gain from foreign immigration was important in overcoming a net outflow of 1.6 million from native born emigration, primarily to other states. Table 3. Components of Population Change in California, 2000-2010 (millions of people) Births +5.45 Deaths -2.35 Net Domestic migration -1.63 Foreign immigration +2.58 Foreign emigration -0.59 Military, etc -0.07 TOTAL +3.38 Source: USC, Population Dynamics Research Group, What the Census would show, February 2011. The challenge for projecting change in the future is the dramatic shifts in some of these base categories. With the aging population, we know that, even with slight increases in longevity, the aging population in California will raise the annual number of deaths in California from 271K in 2011 to 462K in 2039, while the number of births will rise slightly from 532K in 2011 to 551 in 2039. The natural increase will fall from some 260K today to 90K in 2040. Thus, over time any increase in Californias population will increasingly rely on migration. Since net domestic migration has averaged a net outflow of some 160K per year since the early 1990s, any growth in population will be increasingly dependent on foreign migration. (Source: USC, Population Dynamics Groups, April 2011). There is little reason to see a major shift in domestic migration with Californias high cost and high unemployment rate. That leaves foreign migration as the critical component source of long-term population growth. The most dynamic source for Californias growth has been immigration from Mexico, both legal and illegal. All observers (The Dept of Homeland Security, the Pew Charitable Trust Hispanic Center, and the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton) agree that net immigration from Mexico has been down dramatically in recent years with the stricter enforcement of border crossing and the prolonged recession in the US. Pew estimates that the illegal immigrant population in the US fell by some 7% between 2007 and 2010. The important debate about the future is whether this is a business cycle phenomenon or part of a longer term trend. The group that has the best data source and takes the longer term look is the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton. For decades they have been tracking migration patterns from Mexico and doing annual surveys of thousands of families from migration centers in Mexico. They found that the percent of first time immigrants from the Mexican communities of highest immigration fell from 1.2% of adults in 2000 to 0.6% in 2005 to zero in 2010. They identify that the changes are due to Mexican demographic and
Packet Pg. 328
9.b
4 economic factors as much as from U.S. conditions. They identified five internal factors of change in Mexico: Fertility rates are falling dramatically from 6.8 births per women in 1970 to 2.8 in 1995 to 2 in 2010 (replacement level). The number of young people entering the labor market has fallen from one million a year in the 1990s to 700K today and demographic factors will bring that down to about 300K in 2030, not enough to meet local job needs. The rate of college attendance and college completion has doubled over the last decade, raising the career path of an increasing share of young workers. The wage disparity between Mexico and the U.S. is narrowing sharply with average wage gaps falling from 10:1 in the 1960s to some 3.7:1 in the early 2000s. The cost of migration has risen dramatically for illegal entrants, further narrowing the earnings gap.
All of these factors point to the need, at the least, of looking at alternative scenarios of population growth in California that are more sensitive to possible underlying changes in migration patterns.
Packet Pg. 329
9.b
Sources of Demographic projections about California

US Bureau of the Census (responsible for the decennial census and does updated estimates each year of state populationshas been much closer to actual numbers than the Cal Dept. of Finance) California Department of Finance (responsible for state population estimates between the Census yearsforecasts used as key source for state government planning). Statewide estimates for 2010 (made in 2009) were 41% higher than the 2010 Census numbers for the state, 83% over for the nine Bay Area counties and 137% higher for the three West Bay counties. Ronald Lee, UC Berkeley, Center for Economics and Demographics of Aging, Special Report: The Growth & Aging of Californias Population, 2003 (an important report that identified the detailed assumptions that went into the Department of Finances long-term projections). Hans Johnson, Public Policy Institute of California, California 2025: Taking on the Future, Chapter 2 Californias Population in 2025 (a report that gathered projections from eight academic and government sources). Johnson concluded that population projections for California are especially difficultIn addition to overweighting contemporary trends, forecasters are notoriously bad at predicting fundamental demographic shifts... For these reasons, planners should consider alternative population scenarios. Pages 27-28. John Pitkin & Dowell Myers, USC Population Dynamics Research Group, The 2010 Census Benchmark for Californias Growing and Changing Population, February 2011; Projections of the Population of California by Nativity and Year of Entry to the U.S., April 2, 2011. (Pitkin and Myers had the lowest of the forecasts in the 2005 studythough still overestimating growth by 16%. They are working with the California Department of Finance on components for a new longer-term forecast; they are still assuming a net immigration number of 160,000 holding steady in the future.) Steve Levy, Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy UCLA Anderson Forecasting Project
Greg Schmid October 2011
Packet Pg. 330
jobs
million
Job growth average from 1960 to 2010: +40,000 jobs per annum
4,734,300
Job growth average
Job growth average from 1960 to 1990: +60,000 jobs per annum
over last 20 years: +10,000 jobs per annum

a : rio
+4
0 8,8
2
job
r pe
an
m nu
4,493,300 4,266,000
um
Department of Finance Historical Trends
3,071,300
trends: + g existing Continuin
Ini
tia
isi lV
on
en Sc
rio ena Sc
3, +3 :
20
b 0 jo
sp
nn er a
10,000 jo
num bs per an
3,571,300
3
ABAG estimates that the region lost 200,000 jobs over the last few years, which is equivalent to the entire job growth over the last 20 years
3,271,300
2
1,271,300
1960
1970
1980
1990
2010
2035 2040
9.d
October 17, 2011 Last Update: 10/15/2011
Search
Blog Contact Contributors : About the Site News from Other Sites
HOME
ECONOMICS
POLITICS
URBAN ISSUES
SMALL CITIES
DEMOGRAPHICS
SUBURBS
CENSUS 2010
2011 BEST CITIES RANKING
SILICON VALLEY CAN NO LONGER SAVE CALIFORNIA -- OR THE U.S.

SUBSCRIBE TO NG ARTICLES
by Joel Kotkin 10/12/2011
Even before Steve Jobs crashed the scene in late 1970s, Californias technology industry had already outpaced the entire world, creating the greatest collection of information companies anywhere. It was in this fertile suburban soil that Apple and so many other innovative companies took root. Now this soil is showing signs of exhaustion, with Jobs death symbolizing the end of the states high-tech heroic age. Steves passing really makes you think how much the Valley has changed, says Leslie Parks, former head of economic development for the city of San Jose, Silicon Valleys largest city. The Apple II was produced here and depended on what was unique here. In those days, we were the technology food chain from conception to product. Now we only dominate the top of the chain. Silicon Valleys job creation numbers are dismal. In 1999 the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara area had over 1 million jobs; by 2010 that number shrank by nearly 150,000. Although since 2007 and early 2010 the number of information jobs has increased substantially up roughly 5000 to a total of 46,000 the industrial sector, which still employs almost four times as many people as IT, lost around 12,000. Overall the regions unemployment stands at 10%, well above the national average of 9.1%. This is partly because Apple, Intel and Hewlett-Packard have shifted their production which offered jobs to many lower- and medium-skilled Californians to other states or overseas. With its focus just at the highest end, the Valley no longer represents the economically diverse region of the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, it increasingly resembles Wall Street with a few highly skilled employees and well-placed investors making out swimmingly. Silicon Valley has become hyper-efficient; the region doesnt create jobs anymore, says Tamara Carleton, a locally based fellow at the Foundation for Enterprise Development. In terms of revenue per employee, Facebooks ratio is unprecedented. Even Apple hasnt grown significantly this last decade, despite the successful launch of many products and services. While commendable, greater efficiency doesnt put more jobs in the California economy. This hyper-efficiency can be seen in the real state of the valleys industrial/flex space market. The overall industrial vacancy rate remains 14%, two points higher than in 2009. Areas close to Stanford, such as Palo Alto and Mountain View, have done well, but others on the periphery, such as Gilroy, Milpitas and Fremont, and even parts of San Jose have vacancies reaching over 20%. Californias other high-tech centers, with the possible exception of San Diego, are doing worse. The state has been losing high-tech employment over the past decade, while such employment has surged not only in China and Korea, but also in competitor states such as Texas, Virginia, Washington and Utah. According to the annual Cyberstates study, California lost more high-tech jobs about 18,000 last year than any other state. Californias political leaders, particularly Democrats, still genuflect toward the Valley for economic salvation and job growth. But social media has not proved a jobs-creating dynamo, and its clear
Subscribe to Articles feed

Or, get articles by email:
Enter your email address Go!
NewGeography.com is a joint venture of Joel Kotkin and Praxis Strategy Group

FEATURED CONTENT
View all subjects

ADVERTISEMENT
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Attachment D: Silicon Valley Can No Longer Save California -- Or The U_S_ Newgeography_com (2210 : Response to SB375
9.d
You can feel pride, as an American and Californian, in the legacy of the likes of Steve Jobs but also believe our future cannot be salvaged by high-tech alone. Many of the countrys greatest assets, for example, are physical; in California these include the best climate for any advanced region in the world, fertile soil, a prime location on the Pacific Rim and potentially huge fossil fuel energy reserves, which give it enormous competitive advantages. The green theocracy now in control of Sacramento, however, has little interest in these aspects of California. It may prove difficult, if not impossible, to modernize the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, prolific sources of good-paying white and blue collar jobs. These ports will soon face increased competition for Asian trade from Gulf and south Atlantic locales eagerly waiting for the 2014 widening of the Panama Canal. Administration officials such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu also slate the states agriculture for demise by climate change. But just in case hes wrong, we should note that Californias agriculture despite green attempts to cut off its water supply accounts for 40% of state exports. It generates $12.7 billion annually in overseas sales and employs over 400,000 people directly and many thousands more in marketing, processing and warehousing. Similarly, California boasts some of the nations richest deposits of oil and gas, not only on its sensitive and politically nettlesome coast but along the coastal plains and in the Central Valley. The most recent estimates of the states reserves, according to the Energy Information Agency, include nearly 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than three billion barrels of oil, roughly the same as Alaska and more than booming North Dakotas. Geologists and wildcatters, usually ahead of the game, believe we have touched only a small part of the states energy potential. Some discuss new oil shale discoveries, particularly in the Monterey region, that could dwarf even the massive Bakken find in North Dakota. If you were in Texas, quipped economist Bill Watkins to an audience in the hard-hit central California town of Santa Maria, a predominately Latino town north of Santa Barbara, youd be rich. A judicious and carefully planned expansion of these resources, particularly in the less populated interior areas, could provide tens of thousands of high-paying jobs. It would also funnel desperately needed revenue to the state. At the same time, such development could forestall much higher energy costs, one of the things driving manufacturers in the state to move elsewhere. California is unlikely to take advantage of its physical bounty; its leadership seems to lack enthusiasm for any industrial expansion outside of the green economy. Industrial parks across the state are emptying, more houses go into foreclosure and local governments wither on the vine. Unless California begins to take its own economy seriously, it will continue to devolve from the aspirational place that produced not only Steve Jobs but scores of entrepreneurs in everything from movies and oil to agriculture and aerospace. The Valley itself will likely do fine. Steve Jobs helped cement the position of Santa Clara Valley as the epicenter of the high-tech world. But this accomplishment does relatively little for the rest of California. What we will miss will not only be Steve Jobs creative contributions, but how clearly his opportunistic, entrepreneurial spirit has ebbed away from the Golden State. This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com. Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010. Shanghai photo by flickr user acaben
RECENT BLOG POSTS
How Cities Grow: Dispersion, not Densification Manhattan Moment: Two distinct groups make up 'Occupy' protesters The Chicago Machines Favorite After School Charity Housing Bottom? Not Yet. Suburban "End-Times" Reality Check Obama's New $50 Billion Infrastructure Stimulus --- Old Wine in New Bottles Major Texas Metro Areas Are Confirming Failures in Rail Transit Urban Densities Exclude Rural Areas: Avent Postscript Avent on Cities: Understanding Part of the Equation The Economist: The Great High Speed Train Robbery more
ADVERTISEMENT
FREE Divorce Wksht & Cklist
Packet Pg. 333
that the highly subsidized, venture backed green economy has floundered miserably and faces a less than rosy future.
9.d
Google Offers in San Fran

The best of San Francisco at even better prices. Sign up today!
www.google.com/offers
Login or register to post
Tweet this!
How Did Steve Jobs Do It?
comments
Email this Story Middle Class
ShareThis California Economics Silicon Valley
Subjects: Urban Issues
Steve Jobs changed the world by thinking differently. Join the community that has discovered the secrets to his success, found in the global bestsellers The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs, The Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs, and the upcoming What Would Steve Jobs Do?
Tweet this!
Read more...
Genius is a choice, not a gift.
PRACTICAL GENIUS is Gina Rudan's life-changing plan to help you tap into your everyday genius and unleash extraordinary success and satisfaction in work and life. Click to visit the Practical Genius website to learn more. Buy your copy today: Amazon B&N Books-a-Million Powell's Read more... Advertise here
RECENT POPULAR CONTENT
How Cities Grow: Dispersion, not Densification Primatene And The War on (Asthma) Drugs Florida Repeals Smart Growth Law
Packet Pg. 334
Divorce can be one of the hardest events in a your life... emotionally, financially, and legally. We can help. Use this checklist and our FREE Divorce Worksheet to help you prepare for divorce.
9.d
The Best Cities for Jobs 2011 Obama's Off-target Class War Root Causes of the Financial Crisis: A Primer The Evolving Urban Form: Los Angeles more
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
The Future Of America's Working Class The Golden State Is Crumbling Minority America The Not-So-Lucky Country The New World Order
RECOMMENDED BOOKS
The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 By Joel Kotkin Available Now The City: A Global History by Joel Kotkin Why is construction so backward? Co-authored by Ian Abley Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais War on the Dream: How AntiSprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life by Wendell Cox Remembering the Twentieth Century Limited by Matthew Stevenson An April Across America By Matthew Stevenson
BLOGROLL AND PARTNER SITES
Burgh Diaspora Center for Economic Research and Forecasting China Urban Development Blog Chris Bradford - Austin Contrarian Demographia Design New Haven Houston Strategies LA Observed Labor Lou Siegel NDN New America Foundation: Economic Growth Newsalert Politico Top Stories Second Shelters Technology and the City The Bus Bench The Cost of Energy The Electoral Map The Rural Blog The Urbanophile
Packet Pg. 335
The White City
9.d
more
USER LOGIN Username: *
Password: *
Log in Create new account
Request new password
2011 New Geography
BLOGS
: CONTRIBUTORS : CONTACT :
Stay up to date: RSS FEED
Website design and development by:
Packet Pg. 336
The Washington Note Patrick.net - Housing Crash Joel Kotkin Praxis Strategy Group
Attachment E
A to Z Index | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us
Subscribe to E-mail Updates
What's New | Release Calendar | Site Map
Search BLS.gov
Home
Subject Areas
Databases & Tools
Publications
Economic Releases
Beta
Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Change Output Options:
From:
2001
FONT SIZE:
To:
2011
include graphs Data extracted on: November 14, 2011 (10:21:12 PM)
Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Series Id: Seasonally Adjusted Area: Area Type: State/Region/Division: LASST06000003 California Statewide California
Download: Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov labor force 17064935 17098323 17112290 17106936 17091933 17079133 17079991 17095502 17123897 17160184 17196995 17229217 17254267 17268275 17268276 17256523 17238799 17223607 17218410 17225377 17244071 17266542 17288100 employment 16259369 16282609 16282230 16260518 16225982 16188996 16159350 16137458 16124758 16120839 16122667 16127240 16131779 16131808 16121777 16103201 16081190 16065143 16060411 16066519 16081116 16096536 16110834 unemployment 805566 815714 830060 846418 865951 890137 920641 958044 999139 1039345 1074328 1101977 1122488 1136467 1146499 1153322 1157609 1158464 1157999 1158858 1162955 1170006 1177266 unemployment rate 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8
2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
17304130 17315792 17323528 17324032 17312041 17287722 17260926 17241998 17237301 17248865 17273399 17303871 17330901 17348252 17354669 17354156 17348588 17340789 17336224 17341618 17358575 17384216 17411726 17435099 17453567 17467741 17478629 17486953 17495465 17506691 17522025 17543034 17568333 17594733 17616387 17630197 17635330 17607060 17609316 17614991 17622567 17630412 17639900 17656698 17685904 17727967 17776543 17822414 17856306 17874097 17879382 17875802 17870836 17869805 17877004 17895096 17925032 17963888 18004960 18040287
16122076 16130492 16135644 16132504 16115720 16086034 16055591 16038009 16040636 16065345 16105384 16150178 16188538 16213823 16225582 16228394 16227454 16228312 16237712 16259878 16293254 16332639 16370818 16404295 16432990 16459050 16483881 16507241 16529698 16552653 16576721 16602429 16630031 16658741 16686389 16710754 16729894 16719361 16734299 16746591 16754007 16758874 16767236 16787638 16823086 16869723 16919664 16962684 16990145 16999177 16994294 16979943 16962380 16945376 16934655 16934211 16944839 16965042 16987589 17006407
1182054 1185300 1187884 1191528 1196321 1201688 1205335 1203989 1196665 1183520 1168015 1153693 1142363 1134429 1129087 1125762 1121134 1112477 1098512 1081740 1065321 1051577 1040908 1030804 1020577 1008691 994748 979712 965767 954038 945304 940605 938302 935992 929998 919443 905436 887699 875017 868400 868560 871538 872664 869060 862818 858244 856879 859730 866161 874920 885088 895859 908456 924429 942349 960885 980193 998846 1017371 1033880
6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.7
2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Jun 2008 Jul 2008 Aug 2008 Sep 2008 Oct 2008 Nov 2008 Dec 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 Mar 2009 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jun 2009 Jul 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 2011 Feb 2011 Mar 2011 Apr 2011 May 2011 Jun 2011 Jul 2011 Aug 2011 Sep P : Preliminary.
18067411 18087203 18103355 18119632 18138572 18160098 18184134 18207818 18229322 18249419 18268117 18282138 18289584 18289719 18285118 18276636 18264205 18246234 18224228 18198678 18171005 18146637 18131304 18131271 18148896 18177493 18204387 18217386 18213712 18196017 18172933 18153683 18145939 18145754 18147297 18147813 18150832 18150676 18116716 18078299 18080009 18063056 18042724 18014109 18005884 18067809(P)
17018904 17023322 17019868 17007397 16985444 16954683 16920841 16887607 16855280 16818737 16769288 16701979 16617660 16524413 16432137 16347558 16272519 16201665 16134515 16071960 16016808 15973597 15943343 15927437 15925699 15937026 15953351 15962815 15960004 15945103 15923431 15901275 15887775 15882094 15880021 15877776 15878285 15904603 15916202 15902305 15938786 15947351 15910004 15847565 15830729 15915991(P)
1048507 1063881 1083487 1112235 1153128 1205415 1263293 1320211 1374042 1430682 1498829 1580159 1671924 1765306 1852981 1929078 1991686 2044569 2089713 2126718 2154197 2173040 2187961 2203834 2223197 2240467 2251036 2254571 2253708 2250914 2249502 2252408 2258164 2263660 2267276 2270037 2272547 2246073 2200514 2175994 2141223 2115705 2132720 2166544 2175155 2151818(P)
5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.3 7.5 7.8 8.2 8.6 9.1 9.7 10.1 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.7 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.1 12.0 11.8 11.7 11.8 12.0 12.1 11.9(P)
TOOLS Areas at a Glance Industries at a Glance Economic Releases Databases & Tables Maps
CALCULATORS Inflation Location Quotient Injury And Illness
HELP Help & Tutorials FAQs Glossary About BLS Contact Us
INFO What's New http://data.bls.gov/jobs/ Find It! DOL Join our Mailing Lists Linking & Copyright Info
RESOURCES Inspector General (OIG) Budget and Performance No Fear Act USA.gov Benefits.gov Disability.gov
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | Customer Survey | Important Web Site Notices
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20212-0001 http://data.bls.gov/home.htm | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | TDD: 1-800-877-8339 | Contact Us
Attachment F
FOCUS Priority Development Area Application Materials
FOCUS applications for Priority Development Area designation are accepted on a rolling basis. Local governments in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area are invited to apply for regional designation of an area within their community as a Priority Development Area. These areas help inform regional and state agencies where incentives and assistance are needed to support local efforts that encourage infill development near transit. Many local governments are already participating and have been eligible to apply for a variety of capital funds and planning grants for the Priority Development Areas within their jurisdiction. Applying to Become a PDA Applications for Priority Development Area designation will be reviewed and evaluated, and areas that meet the designation criteria will be recommended for regional adoption as designated Planned or Potential Priority Development Areas. In general, these categories relate to readiness for funding: a Planned area would be eligible for capital infrastructure funds, planning grants, and technical assistance while a Potential area would be eligible for planning grants and technical assistance, but not capital infrastructure funds. Click here to learn more about the application review process. Formalizing Growth Opportunity Areas as PDAs Growth Opportunity Areas were submitted by local government staff for consideration in the Initial Vision Scenario. In 2012, a Preferred Scenario will be identified and will serve as the basis for a draft Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). In addition, regional agencies are proposing financial incentives for Priority Development Areas through the OneBayArea Grant program. To be incorporated into the SCS and eligible for future funding, Growth Opportunity Areas will need to be formalized as Priority Development Areas. See below for PDA application materials. Key upcoming dates for submitting a PDA application in time for consideration in the SCS and OneBayArea grant program are as follows:

December 16, 2011: Jurisdictions submit completed PDA applications January 2012: Staff review of applications received January 30, 2012: Deadline for submitting local resolutions in support of PDA Application February 1, 2012: Staff PDA recommendations presented to ABAG Regional Planning Committee with Planned/Potential status March 15, 2012: Staff PDA recommendations presented to ABAG Executive Board for final adoption with Planned/Potential status
This timeline, along with the addition of new Place Types and criteria for PDA designation, were approved by the ABAG Executive Board at its September 2011 meeting. For more information, see the Application Guidelines for PDA Designation, below. Changing the Status of an Existing PDA A Potential PDA can move to Planned status once a plan has been completed for the area. Anything less than adoption by the City Council or Board of Supervisors (accepting the plan, moving forward on implementation without adoption, etc.) is not sufficient to meet this requirement. To complete the status change, applicants should submit a copy of the adopted plan and the adopting resolution to the FOCUS Staff for your jurisdiction. Applicants will also be asked to complete the PDA Assessment survey. Click here for more details about the review process for revision requests. Revisions to an Existing PDA To revise an existing PDA, local governments should contact the FOCUS Staff for their jurisdiction. Local staff will be asked to submit an updated application (map, narrative, jobs and housing numbers, etc.) to provide accurate and up-to-date information about the revised area. If the revision is to a Potential PDA, then the applicant should submit an updated infrastructure budget. If the revision is to a Planned PDA, then the applicant should submit an updated PDA Assessment Survey. A new resolution is not required. Application Materials - Click on each item to download
Application Guidelines for Priority Development Area Designation The application guidelines include a program overview, eligibility for applicants and areas, designation criteria definitions, application review process, timeline for priority development area designation, application form and submission instructions, and contact information.
Application for Priority Development Area Designation The application has six parts. Some information can be filled in directly in the Microsoft Word document, while some information will need to be provided as a separate attachment.
Station Area Planning Manual for Part 1(e) of the Application Use the Station Area Planning Manual as a guide to identify a Place Type that most closely aligns with the vision for the area being submitted.
Infrastructure Budget for Part 6 of the Application This Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is provided for applicants to enter information about the infrastructure improvements needed and funding sources available to realize the vision for the priority area.
PDA Assessment Survey This Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is provided for applicants to enter detailed information about the priority area. Applicants for new PDAs will be asked to complete this spreadsheet if FOCUS Staff decides to recommend adoption as a Planned PDA after review of the application. This should be also completed by applicants requesting changes to an existing Planned PDA or moving from a Potential PDA to Planned status.
Sample Local Government Resolution This sample local government resolution is provided as a template for requesting support from the applicant's council or board of supervisors for participation in the FOCUS program through PDA designation.
Application Submission Instructions 1. Fill out the Application in the Microsoft Word Document and compile the documents requested in the application form for each area. 2. Submit an electronic version of the application form and associated documents requested in the application for each area to FOCUS@abag.ca.gov. 3. Mail one hard copy of the application and attachments for each area to the following mailing address: Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Attn: Jackie Reinhart Physical address: Association of Bay Area Governments 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Attn: Jackie Reinhart Contact Information For questions regarding the application, please contact Jackie Reinhart, ABAG Regional Planner at JackieR@abag.ca.gov or 510-464-7994. However, prior to submitting an application, you are encouraged to contact the FOCUS Staff for your jurisdiction and discuss the goals for the proposed area.
9.g
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Gillian Adams <notifications@bayarea.basecamphq.com> Date: November 22, 2011 11:44:00 AM PST To: Greg Scharff <gregscharff@aol.com> Subject: [Housing Methodology Committee] Opportunity for input on RHNA Sphere of Influence (SOI) rules Reply-To: Housing Methodology Committee <U755245D085C5P54639417reply@bayarea.basecamphq.com>
Reply ABOVE THIS LINE to add a comment to this message
Project: Housing Methodology Committee Company: ABAG Gillian Adams posted a new message: Opportunity for input on RHNA Sphere of Influence (SOI) rules The methodology for the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) must include rules for allocating the housing need for a jurisdictions SOI if there is projected growth in the area, and most SOI areas within the Bay Area are anticipated to experience growth. For the 2014-2022 RHNA, staff is proposing to use the same approach regarding SOI that was includ in the 2007-2014 RHNA, unless ABAG receives a resolution from a county and all the cities in that county requesting a change. The deadline for requesting this change is December 31, 2011. The proposed SOI rules are: 1. In Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties, the allocation of housing nee generated by the unincorporated SOI was assigned to the cities. 2. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI was assigned to the county. 3. In Marin County, 50 percent of the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI was assigned to the city; and 50 percent was assigned to the county.
More details about RHNA, Spheres of Influence, and the process for requesting a change are include in the attached letter.
RHNA_SOI_112111.pdf
85 KB
This message was sent to Albert Lopez, Alex Amoroso, Andrew Michael, Andrew Smith, Barbara Kondylis, Ben Tripousis, Bena Chang, Bill Shoe, Bonne Gaebler, Catherine Lyons, Christy Riviere, Cindy Yee, Danielle Schmitz, Danielle Sinclair-Schmitz, David Early, David Lim, David Vintze, Diane Dillon, Doug Shoemaker, Duane Bay, Evelyn Stivers, Gayle Uilkema, Gillian Adams, Greg
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Attachment G: ABAG Memo re: Housing Allocations for Sphere of Influence (SOI) (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
From: Greg Scharff [gregscharff@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:10 PM To: Williams, Curtis Subject: Fwd: [Housing Methodology Committee] Opportunity for input on RHNA Sphere of Influence (SOI) rules Please let me know what type of input we should give
9.g
Stop receiving emails when comments are posted to this message. Prefer plain text emails? Delivered by Basecamp
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Attachment G: ABAG Memo re: Housing Allocations for Sphere of Influence (SOI) (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
Scharff, Hillary Gitelman, Jake Mackenzie, Jean Hasser, Jeff Levin, Joe LeClair, Julie Pierce, Kara Douglas, Katie Lamont, Kearstin Dischinger, Laura Kuhn, Laurel Prevetti, Leigha Schmidt, Linda Jackson, Lindy Lowe, Margaret Gordon, Matt Walsh, Maureen Rioridan, Mike Kasperzak, Pat Eklund, Patrick Lynch, Paul Campos, Pete Parkinson, Rebecca Kaplan, Rick Tooker, Ross Mirkarim Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, Sarah Dennis, Sarah Karlinsky, Sasha Hauswald, Scott Haggerty, Scott Zengel, Sharifa Wilson, Shiloh Ballard, Stacey Laumann, Stephanie Reyes, Steve Piasecki, Steve Ross, Susan Adams, Tina Wehrmeister, Val Menotti, Vernon Smith, Vu-Bang Nguyen, and Wayne Chen.
9.h
Sustainable Communities Strategy ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outer Bay Area Growth REVISED: September 1, 2011
Attachment: Attachment H: Alternative Scenarios (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
In July, ABAGs Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for Five Alternative Scenarios, which will be used to inform the development of the Preferred Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). Scenario 1 and 2 are based on unconstrained growth, assume very strong employment growth, and unprecedented funding to support housing affordability. Scenario 1, the Initial Vision Scenario was released in March 2011. Scenario 2, Core Concentration Unconstrained will be developed to provide a more concentrated development pattern along transit corridors. These two scenarios are essential to identify the challenges and policies for an ideal sustainable development path. This report presents the land use patterns for scenarios 3, 4, and 5 based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. They provide a range of housing and employment distribution patterns across places and cities that support equitable and sustainable development. The three scenarios are as follows: Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Priority Development Areas in the Inner Bay Area along the regions core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios.
These three scenarios assume a strong economy supported by the appropriate affordable housing production. They also assume targeted local and regional strategies and additional funding to support sustainable and equitable growth. They are designed primarily around Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas, as places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. (PDAs will refer to both areas in this report) The level of PDA growth is defined based on the Place Type established by the local jurisdiction (i.e., regional center, transit neighborhood, rural town), which provides a regional language to recognize the character, scale, density and expected growth for the wide range of places in the Bay Area. Beyond the PDAs, household growth is distributed based on employment, transit access, household formation, and housing production. Employment distribution is based upon the existing employment pattern, reversing the previous dispersal trends throughout the region.
Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011
Packet Pg. 339
9.h
Regional dialogue on land use scenarios The purpose of the land use alternative scenarios is to expand the regional dialogue on the type of development, planning strategies, and investments to define the SCS. We are seeking input from local jurisdictions, community organizations, business organizations, and general public on the following themes: Distribution of growth Shifting from previous trends of dispersed growth, do these three land use scenarios provide an appropriate spectrum for sustainable and equitable development trends? Is growth concentrated at the appropriate places? Development of vital and healthy places Are housing and jobs converging at the appropriate places? Can this convergence support greater access to jobs and housing, particularly for the low and moderate income populations? What elements of the scenarios would support the development of complete communities? Do the scenarios address the local expectations and necessary adjustments for regional equity and sustainability? Planning strategies and investments How can local jurisdictions, community organizations, and business organizations converge into a coherent regional strategy? What policies and investments should be prioritized to support the SCS? This report includes five sections and two appendices. The first section is a brief summary of the input received from local jurisdictions and stakeholders on local development and equity. The second section is an overview of regional employment and household growth between 2010 and 2040. The third section describes employment trends and distribution, including some details of the recent regional employment analysis undertaken by ABAG and MTC to inform the land use patterns. The fourth section provides an overview of the housing distribution, which relies on the housing analysis presented in previous reports. The fifth section covers the next steps towards the development of the Preferred Scenario. The appendices include, first, details on the methodology for growth distribution; and, second, tables of growth by PDA and local jurisdiction. Scenarios maps are compiled in a separate packet.
1. INPUT ON SCS SCENARIOS The development of the SCS Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios are informed by a wealth of input we received on the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) from local elected officials, planning directors, and Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) as well as from the Regional Advisory Working Group, Equity Group, and stakeholders groups. County-level Basecamp sites have been well noticed and public workshops were held throughout our nine-county region. As indicated in previous reports, land use decisions are a local responsibility governed by local jurisdictions. The land use scenarios presented here are based upon local input and strong
Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 2
Packet Pg. 340
9.h
coordination among local and regional agencies. Regional agencies have incorporated local input into three coherent land use development patterns. Input on local development The input received reflects the unique characteristics of the regions communities. Some communities described the level of housing growth depicted in the IVS as too high, while other jurisdictions responded that IVS housing growth levels would be appropriate if funding for redevelopment, public schools, transit and other community infrastructure were available. Still, a number of common themes have emerged. Addressing the Bay Area economic challenges: The Bay Areas first Sustainable Communities Strategy should advance a vibrant economy and strong growth for the region. Employment growth should be aligned with existing and planned transit. Employment totals are too high given past performance and the depth of the recession. Sustainable and equitable housing production: Growth levels in the Initial Vision Scenario are not feasible given current market constraints and funding availability. Infill development challenges require capital investments and supportive policies. The SCS should reward communities that advance sustainable growth at transit nodes. Transit service: Cuts in transit service will impede sustainable growth. Transit-served, infill areas that have not been nominated by local communities as PDAs should take on comparable levels of growth. Coordination of regional efforts: Loss of redevelopment agencies will limit infill development. The SCS should provide CEQA benefits for projects in PDAs. Air District and BCDC requirements should be aligned with the SCS. Input on equity Regional agency staff has worked with the Regional Equity Working Group and MTCs Policy Advisory Council to develop inputs to the Alternative Scenarios that will increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Social equity as well as economic growth and environmental sustainability are promoted through the emphasis on encouraging growth in complete communities served by transit. In addition, each of the alternative scenarios will also distribute growth in a way that ensures each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Factors related to transit service, employment, and net lowincome commuters to a jurisdiction will also inform the alternative scenario housing distributions. 2. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2010 2040 The recent national economic recession triggered a major employment decline. Recent data and research indicates that the nation is facing a slower recovery than expected over the next few years, which will in turn impact the recovery of the Bay Area. Beyond this short term recovery, the rates of employment growth for the Bay Area and California have become closer to or lower than the national rates since the 1980s. They were higher than the nation from the 1960s to the 1980s, but as the region and the state matured in its economic composition, growth rates became closer to the national average.
Packet Pg. 341
9.h
Due to lowered forecasts of national economic and job growth, along with dramatic decreases in state and national immigration levels (even prior to the recession), the Bay Area job forecast for 2040 would be revised downward by an estimated 100,000 jobs than the forecast employment for the Initial Vision Scenario. The total jobs for 2040 would drop by another 200,000 jobs by switching to a forecast where the Bay Area maintains its current share of national employment. Even under those considerations, the SCS can reasonably assume a healthy economy for the Bay Area by 2040. High expectations are based on the strength of our knowledge-based economy, the development of new high technology sectors as well as the diverse economy to support these leading sectors. In addition, the Bay Area has a highly qualified labor force when compared to other regions and a high quality of life based on access to urban amenities, natural resources, and a Mediterranean climate. The region also provides businesses with a wealth of research and development resources and a strong network of international exchange. Given these resources, regional and economic experts working with ABAG and MTC suggest the Bay Area could add almost a million jobs up to 4.26 million jobs by 2040. This is an average of 33,000 per year over the next 30 years, which assumes a healthy and strong economy. This is more than three times the 10,000 average annual job growth of the previous two decades. It is close to the 40,000 average annual job growth of the last 50 years when the region experienced the development of the high technology industry and the finance sector. This employment growth will be supported by strong housing production of about 770,000 units by 2040. This would represent an annual production of 27,000 units per year. The slow recovery of job growth and housing prices are expected to limit housing production in the nearterm. This period should be addressed independently from the housing production of the later years. Assuming a suppressed housing production rate of 15,000 units from 2010-2015, this level of growth would increase to almost 30,000 units per year over the 2015-2040 timeframe. In comparison, historical rates were 20,000 per year from 1990-2010 and 36,000 averaging 1970, 1975, 1980, and 1985 rates, periods of much greenfield housing production. The expected growth of 770,000 housing units by 2040 in the scenarios under discussion is lower than the equivalent one million units in Initial Vision Scenario. The former is the expected housing production while the latter reflects the housing need. The expected housing production addresses lower 2010 household and population counts (Census 2010), lower employment growth than previous forecasts, and reasonable assumptions on market trends, local and regional policies, and infrastructure. This level of housing reflects a reasonable job to household ratio for the Bay Area and would consider a reasonable pace of recovery of the housing market. For these scenarios we are assuming a job to household ratio of 1.3 by 2040. This ratio is based on the regional average over the past six decades and is also similar to the present-day ratio. It could be expected that demographic shifts would lower this ratio over the next fifteen years as the baby boomer generation retires, but that it would rise again in the later years of the planning horizon.
Packet Pg. 342
9.h
Regional Growth: Households, Population, Employed Residents, Jobs, 2010 - 2040

Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios 2010 Households Population Employed residents Jobs 2,608,000 7,151,000 3,153,000 3,271,000 2040 3,378,000 9,236,000 3,974,000 4,266,000 Growth 2010-40 770,000 2,085,000 821,000 995,000 Initial Vision Scenario Growth 2010-40 1,031,000 2,432,000 1,338,000 1,463,000
These scenario land development patterns will be supported by transportation scenarios that will vary the level of funding for fix-it-first maintenance, transit capacity improvements, roadway improvements, and bike/pedestrian funding.
3. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION The region is experiencing a transformation in its economic activities and in its population composition, both of which have major land use implications. The very strong growth of knowledge-based activities at the intersection with urban amenities brings new strength to employment centers. These economic trends are parallel to some key emerging demographic changes: young professionals preferences for vital urban places instead of office parks, an increase in the ethnic diversity of the labor force and residents, and a major wave of retirement and increase in the senior population. Providing that the region can develop and implement a solid SCS, these changes provide an opportunity to strengthen the economic health, social equity, and sustainability of the Bay Area. SCS tasks to support a healthy economy include: Provide the appropriate transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities to support the new wave of industries at urban locations and densified office parks. Support a diverse economy through public investments that support strategic sectors, and the retention and expansion of affordable housing close to major employment centers. Regain the economic vitality of regional centers, which lost employment over the past decades. Support increased densities and a mix of uses at suburban office parks, which have been major employment growth areas. Concentrate urban amenities and affordable housing in downtown areas and along transit corridors across the region. Maintain and increase the viability and productivity of industrial lands and agricultural resource areas. For the purpose of the SCS Alternative Scenarios we have revised the total employment growth by 2040, the growth by industry, and the distribution by PDA and city. The rationale for this healthy economic growth in relation to population and housing growth will be discussed in a
Packet Pg. 343
9.h
separate memo. This report primarily focuses on growth by industry and distribution patterns based on the employment analysis developed by ABAG and MTC in collaboration with Strategic Economics. Changes in the regional industrial composition Starting in the 1970s the region experienced major employment growth in San Franciscos financial district and the emergence of Silicon Valley as the global center of high technology. In contrast to many other metropolitan regions for subsequent decades, the Bay Areas economic sectors developed through very distinct specialized clusters. In the years following the turn of the millennium the region has a more mature economic base with an economic sector composition that is closer to the national average. Professional and business services and information jobs have become the major leading sectors in the regional economy. Over the last decades they have experienced sharp growth but they have also been the most impacted during periods of economic decline. These regional leading sectors have increased the demand for highly educated labor and provided high wage jobs. Educational and health services have displayed steady growth, but a more moderate level than professional services. These sectors have surpassed manufacturing, government administration, and retail employment. Over the next 30 years, educational and health services sectors are expected to continue their rate of growth. Professional and business services are expected to generate more than one third of the total regional growth by 2040. Since the 1980s, these growing sectors have more than compensated the loss in manufacturing and finance jobs. During this period, much of the regions traditional manufacturing employment has relocated to low cost labor regions in Asia and Latin America. More recently despite steady growth in professional and business service jobs related to emerging technology industries, high tech manufacturing has also relocated out of Silicon Valley to lower cost locations. Changes in technology have also reduced labor requirements and increased productivity for the remaining manufacturing businesses. On the opposite spectrum of the economic sector location patterns, while the region continues to be an important financial center, finance employment jobs have been eliminated or relocated out of the Bay Area. The decline of these two sectors has resulted in a loss of middle-income jobs for the region. Looking forward to 2040, manufacturing and finance are not expected to significantly expand. However, they will remain essential and stable sectors in the regional economy and are expected to retain approximately the same employment size over the next 30 years. The Bay Area is a major international destination for business and leisure travel. Leisure, hospitality and retail are growing employment sectors. In particular, leisure and hospitality employment has grown at a faster pace than retail, following the pattern of professional and business services. Both industry groups are expected to retain a steady growth over the next 30 years.
Packet Pg. 344
9.h
Changes in the regional spatial patterns Over the past decades the Bay Area experienced a decline of employment at its major regional economic centers while suburban employment centers and office parks emerged and grew throughout the region. These spatial patterns were conditioned by the decline of the finance sector in San Francisco, the growth of the high technology sectors in Silicon Valley, the formation of the Tri-Valley business cluster supported by labor from lower housing cost communities in the eastern part of the Bay Area and the central valley, and the strengthening of medium size downtowns such as Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa and Berkeley. The growth of professional services in close proximity to urban amenities, point toward a new wave of growth that could be accommodated at major economic centers and a demand for urban amenities, mixed-uses and higher densities at suburban employment locations. Analysis of employment and demographic trends indicates that the SCS can serve to support these emerging trends by increasing access to transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities at employment centers. The SCS would recognize the economic function of each place in the region and the potential they offer for the growth of selected industry groups, jobs and businesses. This recognition is also informed by the community choices on the function and qualities of their places. Some of the expected trends are described below. Renewed regional centers Regional centers have reduced their office jobs as a share of the region from 49 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2010. Downtown San Francisco and Downtown Oakland also reduced their absolute employment levels. Downtown San Jose had a small increase. In the SCS Scenarios we expect a reversal of this trend. This is based on the rate and scale of growth of professional services urban entertainment, which brings a new economic vitality to the regional centers. Similar to the growth of the financial district in the 1970s, the Bay Area is attracting new businesses and workers that want to locate in close proximity to related firms, services and amenities. The new wave of businesses and young professionals demand for building space prioritizes flexibility to adjust spaces to multiple functions and requires less office space per worker relative to the early growth of traditional downtown office space. The growth of health and educational services would also support the growth of regional centers. Office parks: Office parks have been a dominant building pattern in the two suburban areas that experienced major growth in the Bay Area over the past several decades: Silicon Valley and the Tri-Valley. In the SCS Alternative Scenarios office park employment will continue to grow but at a slower pace than in recent decades. The emerging private shuttle services run by businesses, particularly in San Mateo and Santa Clara County are expected to grow and improve transit access while lessening, but not fully mitigating increased freeway traffic congestion related to employment growth. Growth in office park employment is limited in part by the capacity of the regions congested freeway network. Office parks in the Tri-Valley area would house more workers within their own jurisdictions, but will continue to draw from lower cost labor in the Central Valley. Some office parks would be transformed with additional office buildings and a mix of uses including housing.
Packet Pg. 345
9.h
Downtown areas and transit corridors The increasing need and desire for local services in close proximity to residential locations has led to a clustering of services along corridors and in small downtown areas over the past decades. The increasing size of the regions senior population will likely reinforce this trend over the next decades. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume an increase in local serving jobs in Priority Development Areas proportional to housing growth in PDAs. Industrial land The decline of the manufacturing and wholesale employment due to business relocation and changes in technology has resulted in a major contraction of those businesses in industrial areas. In many areas this has not resulted in vacant industrial land, but a different mix of businesses that are necessary to support the local and regional economies. In addition to basic services such as refuse collection or supply distribution, industrial lands are now occupied by a wide range of businesses from food processing to green industry manufacturing, and auto repair to high tech product development drawing employment from many sectors into traditional industrial lands. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume limited but stable job growth in manufacturing, given retention of industrial land at core locations and an expanding array of production, distribution and repair activities. Agricultural land The Bay Area has a wealth of agricultural land unparalleled among our nations largest metropolitan regions that provides high quality agricultural products including diverse highvalue crop production and its world-renowned wine industry. For the most part the regions remaining farmland is policy-protected from urban expansion. All of the counties outside of San Francisco have a growth management framework (e.g. urban growth boundaries, agricultural zoning, etc.) in place. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume the retention of most agricultural land with some increase in productivity yielding modest employment growth. Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Given the expected levels of regional growth, changes in the economic sector composition, and changes in the spatial patterns of employment location, the three alternative scenarios provide alternative land use development patterns based on various degrees of employment concentration. All scenarios assume nearly one million additional jobs in the region through 2040. They also assume the same growth rates by industry. The three scenarios assume slowing or reversal in the declining share of employment in Priority Development Areas experienced in previous decades. The three scenarios also assume some growth in local serving jobs proportional to the housing growth by PDAs. The three employment scenarios are CONCEPTUAL scenarios to understand and assess distinct land use patterns in relation to housing and transit. Starting from the current distribution of employment and growth trends over previous decades, the scenarios add three factors: the concentration of jobs in PDAs, the concentration of knowledge-based jobs (Information, Finance, Professional & Business Services), and the link of local serving jobs (primarily Retail, some Health, Educational, and Recreational Services) to housing growth. They do not yet include input from local jurisdictions or analysis of land constraints, industrial cluster support, or
Packet Pg. 346
9.h
public and private investments. This input and analysis will be essential to develop the employment distribution for the Preferred Scenario. Overview of job growth by scenario
Core Concentration Higher growth in major employment centers close to transit Focused Growth Higher concentration of employment in PDAs than 2010 Outer Bay Area Continued trends of more growth in Outer Bay Area and more growth outside of PDAs Decline of PDAs share of regional jobs over 2010
PDA job growth
Knowledgebased jobs Local serving jobs
Small increase of PDAs share of regional jobs over Focused Growth Scenario Additional 15% in inner bay PDAs Follows housing growth, more jobs in inner bay area PDAs
Small increase of PDAs share of regional jobs over 2010 Additional 10% across all PDAs Follows housing growth, distributed across all PDAs and jurisdictions
Decline in share of PDAs following previous trends Follows housing growth, more jobs in outer bay area
Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based jobs will be more concentrated in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use neighborhoods in the Inner Bay Area places where jobs are concentrated today. Local serving jobs will follow housing in PDAs, which will be more concentrated in the Inner Bay Area. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based and local serving jobs will be more concentrated in PDAs by 2040 than in 2010. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: This scenario follows the growth trends from the previous 30 years but with lower rates of job dispersal. Regional Centers and large City Centers grow but slower than other Place Types, while Suburban Centers and office parks outside of PDAs continue to grow at higher rates than the regional average. Employment by economic sector The employment growth by economic sector is based on the forecast prepared by Caltrans and adjusted to the total regional growth established by ABAG and MTC. While the same level of growth by industry is assumed in the three scenarios, the distribution by city and PDA varies across scenarios.
Packet Pg. 347
Land use trends
9.h
Employment growth by economic sector 2010 - 2040

Jobs 2010 Total Jobs Agriculture and Natural Resources Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation Retail Professional and Business Services / Finance Health, Education, Recreation Services Other: Information, Government, Construction 3,270,906 22,142 543,974 325,168 774,502 853,755 751,365 Jobs 2040 4,265,736 22,286 659,580 402,036 1,153,879 1,106,095 921,860 Job growth 2010 2040 994,831 144 115,606 76,868 379,378 252,340 170,495 Annual Growth Rate 2010- 2040 1.01% 0.02% 0.71% 0.79% 1.63% 0.99% 0.76%
Distribution of Employment The employment distribution for 2010 is based on NETS data (See appenedix for description of data sources). This data provides employment information by location of a business establishment. This is a high level of geographical resolution, which allows us to capture the employment by PDA more accurately than previous zip code data. In 2010, it was estimated that PDAs encompassed an estimated 1,586,000 or 48 percent of jobs regionwide. This is 5 percent lower than the PDA share in 1990 according to ABAG analysis of the NETS data. The three scenarios assume different shares of jobs in PDAs as indicated below. Following previous trends but at a slower pace, the Outer Bay Area Scenario assumes a lower PDA share of total jobs in 2040 than in 2010. The Focused Growth and Core Concentration Growth Scenarios both assume a higher concentration of jobs in PDAs in 2040 than in 2010.
10
Packet Pg. 348
9.h
Job Share in PDAs by Scenario: Past and Future Trends 1990 2010 2040
Core Concentration 53% 48% 51% 58 % Focused Growth 53% 48% 50% 55 % Outer Bay Area 53% 48% 48% 47 %
PDA Job Share 1990 PDA Job Share 2010 PDA Job Share 2040 PDA Job Growth Share 2010-2040
Within PDAs, the distribution of jobs varies according to sector and Place Type. The Outer Bay Area Scenario retains a similar distribution in 2010 and 2040 except for the local serving jobs, which shifts according to housing growth. The Focused Growth Scenario increases knowledgebased jobs across all PDAs. The Core Concentration Growth Scenario increases knowledgebased jobs in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use corridors in the inner Bay Area. Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Industry Group by Scenario 2010 2040
Core Concentration Total region Agriculture and Natural Resources Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation Retail Professional services/Finance Health, Education, Recreation Services Other: Information, Government, Construction 58% 27% 43% 61% 65% 48% 67% Focused Growth 55% 27% 43% 58% 60% 48% 63% Outer Bay Area 47% 27% 39% 55% 45% 47% 51%
11
Packet Pg. 349
9.h
Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 2040
Core Concentration 58.3% 21.4% 4.4% 1.0% 2.6% 5.1% 2.3% 13.3% 1.4% 0.0% 0.7% 2.0% 1.7% 0.8% 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Focused Growth 55.3% 19.0% 3.9% 1.1% 2.7% 4.6% 2.5% 12.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.8% 2.2% 1.9% 0.9% 1.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Outer Bay Area 46.9% 12.5% 4.0% 1.0% 2.9% 3.5% 1.8% 11.1% 1.2% 0.0% 0.8% 2.5% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%
12
Packet Pg. 350
Total PDA/GOA Jobs Inner Bay Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Outer Bay Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Rural Town Center Rural Mixed-Use Corridor
9.h
Share of Regional Professional and Business Services / Finance Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 2040
Total PDA/GOA Jobs Inner Bay Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Outer Bay Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Rural Town Center Rural Mixed-Use Corridor
13
Packet Pg. 351
9.h
Share of Regional Retail Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 2040
Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Outer Bay Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Rural Town Center Rural Mixed-Use Corridor
Job Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 2040

PDA Jobs Core Concentration Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma TOTAL 106,300 38,000 6,000 300 206,500 41,900 159,300 6,600 15,600 580,400 Focused Growth 104,000 41,300 6,800 300 178,000 40,300 154,000 7,300 17,600 549,700 Outer Bay Area 93,500 46,500 7,900 300 127,000 35,200 129,300 7,500 19,700 467,000 Core Concentration 203,800 96,400 31,700 14,600 206,900 99,600 254,200 42,000 45,500 994,800 County Jobs Focused Growth 203,700 104,900 34,600 15,600 179,100 104,000 257,400 46,200 49,200 994,800 Outer Bay Area 216,300 126,300 35,900 22,000 127,000 112,700 247,400 50,200 57,100 994,800
14
Packet Pg. 352
Total PDA/GOA Jobs Inner Bay Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood
9.h
4. REGIONAL HOUSING DISTRIBUTION The three scenarios, Core Concentration, Focused Growth and Outer Bay Area Growth, address the distribution of 771,000 households by 2040 through alternative land use patterns. Each of these scenarios relates to the employment growth and the three distribution patterns described in the previous section. Levels of household growth are specifically linked to the concentration of knowledgebased and local serving jobs. The three scenarios support healthy economic growth by 2040. Shifting from the dominant development trend of single-family homes in greenfield areas over the last three decades, the three scenarios assume a higher concentration of households within multi-family housing at transit nodes and corridors with appropriate services and stores. Most of the growth is expected to be accommodated through 3 to 6 story wood-frame buildings, with the exception of major downtown areas where steel-frame buildings of more than 10 stories would be constructed. The scenarios vary in the overall share of households in PDAs as well as by Place Type and city. The distribution of household growth is based on local input and regional criteria established through the densities and scale of Place Types, transit service, employment, and net low-income commuters. In addition, in the three scenarios each city is expected to reach a minimum household growth equivalent to 40 percent of its household formation. This last factor comes from the Regional Housing Need Allocation methodology for 2014-2022, which identifies the housing needs by city to be addressed through local plans and zoning controls. Local plans and their proposed housing growth are an important component in the distribution of household growth. Local input on household growth from each jurisdiction was utilized in at least one of the three scenarios. The PDAs and the growth factors directly addressed equity in the SCS. This final approach to the alternative scenarios is the result of in-depth interactions with equity groups. PDAs cover a wide range of neighborhoods with diverse income levels, infrastructure needs, and transit service. Regional staff worked closely with local jurisdictions to identify neighborhoods appropriate for PDA designation that need public investment for current and future populations as well as areas that are ready to accommodate additional housing. Two growth factors are directly linked to equity. The low-income net in-commuters factor recognizes the potential of cities with high employment and limited affordable housing to accommodate future household growth. Similarly, the minimum growth floor of 40 percent of jurisdictions household formation level allows cities with good services to accommodate a portion of their own population growth. In order to appropriately address equity in the SCS, ABAG and MTC will conduct a thorough assessment of regional income levels and distribution. This report only includes some minor revisions to the income distribution factors used in Projections 2009. Current regional economic changes in the type of businesses, jobs, and labor indicate some regional income polarization. This task requires detailed attention and will be a priority over the next several weeks in preparation for the draft Preferred Scenario.
Packet Pg. 353
9.h
Overview of household growth by scenario

Core Concentration More growth in PDAs, particularly in Inner Bay Areas major employment centers and transit nodes Focused Growth Growth throughout regional transit corridors and job centers Outer Bay Area Less growth in PDAs, more growth in Outer Bay Area along transit corridors.
Land use trends
Growth factors Minimum level of growth PDA household growth
Transit service Employment Net low-income commuters 40% of the expected household formation rate for each jurisdiction Based on Focused Growth Scenario, increase household growth by 20% in Inner Bay Area, plus or minus housing value factor Growth within PDAs based on minimum level of growth by Place Type. Based on Focused Growth Scenario, increase household growth by 5 to 30% in Outer Bay Area depending on job growth
Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes a concentration of households in PDAs and jurisdictions in the Inner Bay Area to take advantage of the core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes focused household growth in PDAs throughout the regions transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Closer to recent development trends than the other two scenarios, this scenario assumes more growth of households in the Outer Bay Area in relation to the employment growth by jurisdiction. The three scenarios vary in their share of PDA household growth from 67 to 79 percent of all regional growth. PDAs currently account for 24 percent of all households in the region. The PDA share of households increases to between 34 and 37 percent of all households in the three scenarios.
16
Packet Pg. 354
9.h
Households in PDAs by Scenario: Current and Future Trends 2010 2040

Core Concentration 634,730 1,239,900 605,170 37% 79% Focused Growth 634,730 1,187,740 553,010 35% 72% Outer Bay Area 634,730 1,154,970 520,270 34% 67%
PDA households 2010 PDA households 2040 PDA households growth 2010-2040 PDA share of total households 2040 PDA household growth share 2010-2040
In the Core Concentration Growth Scenario, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions for the most part experience a greater concentration of growth within their PDAs than in the Focused Growth Scenario, whereas in the Outer Bay Area Scenario growth is less concentrated in the PDAs. In each of the scenarios, the 40 percent housing growth threshold has a considerable affect on some of the smaller residential communities throughout the region. The concentration of households varies by Place Type. In each scenario, the greatest share of regional growth is within the Mixed-Use Corridors, followed by Regional Centers. The Core Concentration Growth Scenario brings a higher concentration of households at Regional Centers, City Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and Mixed-Use Corridors. This includes downtown areas in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose and the San Pablo, Mission, and El Camino transit corridors. The Transit Town Centers and Transit Neighborhoods also play an important role in the Core Concentration Growth Scenario, as many of the PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area have these Place Types. In the Focused Growth and Outer Bay Area scenarios, growth is more evenly distributed across all Place Types. The Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario shows higher growth in suburban centers such as the Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon PDAs
17
Packet Pg. 355
9.h
Share of Regional Household Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 2040
Core Concentration Total PDA/GOA Share of Households Regional Center City Center Suburban Center Urban Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Rural Town Center Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 37% 12.6% 8.4% 8.3% 7.3% 11.2% 10.2% 20.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Focused Growth 35% 11.2% 8.3% 8.3% 6.1% 9.9% 9.3% 18.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Outer Bay Area 34% 10.3% 7.7% 8.5% 5.1% 9.8% 9.2% 16.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
The distribution of growth by county varies according to their transit access and the relationship of the county to the Inner and Outer Bay Area. Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, counties have high levels of existing transit service and are primarily within the Inner Bay Area. As a result these counties have more growth in the Core Concentration Growth Scenario. North Bay CountiesMarin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma and much of Contra Costa County are identified as part of the Outer Bay Area and many of their cities have limited transit access. Thus they display higher growth in the Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario. Household Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 2040
PDA Households Core Concentration Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma TOTAL 132,610 66,790 4,100 1,660 105,110 54,820 205,960 15,440 18,680 605,170 Focused Growth 121,050 67,510 6,380 1,660 85,940 44,130 182,220 16,390 27,730 553,010 Outer Bay Area 111,740 72,650 6,690 1,740 71,900 40,810 167,280 17,230 30,230 520,270 County Households Core Concentration 167,750 96,880 10,100 5,520 110,640 72,110 245,990 28,740 33,080 770,810 Focused Growth 172,990 110,930 11,260 6,290 90,470 68,570 242,060 30,860 37,380 770,810 Outer Bay Area 164,300 136,550 13,250 7,170 76,430 61,700 227,120 38,690 45,620 770,830
18
Packet Pg. 356
9.h
5. NEXT STEPS The three land use scenarios presented in this report provide the preliminary analysis for the development of the SCS Preferred Scenario. The following additional tasks are pending to inform the Preferred Scenario and will be developed this fall 2011. 1. Land use analysis o Further analysis of regional employment and population growth o Further analysis of income forecast and distribution 2. Policy Development to support the Preferred Scenario o Housing production o Infill development investments o Transit access o Complete Communities 3. Transportation network analysis 4. Performance targets results for the three Alternative Land Use Scenarios 5. Gather input from local jurisdictions and stakeholders to inform development of the Preferred Scenario
19
Packet Pg. 357
9.h
APPENDIX I
1. EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Sources

California Department of Transportation Sector Forecast (Caltrans) Caltrans uses an econometric model to project employment by industry out to 2040 for each county in California. The agencys model uses variables and assumptions taken from the UCLA Anderson Forecast and historic employment data from EDD. The most recent projections were released in March 2010. In comparison, the most recent EDD and BLS projections available date from 2008 and 2009. A complete description of the 2010 Caltrans projection methodology and data out to 2035 (2040 data was provided upon request) is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/socio_economic.html. Walls & Associates / Dun and Bradstreet (NETS) Walls & Associates converts Dun and Bradstreet archival establishment data into a time-series database of establishment information called the National Establishment Times-Series (NETS) Database. ABAG has analyzed the NETS data to provide information on the spatial distribution of jobs at the jurisdiction and PDA level by employment sector, as well as changes in spatial distribution at these geographies from 1989-2009. More information on the NETS data is available at: http://www.youreconomy.org/nets/?region=Walls
Methodology 2010 Employment Current employment is based on total jobs established for the Current Regional Plans and Initial Vision Scenario and the Caltrans breakdown by employment sector for the region for 2010. NETS 2009 data is used to distribute jobs by geography for each sector. Scenario Employment Distribution The Caltrans forecast scaled to match the regional constrained employment total established for the three alternative scenarios was used for the regional growth by employment sector for all three scenarios. Each scenario follows two basic steps for then distributing employment growth by geography for each sector. 1. As a baseline, Focused Growth and Core Concnetration Growth Scenarios maintain 2010 employment distribution by Place Type and county into the future and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios slows down the 1989-2009 trends in distribution of jobs by Place Type and county. 2. A portion of local-serving jobs and knowledge-based jobs are then distributed to follow the investments and growth pattern for each scenario.
20
Packet Pg. 358
9.h
Focused Growth Scenario The Focused Growth Scenario also starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were again allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution in the Focused Growth Scenario. The Focused Growth Scenario also includes an additional 10% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs locating in PDA locations, reflecting a further consolidation of office uses in PDAs. These additional office jobs were distributed to PDAs throughout the region in proportion to their existing share of these sectors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario The Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario starts with a baseline that slows the 1989-2009 trend in job distribution by PDA Place Type (for the PDA distribution) and by County (for the jurisdiction distribution). In general this exhibits higher growth in the outer bay counties and slower growth in PDAs overall and a shift in share from inner bay PDAs to outer bay PDAs. As in the other two scenarios, 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Education, and Recreation jobs were allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction to match the housing growth distribution in the Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario. In this scenario, no additional office jobs were added to PDA locations. However, for the counties with both inner and outer bay designations (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties), a share of Professional & Business Services jobs were reallocated from the inner bay to outer bay jurisdictions to reflect the trend in greater dispersal of jobs within these counties.
21
Packet Pg. 359
Core Concentration Growth Scenario The Core Concentration Growth Scenario starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were then allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution, reflecting a share of local-serving jobs that follows the housing growth in the Core Concentration scenario. An additional 15% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs were located in Inner Bay PDA locations that were Regional Center, Mixed-Use Corridor, City Center, and Urban Neighborhood Place Types. This reflects a further concentration in these sectors into the transitserved locations where they are already concentrated, corresponding to a stronger agglomeration of the knowledge-based and other vertical-office-user jobs into these core areas. These additional office jobs were also allocated to the corresponding jurisdiction.
9.h
2. HOUSING DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY AND DATA Data Sources U. S. Census Bureau 2010 Census U. S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics (LEHD) MTC Transit Coverage and Frequency by City
Methodology Scenario Housing Distribution Each scenario was developed based on the three key components. 1. Growth in Priority Development Areas: PDAs define a sustainable and equitable development framework for the SCS. Local and regional efforts support the development of PDAs as complete communities with the appropriate level of services and urban amenities for the current and future residents and workers. The minimum level of growth for each Place Type and local input were used as a basis for the level of growth in the PDAs. 2. Growth by local jurisdiction: At the city level, jurisdictions housing levels were based on Projections 2009, with adjustments based on the 2010 Census and local feedback. Household growth by city was determined based on job concentration, transit service, and existing population and jobs. In addition, a factor based on low-wage commuters was applied to the distribution of housing in order to improve access to employment centers served by transit for low-wage workers. 3. Growth pattern informed by the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The scenarios utilized the proposed RHNA approach 1 for setting a minimum level of growth in the jurisdictions to ensure each jurisdiction is doing a reasonable amount of fair share housing to meet the regions housing need. A minimum housing growth threshold for each jurisdiction was set at 40 percent of its household formation growth. The scenarios assume that RHNA, as a short term housing strategy through local general plans, will shape the long term development pattern through a minimum housing floor (jurisdictions would accommodate at least 40 percent of their future household formation). The income distribution component of the proposed RHNA methodology, which is intended to address housing affordability (whereby jurisdictions would move towards the regional distribution of income groups), was not applied for the scenarios. Analysis of regional income levels and distribution is pending.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state mandated process for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate. See http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/housing.htm for more information on RHNA.
22
Packet Pg. 360
9.h
Transit and Employment Criteria for Housing Distribution

EXISTING JOB CENTER (10,000+ JOBS) Yes FOCUSED GROWTH 2035 HOUSING Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25%
TRANSIT TYPE BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Rail BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Rail Caltrain Caltrain
No
Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 20% Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25% Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 20% Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 5% Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 5% Increase to low-range Place Type density Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% Increase to min Place Type density minus 10%
Yes No
ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, Yes eBART, Dumbarton Rail ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, No eBART, Dumbarton Rail BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, San Pablo Avenue, E.14th Street/Mission Bvd BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, San Pablo Avenue, E.14th Street/Mission Bvd PDAs not on major corridors PDAs not on major corridors Yes
No
Yes No
Focused Growth Scenario For the Focused Growth Scenario, the level of growth in a PDA was taken as the higher of: a. the planned level of growth in the PDA, based on jurisdictional feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, and b. the minimum level of growth based on the PDA's Place Type. The minimum level of growth for a PDA was calculated by multiplying the minimum density for the PDA's Place Type by the redevelopable acreage in the PDA, which was assumed to be 10% of net acreage. The minimum density for each PDA was scaled up or down based on transit tiers and whether the PDA is an existing job center containing 10,000+ jobs. The table below shows the distribution rules for each transit tier/job center combination. If the planned level of growth
23
Packet Pg. 361
9.h
in a PDA was lower than the minimum calculated for its Place Type, the growth for that PDA was increased to the calculated minimum. At the city level, the share of growth within each jurisdictions PDAs was capped at 95 percent of the jurisdictions total growth. Core Concentration Growth Scenario
For the Core Concentration Growth Scenario, growth was shifted to PDAs in the Inner Bay Area. First, housing growth was increased by 20 percent above Focused Growth Scenario levels for these PDAs. Next, housing levels were adjusted up or down based on a housing value factor for each jurisdiction. The housing value adjustment ranged from +15 to -15 percent, based on median home value. ABAG reduced growth in Outer Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. At the city level, housing growth within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was reduced to account for the re-distribution of housing to Inner Bay Area PDAs. Housing levels in Inner Bay Area jurisdictions were kept at their Focused Growth Scenario levels or were increased slightly to account for an increase in their PDAs housing levels, with the share of growth within each jurisdictions PDAs capped at 95 percent of the jurisdictions total growth. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario To create the Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario, ABAG first estimated the potential job increase to each jurisdiction. ABAG continued the regions trend in recent decades of jobs shifting from inner to outer counties and from PDAs to outer areas. Within Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties, a share of professional and business growth was also shifted from the Inner Bay Area to Outer Bay Area jurisdictions. ABAG increased housing growth in those Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that saw significant job growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that had more than 3,000 new jobs received a 30% increase in housing growth in their PDAs over the Focused Growth Scenario, those that grew by 1,000 to 3,000 jobs received a 10% increase in their PDAs, and those that grew by less than 1,000 jobs received a 5% increase. ABAG reduced growth in Inner Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. However, since the City and County of San Francisco did not request a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenario, ABAG reduced each San Francisco PDA's housing growth by 20%. At the city level, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions housing units were reduced to desired levels. These housing units were re-distributed to the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions based on each jurisdictions share of regional growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdiction growth levels may also have increased to account for an increase in units within their PDAs. The share of jurisdictional growth in PDAs within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was capped at 85 percent.
24
Packet Pg. 362
9.h
Transportation Assumptions The following transportation network assumptions, based in part on local jurisdictional feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, were used to develop the three scenarios:
Core Concentration Increased frequency and capacity within Inner Bay and along main corridors Bus Rapid Transit service on El Camino Real and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd. Focused Growth Increased frequency and capacity within Inner Bay and along main corridors Bus Rapid Transit service on El Camino Real, San Pablo Ave, and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd. Increased frequency and capacity along core network Expansion of commuter rail systems Increase transit trips within and between West Bay and East Bay. Reduce number of auto trips Outer Bay Area Increased frequency and capacity along main corridors and improved local bus service.
Rail
Commute patterns
Increased frequency and capacity along core network Expansion of commuter rail systems in Inner Bay Increase transit trips within and between West Bay and East Bay. Reduce number of auto trips
Expansion of commuter rail systems in Outer Bay
Reduce length of auto trips
25
Packet Pg. 363
Bus service
9.h
APPENDIX II: TABLES
Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
26
Packet Pg. 364
9.h
Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
KEY
Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth Opportunity Area (italics)
Alameda County
Jursidiction or Area Name Alameda Naval Air Station Northern Waterfront Albany San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Berkeley Adeline Street Downtown San Pablo Avenue South Shattuck Telegraph Avenue University Avenue Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Area Town Center Transit Center Emeryville Mixed-Use Core Fremont Centerville City Center Irvington District Ardenwood Business Park Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing South Fremont/Warm Springs Hayward Downtown South Hayward BART South Hayward BART The Cannery Carlos Bee Quarry Mission Corridor Livermore Downtown Vasco Road TOD Newark Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Old Town Mixed Use Area Cedar Boulevard Transit Civic Center Re-Use Transit Oakland Coliseum BART Station Area Downtown & Jack London Square Eastmont Town Center Fruitvale & Dimond Areas MacArthur Transit Village Transit Oriented Development Corridors West Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton Hacienda San Leandro Bay Fair BART Transit Village Downtown Transit Oriented Development East 14th Street Union City Intermodal Station District Mission Boulevard Old Alvarado Alameda County Unincorporated Castro Valley BART East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Place Type Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Suburban Center City Center Transit Neighborhood City Center Transit Town Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Regional Center Urban Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Town Center 2010 Total Jobs 26,480 1,310 1,290 5,070 2,880 73,780 940 14,220 2,430 1,000 1,700 1,680 17,490 4,620 320 0 16,350 11,490 89,280 2,980 16,300 2,670 1,970 9,710 270 7,940 63,960 6,200 330 480 1,190 0 1,450 47,200 2,870 5,910 16,820 1,200 180 170 510 196,600 5,450 92,180 3,570 8,490 10,460 33,650 7,570 2,100 52,510 9,870 39,350 1,470 7,910 7,500 19,260 340 20 470 23,480 2,030 2,390 Core-Constrained
2010-2040 Job Growth
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Suburban Center Transit Town Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor
7,570 770 460 1,410 920 22,300 310 6,750 730 280 570 520 4,950 1,030 220 160 6,010 4,630 26,360 1,140 7,070 890 610 3,350 90 1,990 16,050 1,950 140 320 360 40 470 13,540 910 1,220 4,170 370 70 100 150 64,390 1,520 34,070 1,270 2,920 3,270 12,620 2,370 610 14,580 3,720 10,750 340 3,220 2,660 4,650 160 20 210 6,420 530 770
8,220 770 470 1,350 830 22,100 280 5,970 690 250 530 480 5,520 1,130 220 170 5,660 4,190 26,320 1,230 6,330 930 680 3,050 90 2,060 16,650 1,790 140 300 400 40 440 15,090 960 1,410 4,440 370 70 90 160 58,930 1,610 35,210 1,130 2,690 3,110 11,540 2,390 690 16,150 4,290 10,800 360 2,890 2,390 4,790 150 20 190 6,960 560 710
7,870 830 260 1,000 560 21,430 250 6,240 670 160 500 450 9,890 1,400 270 200 5,290 4,650 27,770 670 6,630 1,020 530 2,910 80 1,940 17,440 1,820 120 280 320 40 410 20,130 1,180 1,790 4,420 380 50 70 200 57,160 1,680 26,080 790 2,190 2,570 10,960 2,660 330 21,510 4,400 11,300 350 2,960 2,300 4,620 160 20 180 6,170 330 670
9/1/2011
27
Packet Pg. 365
9.h
Contra Costa County

Jursidiction or Area Name Antioch Hillcrest eBART Station Rivertown Waterfront Brentwood Clayton Concord Community Reuse Area Community Reuse Area Downtown BART Station Planning Area North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center West Downtown Planning Area Danville El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Corridor Hercules Central Hercules Waterfront District Lafayette Downtown Martinez Downtown Moraga Moraga Center Oakley Downtown Employment Area Potential Planning Area Orinda Downtown Pinole Appian Way Corridor Old Town Pittsburg Downtown Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Railroad Avenue eBART Station Pleasant Hill Buskirk Avenue Corridor Diablo Valley College Richmond Central Richmond South Richmond 23rd Street San Pablo Avenue Corridor San Pablo San Ramon City Center North Camino Ramon Walnut Creek West Downtown Contra Costa County Unincorporated Contra Costa Centre Downtown El Sobrante North Richmond Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Place Type Suburban Center Transit Town Center 2010 Total Jobs 19,910 20 3,910 8,370 2,280 50,570 170 0 6,910 5,940 3,300 12,750 6,550 3,480 4,390 900 1,280 10,330 6,180 32,020 6,820 4,180 1,200 3,760 580 730 300 5,200 2,750 6,600 2,460 1,410 16,710 1,560 150 6,500 19,490 3,510 2,950 34,290 6,250 6,600 320 1,910 8,000 42,110 11,290 10,720 50,600 7,410 14,740 3,470 970 1,850 400 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood City Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center Transit Town Center Suburban Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood
Mixed-Use Corridor
9,490
2,660
2,770
3,320
9/1/2011
28
Packet Pg. 366
Regional Center Transit Neighborhood City Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor
5,140 150 1,060 2,470 610 13,890 220 550 2,160 1,590 1,010 3,490 1,880 920 1,400 400 400 2,990 1,770 6,960 1,660 1,270 460 1,130 210 220 180 1,560 840 1,740 660 360 4,510 620 200 1,670 6,080 1,170 1,610 10,130 2,540 1,880 140 900 2,050 10,930 1,980 3,490 13,690 2,670 4,500 890 280 520 340
5,560 170 1,190 2,750 670 15,070 230 600 2,400 1,770 1,140 3,780 1,870 850 1,500 450 430 3,280 1,930 7,860 1,910 1,380 520 1,210 230 230 190 1,730 950 1,870 690 390 4,820 650 220 1,820 6,760 1,360 1,910 10,220 2,310 2,060 140 810 2,150 12,130 2,190 3,870 15,290 3,060 4,930 1,050 290 540 360
6,900 170 1,200 3,480 1,000 18,900 300 710 2,550 2,680 1,380 4,850 1,680 680 1,970 590 450 4,200 1,740 8,860 2,730 1,890 400 2,110 210 270 250 2,350 790 2,490 840 400 5,960 1,010 200 1,860 8,440 1,680 3,550 8,720 2,280 1,420 130 780 2,700 14,820 2,830 3,670 18,610 3,050 6,380 1,200 370 760 420
9.h
Marin County
Jursidiction or Area Name Belvedere Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur Mill Valley Novato Ross San Anselmo San Rafael Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Downtown Sausalito Tiburon Marin County Unincorporated Urbanized 101 Corridor San Quentin Place Type 2010 Total Jobs 460 6,840 2,430 8,250 6,330 22,600 510 4,160 42,000 5,800 8,830 7,460 2,960 10,860 2,630 3,100 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Transit Town Center City Center
Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood
Napa County
Jursidiction or Area Name American Canyon Highway 29 Corridor Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville Napa County Unincorporated Place Type Mixed-Use Corridor 2010 Total Jobs 2,480 1,040 2,300 28,740 4,390 1,440 22,390 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

610 280 570 7,270 970 400 4,830
630 290 600 7,730 1,040 430 5,170
920 340 790 10,950 1,570 610 7,130
San Francisco County

Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type San Francisco 19th Avenue Transit Town Center Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood Market & Octavia Urban Neighborhood Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of Brisba Transit Neighborhood Transbay Terminal Regional Center Treasure Island Transit Town Center Citywide 2010 Total Jobs 550,340 10,490 2,540 20,270 300,220 60,230 29,780 2,900 12,030 5,280 1,830 7,680 250 96,840 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

206,920 2,850 810 7,970 114,920 22,950 8,760 1,380 4,740 2,010 1,230 4,480 650 33,720
179,140 2,880 870 7,170 94,080 20,680 7,900 1,230 4,300 1,850 1,240 3,870 570 31,390
126,990 3,350 910 5,900 57,350 16,040 4,810 980 4,050 1,710 460 2,340 450 28,630
9/1/2011
29
Packet Pg. 367
130 1,760 650 2,270 1,900 5,820 150 1,210 11,040 1,730 2,590 2,520 930 3,320 820 870
140 1,880 700 2,460 2,080 6,370 160 1,320 12,030 1,940 2,930 2,820 1,030 3,620 1,010 940
150 2,000 760 2,590 2,180 6,640 160 1,380 12,310 1,770 3,060 2,860 1,090 3,740 1,560 1,520
9.h
San Mateo County

Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Atherton Belmont Brisbane San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San FranciscoSuburban Center Burlingame Burlingame El Camino Real Transit Town Center Colma Daly City Bayshore Transit Town Center Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor Citywide East Palo Alto Ravenswood Transit Town Center Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center Millbrae Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Corridor Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City Downtown City Center Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor San Bruno Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor San Carlos Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center San Mateo Downtown City Center El Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood South San Francisco Downtown Transit Town Center Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Woodside San Mateo County Unincorporated City County Association of Governments of San Mateo Count Mixed-Use Corridor 2010 Total Jobs 2,280 7,400 6,270 440 25,880 10,520 2,540 19,370 980 3,520 12,670 2,670 900 170 13,380 4,940 2,110 41,320 5,200 6,910 1,280 5,690 1,780 58,370 7,920 5,010 2,380 610 3,880 12,110 6,390 16,050 1,820 50,640 3,900 2,110 8,780 38,490 2,200 2,530 2,630 11,110 68,720 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

22,870
21,200
18,430
9/1/2011
30
Packet Pg. 368
710 2,520 1,780 190 7,440 2,940 510 5,840 430 1,110 3,430 880 290 130 3,900 1,260 660 11,090 1,520 2,140 450 1,550 500 17,820 3,100 1,490 830 360 1,220 3,960 2,170 4,990 420 16,320 1,420 580 2,060 11,410 880 1,180 570 3,810
780 2,470 1,910 190 8,060 3,090 490 5,930 440 1,030 3,730 920 310 100 4,360 1,370 740 12,080 1,650 2,000 410 1,680 560 18,250 2,740 1,380 760 320 1,120 3,720 1,990 4,890 450 17,210 1,310 540 2,210 12,030 900 1,330 640 3,950
780 2,560 2,160 110 8,610 3,330 430 5,810 450 980 3,410 920 300 110 4,730 1,410 740 12,370 1,780 1,990 390 1,680 580 21,190 2,640 1,170 700 300 1,010 3,850 1,700 5,170 470 18,580 1,520 450 1,280 13,490 930 310 660 4,970
9.h
Santa Clara County

Jursidiction or Area Name Campbell Central Redevelopment Area Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Cupertino Gilroy Downtown Los Altos El Camino Real Corridor Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Transit Area Hammond Transit Neighborhood McCandless Transit Neighborhood McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Tasman Employment Center Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Yosemite Employment Center Monte Sereno Morgan Hill Downtown Mountain View Whisman Station Downtown East Whisman El Camino Real Corridor Moffett Field/NASA Ames North Bayshore San Antonio Center Palo Alto California Avenue El Camino Real Corridor University Avenue/Downtown San Jose Berryessa Station Communications Hill Cottle Transit Village Downtown "Frame" East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Greater Downtown North San Jose West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Bascom TOD Corridor Bascom Urban Village Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Camden Urban Village Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Saratoga TOD Corridor Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Santa Clara Central Expressway Focus Area El Camino Real Focus Area Great America Parkway Focus Area Lawrence Station Focus Area Santa Clara Station Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Saratoga Place Type Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 2010 Total Jobs 23,950 5,850 1,110 20,990 17,730 2,030 13,290 2,710 2,960 18,900 38,820 3,760 710 920 1,440 720 570 7,560 530 7,000 530 16,370 1,370 45,690 710 5,810 4,220 3,950 410 6,420 2,530 75,380 2,770 10,230 12,830 363,730 5,910 3,440 2,110 25,780 10,970 27,820 78,840 8,260 1,220 1,830 910 5,120 2,600 3,150 4,860 3,700 4,550 3,010 4,350 96,340 2,550 4,060 2,030 3,200 3,430 560 9,850 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center
Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Suburban Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Regional Center Regional Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Mixed-Use Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood City Center Transit Neighborhood
6,300 1,640 280 6,660 4,200 640 4,870 1,200 1,140 5,250 10,610 1,790 160 400 340 310 130 1,740 170 1,730 200 4,090 480 14,180 310 2,170 1,670 1,460 270 2,080 850 26,630 1,260 5,990 4,080 116,760 1,530 1,010 610 10,390 2,910 21,250 37,840 3,860 480 710 350 1,500 1,170 1,240 1,380 1,490 1,500 800 2,000 30,080 1,030 1,150 1,300 1,260 1,040 310 3,580
6,700 1,820 310 6,630 4,490 700 4,810 1,080 1,220 5,570 11,360 1,920 160 460 370 290 130 1,870 160 1,890 220 4,450 530 15,280 340 2,470 1,920 1,330 260 2,270 890 27,820 1,390 5,190 4,530 112,610 1,630 1,050 610 9,420 3,250 23,630 31,970 3,250 450 640 330 1,480 1,120 1,400 1,400 1,360 1,410 840 1,800 31,370 930 1,080 1,150 1,300 960 320 3,920
6,590 1,380 200 6,360 8,420 660 4,810 1,020 1,400 5,370 10,720 2,370 40 150 270 270 120 1,050 150 1,340 220 7,160 530 14,630 310 2,670 1,670 1,240 360 230 880 19,360 680 4,990 4,840 109,040 1,060 1,060 820 9,560 3,930 13,650 24,660 3,390 390 590 300 1,420 1,000 1,890 1,650 1,290 1,280 1,030 1,680 29,820 950 1,020 880 520 830 180 3,890
9/1/2011
31
Packet Pg. 369
9.h
Santa Clara County (continued)

Jursidiction or Area Name Sunnyvale Downtown & Caltrain Station El Camino Real Corridor Lawrence Station Transit Village East Sunnyvale ITR Moffett Park Peery Park Reamwood Light Rail Station Tasman Station ITR Santa Clara County Unincorporated Place Type Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Employment Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor 2010 Total Jobs 63,860 3,310 9,910 3,800 2,510 9,610 5,180 960 1,290 3,510 172,750 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor
77,640
74,000
60,440
Solano County
Jursidiction or Area Name Benicia Downtown Northern Gateway Dixon Fairfield Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station North Texas Street Core West Texas Street Gateway Rio Vista Suisun City Downtown & Waterfront Vacaville Allison Area Downtown Vallejo Waterfront & Downtown Solano County Unincorporated Place Type Transit Neighborhood Employment Center 2010 Total Jobs 14,160 2,570 1,830 4,490 82,840 4,100 330 1,410 1,640 2,010 3,510 1,670 32,290 1,040 2,860 34,790 4,660 5,840 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Suburban Center Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor
Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Suburban Center
3,630 720 490 1,070 18,060 1,270 460 440 490 470 1,010 500 7,600 150 700 8,810 1,350 1,320
3,950 800 540 1,160 20,310 1,450 470 450 530 540 1,110 560 8,230 180 750 9,530 1,540 1,420
4,990 900 600 1,310 21,420 1,410 490 530 640 610 1,280 520 8,740 240 880 10,190 1,340 1,640
Sonoma County
Jursidiction or Area Name Cloverdale Downtown/SMART Transit Area Cotati Downtown and Cotati Depot Healdsburg Petaluma Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Rohnert Park Sonoma Mountain Village Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Sebastopol Road Corridor North Santa Rosa Station Sebastopol Nexus Area Sonoma Windsor Redevelopment Area Sonoma County Unincorporated 8th Street East Industrial Area Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Penngrove Urban Service Area The Springs Place Type Transit Town Center Transit Town Center 2010 Total Jobs 1,840 980 3,170 560 6,330 27,880 2,710 12,600 130 70,670 8,390 27,500 7,990 6,150 4,980 3,830 6,090 5,630 1,180 38,430 660 5,480 320 3,220 Core-Constrained
Focused
Outer Bay Area

Suburban Center Suburban Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Transit Town Center
Suburban Center Employment Center Suburban Center Rural Town Center Rural Mixed-Use Corridor
470 300 680 170 1,660 7,920 750 3,200 160 18,160 2,370 7,070 2,270 1,830 1,270 1,000 1,590 1,410 450 9,180 150 1,440 120 1,020
510 330 710 180 1,790 8,660 810 3,400 170 19,640 3,160 8,050 2,680 2,000 1,340 1,090 1,700 1,530 500 9,950 160 1,580 120 1,090
560 330 830 -190 2,070 10,300 970 3,770 160 22,740 3,390 9,700 3,070 2,280 1,470 1,130 1,880 1,920 530 11,530 220 1,030 170 1,260
9/1/2011
32
Packet Pg. 370
18,270 1,550 2,680 1,410 760 2,550 1,510 230 510 1,360
19,330 1,380 2,870 1,540 710 2,870 1,680 250 470 1,640
17,930 1,320 2,790 1,700 690 2,310 1,250 190 440 1,720
9.h
Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
KEY
Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth Opportunity Area (italics)
Alameda County
Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Alameda Naval Air Station Northern Waterfront Albany San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Berkeley Adeline Street Downtown San Pablo Avenue South Shattuck Telegraph Avenue University Avenue Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Area Town Center Transit Center Emeryville Mixed-Use Core Fremont Centerville City Center Irvington District Ardenwood Business Park Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing South Fremont/Warm Springs Hayward Downtown South Hayward BART South Hayward BART The Cannery Carlos Bee Quarry Mission Corridor Livermore Downtown Vasco Road TOD Newark Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Old Town Mixed Use Area Cedar Boulevard Transit Civic Center Re-Use Transit Oakland Coliseum BART Station Area Downtown & Jack London Square Eastmont Town Center Fruitvale & Dimond Areas MacArthur Transit Village Transit Oriented Development Corridors West Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton Hacienda San Leandro Bay Fair BART Transit Village Downtown Transit Oriented Development East 14th Street Union City Intermodal Station District Mission Boulevard Old Alvarado Alameda County Unincorporated Castro Valley BART East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Place Type Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Suburban Center City Center Transit Neighborhood City Center Transit Town Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Regional Center Urban Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Town Center
2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Suburban Center Transit Town Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor
30,120 1,090 390 7,400 1,600 46,030 620 2,570 1,440 310 990 1,560 14,910 790 3,750 620 5,690 3,530 71,000 5,570 6,870 4,390 0 8,540 650 20 45,370 2,540 170 1,660 410 30 910 29,130 920 330 12,970 140 580 0 200 153,790 3,440 10,630 5,960 12,840 8,030 60,970 9,030 3,800 25,250 1,270 30,720 630 3,930 4,490 20,430 1,030 0 290 48,520 1,400 6,740
6,800 5,250 1,210 960 820 8,370 310 4,900 1,150 130 510 710 10,900 470 2,150 2,580 5,660 5,370 19,090 1,880 6,580 2,380 0 2,640 510 4,140 15,480 3,390 1,300 2,670 830 610 2,410 9,120 2,860 670 5,800 2,800 440 980 400 58,720 2,510 10,650 2,460 7,080 4,140 22,640 6,300 630 6,300 2,820 7,120 820 3,930 1,510 4,550 880 180 180 8,270 570 2,060
5,810 4,420 1,010 960 700 8,370 260 3,980 960 110 430 580 13,810 1,030 2,150 2,580 5,230 5,010 17,380 1,600 5,540 2,020 0 2,230 430 3,460 15,480 3,070 1,170 2,420 750 550 2,200 11,210 2,860 2,500 5,800 2,430 380 850 340 57,720 2,250 9,490 2,250 6,350 3,710 20,470 5,720 630 7,380 3,120 7,120 730 3,490 1,370 4,550 750 150 160 11,540 500 1,820
5,720 4,420 1,010 960 700 8,370 260 3,980 960 110 430 580 15,780 1,330 2,710 3,350 5,240 5,010 15,500 1,030 2,490 2,020 0 2,180 430 3,000 15,480 3,070 1,170 2,420 750 550 2,200 12,550 3,700 3,250 5,800 2,430 380 850 340 46,210 2,130 9,490 1,100 4,930 3,370 14,620 5,720 630 8,340 4,050 7,120 730 3,490 1,370 4,160 650 150 160 12,440 160 1,790
9/1/2011
33
Packet Pg. 371
9.h
Contra Costa County

Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Antioch Hillcrest eBART Station Rivertown Waterfront Brentwood Clayton Concord Community Reuse Area Community Reuse Area Downtown BART Station Planning Area North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center West Downtown Planning Area Danville El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Corridor Hercules Central Hercules Waterfront District Lafayette Downtown Martinez Downtown Moraga Moraga Center Oakley Downtown Employment Area Potential Planning Area Orinda Downtown Pinole Appian Way Corridor Old Town Pittsburg Downtown Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Railroad Avenue eBART Station Pleasant Hill Buskirk Avenue Corridor Diablo Valley College Richmond Central Richmond South Richmond 23rd Street San Pablo Avenue Corridor San Pablo San Ramon City Center North Camino Ramon Walnut Creek West Downtown Contra Costa County Unincorporated Contra Costa Centre Downtown El Sobrante North Richmond Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Place Type Suburban Center Transit Town Center
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood City Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center Transit Town Center Suburban Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood
Mixed-Use Corridor
5,950
3,070
3,180
3,320
9/1/2011
34
Packet Pg. 372
Regional Center Transit Neighborhood City Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor
32,250 150 1,430 16,490 4,010 44,280 70 0 2,080 10 0 15,420 10,140 1,200 8,120 400 640 9,220 1,890 14,290 750 5,570 430 10,730 520 560 980 6,550 330 6,780 510 680 19,530 1,600 0 3,600 13,710 1,670 730 36,090 4,700 3,250 640 1,710 8,760 25,280 480 40 30,440 1,270 57,710 1,780 1,670 1,030 1,020
6,350 2,430 2,060 6,500 530 16,740 2,890 9,030 3,910 0 600 2,630 2,130 1,680 4,650 2,570 1,090 1,500 810 2,300 1,310 1,010 630 3,750 1,290 980 1,400 940 370 2,130 630 230 9,340 2,180 2,430 3,370 4,490 170 320 12,250 4,050 2,310 970 1,620 2,350 4,190 630 2,400 3,760 1,960 9,320 450 560 2,460 3,940
6,890 2,430 2,060 8,160 530 17,280 2,890 9,030 3,910 0 600 2,880 1,840 1,460 4,650 2,570 1,090 1,650 810 2,550 1,310 1,100 630 3,870 1,290 980 1,400 980 370 2,630 630 390 10,200 2,180 2,430 3,370 5,770 700 320 12,250 3,780 2,150 900 1,510 2,350 8,090 1,410 2,400 7,330 1,960 9,920 450 560 2,460 3,940
9,740 2,680 2,250 9,620 530 24,620 3,730 11,740 5,030 0 770 3,100 1,840 1,460 4,880 2,700 1,150 1,780 850 2,760 1,370 1,190 660 11,980 1,360 1,030 1,470 1,010 390 3,760 700 430 10,850 2,270 2,560 3,530 6,900 760 350 12,140 880 1,690 900 1,510 1,860 9,080 1,830 3,090 8,460 2,480 10,450 470 580 2,570 4,130
9.h
Marin County
Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Belvedere Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur Mill Valley Novato Ross San Anselmo San Rafael Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Downtown Sausalito Tiburon Marin County Unincorporated Urbanized 101 Corridor San Quentin Place Type
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Transit Town Center City Center
Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood
Napa County
Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name American Canyon Highway 29 Corridor Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville Napa County Unincorporated Place Type Mixed-Use Corridor
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
5,660 400 2,020 28,170 2,400 1,050 9,580
1,690 1,660 120 2,660 120 100 830
1,750 1,660 120 3,160 120 150 990
2,010 1,740 130 3,600 120 170 1,140
San Francisco County

Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type San Francisco 19th Avenue Transit Town Center Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood Market & Octavia Urban Neighborhood Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of Brisba Transit Neighborhood Transbay Terminal Regional Center Treasure Island Transit Town Center Citywide
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
345,810 4,790 1,190 10,470 89,850 31,650 11,130 3,200 29,360 110 1,510 190 590 161,770
110,640 3,080 2,350 15,000 32,810 8,720 7,650 3,280 6,220 2,900 8,370 5,500 9,240 5,520
90,470 2,490 1,870 12,030 27,770 7,230 6,150 2,630 5,120 2,300 6,630 4,410 7,320 4,520
76,430 2,490 1,500 9,790 23,950 6,110 5,010 2,140 4,290 1,840 5,320 3,580 5,880 4,530
9/1/2011
35
Packet Pg. 373
930 3,790 3,380 5,910 6,080 20,280 800 5,240 22,760 1,900 2,420 4,110 3,730 26,190 4,290 110
60 370 240 530 500 1,570 70 410 2,500 820 1,170 260 300 3,290 580 1,530
60 560 240 530 500 1,600 70 410 2,790 820 1,840 280 300 3,920 2,190 1,530
60 640 240 610 500 1,610 70 410 4,000 860 1,930 300 300 4,510 2,290 1,610
9.h
San Mateo County

Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Atherton Belmont Brisbane San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San FranciscoSuburban Center Burlingame Burlingame El Camino Real Transit Town Center Colma Daly City Bayshore Transit Town Center Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor Citywide East Palo Alto Ravenswood Transit Town Center Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center Millbrae Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Corridor Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City Downtown City Center Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor San Bruno Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor San Carlos Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center San Mateo Downtown City Center El Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood South San Francisco Downtown Transit Town Center Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Woodside San Mateo County Unincorporated City County Association of Governments of San Mateo Count Mixed-Use Corridor
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
38,460
15,470
12,420
10,560
9/1/2011
36
Packet Pg. 374
2,330 10,580 1,820 0 12,360 7,170 560 31,090 1,550 2,070 27,470 6,940 970 1,290 12,020 4,150 3,690 12,350 1,010 7,990 270 13,970 1,750 27,960 990 1,710 2,170 210 150 14,700 4,140 11,520 440 38,230 500 840 140 20,940 1,510 0 1,980 20,910
400 1,390 1,580 1,420 3,930 3,540 610 7,470 2,420 1,360 3,690 3,050 1,070 1,230 1,670 700 820 3,050 1,030 2,890 1,960 1,110 240 10,510 5,320 770 640 1,350 990 4,670 3,330 2,400 0 11,810 650 1,210 6,580 7,610 3,640 860 310 5,910
400 1,390 1,580 1,160 3,930 2,630 520 7,470 2,060 1,180 4,230 3,050 930 1,110 1,670 700 820 3,050 770 2,180 1,460 1,110 240 9,070 4,150 600 500 1,050 770 4,670 2,800 2,400 0 11,810 520 970 5,310 6,300 3,030 710 310 5,910
400 1,390 300 20 3,930 2,630 210 5,700 2,060 1,180 2,460 3,050 930 1,110 1,670 700 600 2,450 770 2,180 1,460 1,110 240 8,280 4,150 380 410 1,050 770 4,220 2,800 2,340 0 10,130 520 970 5,310 7,430 3,030 710 310 5,090
9.h
Santa Clara County

Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Campbell Central Redevelopment Area Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Cupertino Gilroy Downtown Los Altos El Camino Real Corridor Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Transit Area Hammond Transit Neighborhood McCandless Transit Neighborhood McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Tasman Employment Center Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Yosemite Employment Center Monte Sereno Morgan Hill Downtown Mountain View Whisman Station Downtown East Whisman El Camino Real Corridor Moffett Field/NASA Ames North Bayshore San Antonio Center Palo Alto California Avenue El Camino Real Corridor University Avenue/Downtown San Jose Berryessa Station Communications Hill Cottle Transit Village Downtown "Frame" East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Greater Downtown North San Jose West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Bascom TOD Corridor Bascom Urban Village Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Camden Urban Village Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Saratoga TOD Corridor Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Santa Clara Central Expressway Focus Area El Camino Real Focus Area Great America Parkway Focus Area Lawrence Station Focus Area Santa Clara Station Focus Area Tasman East Focus Area Saratoga Place Type Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center
Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Town Center Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Suburban Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Regional Center Regional Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Suburban Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Mixed-Use Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood City Center Transit Neighborhood
16,160 1,140 580 20,180 14,180 880 10,750 610 2,830 12,360 19,180 750 300 0 0 340 210 0 0 30 1,210 12,330 510 31,960 650 1,170 250 3,330 180 350 1,480 26,490 750 4,090 1,820 301,370 1,850 6,540 0 16,980 6,750 3,670 10,420 4,730 260 1,810 700 920 4,210 1,410 2,650 2,710 2,210 1,010 4,150 43,020 0 1,650 0 0 450 0 10,730
2,940 1,430 160 3,960 5,710 1,600 2,160 470 730 2,330 12,810 8,140 690 410 0 770 40 0 860 0 300 3,820 1,200 15,120 1,200 1,200 290 2,690 2,770 2,640 3,580 12,250 2,360 5,380 3,590 133,030 5,540 3,670 3,390 12,660 4,850 8,320 37,200 15,820 1,630 990 1,280 1,150 7,270 2,610 8,760 1,310 4,580 2,920 2,430 24,260 4,640 1,300 3,940 7,190 3,890 2,090 2,250
2,940 1,180 130 3,960 6,440 1,600 2,160 350 730 2,330 12,810 6,910 580 340 0 660 40 0 730 0 300 4,150 1,200 12,460 950 960 230 2,170 2,210 2,110 2,870 12,250 1,720 3,930 2,630 130,890 5,100 3,390 3,120 11,710 4,480 7,720 34,260 15,040 1,500 910 1,180 1,060 6,700 2,400 8,070 1,200 4,230 2,690 2,250 21,130 3,880 1,110 3,300 6,020 3,260 1,750 2,250
2,880 1,180 130 3,960 7,090 2,060 2,160 350 730 2,330 12,810 6,910 580 340 0 660 10 0 730 0 300 8,760 1,550 11,020 950 960 230 2,170 1,940 1,330 2,870 6,110 800 1,570 1,250 116,500 4,640 2,780 2,840 10,720 4,100 7,100 31,220 14,230 1,360 840 1,070 960 6,110 2,190 7,360 1,100 3,850 2,450 2,060 20,350 3,880 1,110 3,300 6,020 3,260 1,750 2,250
9/1/2011
37
Packet Pg. 375
9.h
Santa Clara County (continued)

Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Sunnyvale Downtown & Caltrain Station El Camino Real Corridor Lawrence Station Transit Village East Sunnyvale ITR Moffett Park Peery Park Reamwood Light Rail Station Tasman Station ITR Santa Clara County Unincorporated Place Type Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Employment Center Employment Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor
68,650
43,880
42,860
38,920
Solano County
Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Benicia Downtown Northern Gateway Dixon Fairfield Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station North Texas Street Core West Texas Street Gateway Rio Vista Suisun City Downtown & Waterfront Vacaville Allison Area Downtown Vallejo Waterfront & Downtown Solano County Unincorporated Place Type Transit Neighborhood Employment Center
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Suburban Center Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor
Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Town Center Suburban Center
10,690 530 0 5,860 34,480 600 90 1,600 1,020 3,450 8,920 1,090 31,090 550 220 40,560 980 6,710
1,190 1,010 120 1,390 11,960 380 6,510 1,880 2,590 1,420 1,360 1,190 4,940 140 750 5,490 870 990
1,190 1,010 120 1,680 12,520 910 6,510 1,880 2,590 1,900 1,430 1,190 5,320 570 750 5,640 870 1,180
1,440 1,100 140 1,940 14,420 950 6,820 1,970 2,720 2,330 1,500 1,240 9,950 590 780 5,780 910 1,340
Sonoma County
Core-Constrained Jursidiction or Area Name Cloverdale Downtown/SMART Transit Area Cotati Downtown and Cotati Depot Healdsburg Petaluma Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Rohnert Park Sonoma Mountain Village Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Sebastopol Road Corridor North Santa Rosa Station Sebastopol Nexus Area Sonoma Windsor Redevelopment Area Sonoma County Unincorporated 8th Street East Industrial Area Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Penngrove Urban Service Area The Springs Place Type Transit Town Center Transit Town Center
Focused
2010-2040 HH Growth
Outer Bay Area

2010-2040 HH Growth
Suburban Center Suburban Center City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor Suburban Center Transit Town Center
Suburban Center Employment Center Suburban Center Rural Town Center Rural Mixed-Use Corridor
3,180 1,040 2,980 830 4,380 21,740 750 15,810 200 63,590 2,080 6,910 2,750 3,940 3,280 1,150 4,960 8,970 2,040 56,950 80 2,850 630 6,580
960 810 460 450 860 2,800 1,610 2,870 2,140 15,170 1,220 1,590 3,250 3,350 480 200 520 1,330 1,290 7,640 20 1,110 670 1,680
1,040 900 470 450 980 2,800 1,610 3,210 2,140 18,150 6,860 4,280 3,250 3,350 520 500 520 1,360 1,290 8,330 20 1,250 670 1,680
1,090 940 540 470 1,080 2,800 1,760 3,490 2,350 22,620 7,540 4,670 3,560 3,660 600 520 520 3,930 1,350 8,940 20 1,380 730 1,810
9/1/2011
38
Packet Pg. 376
53,380 1,730 10,350 1,560 0 20 110 0 850 28,080
16,780 1,840 5,310 2,900 3,340 0 10 0 1,660 7,540
16,780 1,510 4,400 2,380 2,730 0 10 0 1,350 10,480
16,780 1,510 4,400 2,380 2,730 0 10 0 1,350 13,090
9.i
City of Palo Alto
(ID # 1985)
Attachment: Attachment I: September 12, 2011 City Council Staff Report (w/o Attachments) (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/12/2011 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Response to SCS (SB375) Alternatives Title: Council Direction in Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) Alternative Scenarios and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessement (RHNA) Process From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding the Citys next steps to respond to the SB375 Alternative Scenarios, including authorizing the City Manager to retain consultant assistance to coordinate review of demographic and economic projections. Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps,
September 12, 2011 (ID # 1985) Page 1 of 8
Packet Pg. 377
9.i
Staff met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt twice in August and has developed an approach that includes: 1) recommending a third party peer review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2) reaching out to State legislators to pursue this issue at the State and regional level, 3) identifying and coordinating with cities who share Palo Altos concerns; 4) directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5) extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Staff has also requested that Council authorize the City Manager to engage consultant assistance to support coordination, particularly relative to the demographic and economic analysis. Background On March 14, 2011, staff updated the City Council regarding the status of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). On May 4, 2011, staff updated the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the SCS and the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Bay Area was intended to accommodate an additional 903,000 housing units and 1.2 million jobs from 2010 to 2035. The goal of the IVS, formulated by staff of ABAG and MTC, was to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS would anticipate a total of 12,000 new households and almost 5,000 new jobs being created in Palo Alto over that time period. On May 27, 2011, staff sent a letter to the regional agencies, following review and input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, questioning the approach and outlining many concerns of the City of Palo Alto, including the need to address job growth near transit to achieve GHG emission reductions, as well as highly unrealistic housing assumptions, the lack of consideration of numerous constraints to growth, and the lack of supportive infrastructure, particularly including transit, to accommodate such extensive levels of development. On July 18, 2011, staff briefed the Council regarding the letter to the agencies and next steps, including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC. Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Councils August recess and to then present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26th. (Attachment D). A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in early 2012 and the Sustainable
Packet Pg. 378
including the upcoming release of alternative scenarios by ABAG and MTC. Council asked staff to work with some Councilmembers over the Councils August recess and present an approach to Council for proceeding to respond to this planning effort. The three alternative land use scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011. A preferred alternative is expected to be drafted and released in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013.
9.i
The related Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times, and the Committees progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. More background information is provided in the July 18, 2011 Council staff report (Attachment G). Attachment H provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning (SB 375) process. Discussion Alternative Land Use Scenarios The Alternative Land Use Scenarios were released by ABAG and MTC on August 26, 2011, and identify three (3) primary options: Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Planned Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) in the Inner Bay Area along the regions core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. A summary of the scenarios and potential housing and employment projections are included in the August 26th memo from the agencies (Attachment E) and online at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. The objective of each of these scenarios is to accommodate population growth of approximately 770,000 persons and almost 1 million new jobs in the Bay Area by the year 2040. (Note that this 30-year planning horizon is considerably longer than ABAGs normal 5-7 year planning period.) This is a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenarios estimated increases of 900,000 persons and 1.2 million jobs. The tables at the back of the memo outline estimated increases for each jurisdiction in the Bay Area, including breaking down how much of the total growth would be located in either PDAs (California Avenue area in Palo Alto) or GOAs (El Camino Real corridor and/or Downtown in Palo Alto). There is no indication of where the agencies expect the remainder of the growth to be located. In summary, the total growth in housing and employment for the City from 2010-2040 breaks down as follows: Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area Households
September 12, 2011 (ID # 1985)
12,250
12,250
6,110
Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 379
Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013.
9.i
Jobs
26,630
27,820
19,360
The Core Concentration and Focused Growth scenarios vary in that more of the projected growth would occur in the PDAs and GOAs in the Core Concentration scenario. Staff will need to obtain and analyze data based on traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to determine where the remaining development would potentially be located. Statewide and Regional Projections Staff met with Councilmembers Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt twice in August, and one of the primary topics of discussion was the underlying assumptions for population and employment estimates not only for Palo Alto but, more significantly, for the region and the State as a whole. Councilmember Schmid provided two memos (Attachment B) that outline some of the key discrepancies between the projections and the reality represented by the 2010 Census and past trends. In particular, the growth of 995,000 jobs in the next 30 years represents an average of 33,000 new jobs per year, whereas the average has been 10,000 jobs annually the past two decades. While higher job growth occurred in the 60s and 70s in the Bay Area, the estimate appears to ignore the basic nature of the technology industry, which is the driver of the Bay Area economic engine, where enhanced value is not equivalent to increased jobs. The projected housing growth in the region amounts to an average of 27,000 new units per year for 30 years and is derived from a 1.3 job to household ratio applied to the jobs projection. Housing growth from 1990-2010, however, was about 20,000 units per year, and considerably less in recent years. The OneBayArea effort assumes that housing production will make up for the loss of production in those years and will more closely approximate production in the 70s and 80s, when much greenfield development occurred, which would now be contrary to the goals of SB375. Similarly, these projections run counter to recent Census trends and population studies for the State. Those analyses (see Councilmember Schmids e-mails) indicate that natural population increase in the state is minimal, with a gradually aging population and a long-term decline in fertility rates. The other component of population increase is migration, the increase of which appears to have declined substantially in the past decade. Since these statewide and regional projections underlie the entire distribution of housing and population for the Sustainable Communities Strategy planning, the Councilmembers and staff expressed a strong desire to request that a peer review, perhaps by University of California or Stanford demographic and econometric analysts, be conducted to verify or dispute the estimates. Such a review, however, should be accomplished at the initiation of State and regional officials, however, rather than by local agencies. Coordination with State Legislators
Packet Pg. 380
9.i
Coordination with Other Cities Staff and the Councilmember subgroup also discussed contacting other cities that may have similar concerns as Palo Altos, to encourage further support with State legislators and a stronger voice at ABAG and MTC as the alternatives move forward. Staff will reach out to others as regional and countywide meetings proceed in the coming week and may have more information to report at the Council meeting. Staff believes that Mountain View, Campbell, Milpitas, and even San Jose have voiced some of the same objections to the growth estimates as Palo Alto. Preliminary Action Plan Staff, after meeting twice with the Councilmember subgroup, has developed an approach to addressing the Sustainable Community Strategy Alternative Scenarios that includes: 1) recommending an independent third party review of the State and regional population and employment projections; 2) reaching out to State legislators to pursue these issues at the State and regional level; 3) identifying and coordinating with cities who share Palo Altos concerns; 4) directing staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, and the regional agencies; and 5) extending outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios. Attachment A provides a draft of an initial summary of Sustainable Communities Strategy issues and concerns, to be distributed to legislators, other cities, and the broader community. Some of the highlighted concerns would include: Employment projections appear to be substantially overstated and do not recognize the evolving economic model in the Bay Area, particularly in Silicon Valley; Housing projections are driven by unrealistic employment projections and are substantially higher than recent trends in natural increase and migration, as reflected in the 2010 Census; The basic goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not well served by overstating projections, which then require even more extensive resources and more dramatic land use and transportation changes than would be required with more realistic estimates; and
Page 5 of 8
September 12, 2011 (ID # 1985)
Packet Pg. 381
The Councilmember subgroup also expressed interest in coordinating efforts through the areas State delegation, including Assembly members Rich Gordon and Jerry Hill, and Senator Joe Simitian. Assemblyman Gordon is meeting with the City Council on September 12th to discuss issues of common concern, and staff has prepared Attachment A to distribute ahead of the meeting to outline some of the key issues Council may want to convey. The Councilmember subgroup suggested requesting that these legislators carry this issue back to the State and regional agencies to authorize an independent review of the assumptions for the projections, as well as other issues of concern.
9.i
The summary is a generic discussion of a few key issues for conversation with legislators, other cities, or the public. It is hoped that a more detailed demographic and econometric analysis would occur at a regional or statewide level. Staff expects to also quickly develop a summary for issues specific to Palo Alto, such as the limited availability and cost of land, a variety of constraints to housing expansion, and the citys growth rate relative to others in the county and region. Community Outreach Staff suggests that the Council direct staff to provide this information to the Planning and Transportation Commission, neighborhood and other community groups, and other cities. Further community outreach should also be requested of the regional agencies, to assure that all affected communities may have a common understanding of the implications of the analysis and proposed Alternative Scenarios. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times through July and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The current methodology under review would require each city and county to provide for 1/3 of the 2035 total in each of the three 8-year planning periods during that timeframe. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1. How to split the total allocations between PDAs/Growth Opportunity Areas and other areas within cities or counties. The methodology generally assumes that 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then the remaining 30% is to be allocated based on overall housing growth projections for each city or county; and 2. Whether to provide for equity factors that would affect the remaining 30% of the RHNA. Factors that are under consideration include: a citys performance meeting prior RHNA affordable housing goals, transit accessibility, and/or some other quality of life factors (though school performance seems to be off the table). The latest memo from ABAG (Attachment C) on the subject provides for each community to accommodate a minimum housing floor (e.g., 40% of housing projections) as a proxy for the equity issues. The 40% threshold is not a problem for Palo Alto but generally affects smaller communities like Woodside or Los Altos Hills. The Committees next meeting is on September 8th (after the distribution of this report) so Councilmember Scharff can report the latest at the Council meeting. Due to the desire to tie the RHNA more closely to the SCS, the timeframe for the Committees work has been extended to October or November.
Packet Pg. 382
Alternatives to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions should be provided to allow cities to propose ways they may otherwise accomplish similar reductions that would exceed those proposed by the Alternative Land Use Scenarios; and
9.i
Resource Impacts Review of the Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Housing Needs Assessment process involves considerable time of the Director of Planning and Community (estimated 2040 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. As part of this report, staff has suggested retaining a consultant to review and coordinate the effort to address the demographic and economic assumptions of the Alternative Land Use Scenarios. Staff estimates that the cost of such assistance would not exceed $25,000 and could be absorbed within the current budget of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Next Steps 1. Set up meetings with State legislators and interested cities to outline the need for independent analysis of the projections and econometrics underlying the Alternative Land Use Scenarios and to inform them of other critical issues. 2. Retain consultant assistance to outline parameters for studying the projections and econometrics of the regional agencies and to coordinate work with the other cities. 3. Refer the issue to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and to provide outreach to the community. Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council.
Attachments: Attachment A: SB375 Issues Summary_09.12.11 Attachment B1: Schmid_Projections Attachment B2: Schmid_Subregional (PDF) (PDF) (PDF) (DOC)
Attachment C: July 25, 2011 Minimum Housing Floor Analysis Memo from ABAG
Attachment D: August 26, 2011 OneBayArea Report: "Alternative Land Use Scenarios" (PDF) Attachment E: May 27, 2011 City Staff Response to ABAG re: Initial Vision Scenario Attachment F: August 15, 2011 ABAG Response to City of Palo Alto Letter (PDF) (PDF)
Attachment G: July 18, 2011 Council Staff Report re: Response to Initial Vision Scenario w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment H: SB375 Glossary (PDF)
Prepared By:
Curtis Williams, Director
September 12, 2011 (ID # 1985)
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 383
9.i
City Manager Approval:
James Keene, City Manager
September 12, 2011 (ID # 1985)
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 384
Department Head:
Curtis Williams, Director
9.j
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SB375) GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS AB 32 Assembly Bill 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; state legislation requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or lower by the year 2020. ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments: A voluntary association of counties and cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG provides demographic, financial, administrative, training and conference services to local governments and businesses. A member sits on MTC. ABAG Regional Planning Committee This committee studies and submits matters to the ABAG Executive Board regarding: Plan Bay Area; environmental management, housing, and infrastructure planning; special plans and reports from planning task forces or other regional agencies; comprehensive planning policies and procedures; and such other matters as may be assigned by the Executive Board. Members include a minimum of 18 elected officials, including at least one supervisor from each member county and a city representative from each county, as well as not less than 10 citizens representing business, minority, economic development, recreation/open space, environment, public interest, housing, special districts and labor interests. BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Also known as the Air District, since the acronym seems to take longer to say than the full name): Regulates industry and employers to keep air pollution in check and sponsors programs to clean the air. The Air District also works with MTC, ABAG and BCDC on issues that affect transportation, land use and air quality. Bay Area Partnership Often referred to simply as The Partnership, this is a confederation of the top staff of various transportation agencies in the region, including MTC, public transit operators, county congestion management agencies (CMAs), city and county public works departments, ports, Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as well as environmental protection agencies. The Partnership works by consensus to improve the overall efficiency and operation of the Bay Areas transportation network, including developing strategies for financing transportation improvements. Bay Plan The San Francisco Bay Plan guides policies for future uses of the Bay and its shoreline. The first San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968, and it is periodically updated. The two main objectives are: 1) Protect the Bay as a great natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations, and 2) Develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. BCDC will be releasing a revised recommendation on amendments to the Bay Plan to
Attachment: Attachment J: SB375 Glossary (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)
Packet Pg. 385
9.j
SustainableCommunities:Glossary
Page2
prepare for inevitable sea-level rise and storm surges affecting areas on and near the Bay shoreline due to climate change. BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: A state-established agency with jurisdiction over dredging and filling of San Francisco Bay and limited jurisdiction over development within 100 feet of the Bay. Call for Projects Regional agencies use this procedure to solicit competing bids from counties, cities, transit agencies, community-based organizations and other stakeholders for projects to be funded as part of long-range plans, such as Transportation 2035 or Plan Bay Area. Caltrans California Department of Transportation: The state agency that maintains and operates Californias highway system. Capital Funds Moneys to cover one-time costs for construction of new projects such as roads, bridges, bicycle/pedestrian paths, transit lines and transit facilities to expand the capacity of the transportation system, or to cover the purchase of buses and rail cars. CEQA California Environmental Quality Act: This statute requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA Guidelines The Air Districts CEQA Guidelines are developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. The primary purpose is to provide a means to identify proposed local plans and development projects that may have a significant adverse effect on air quality and public health. The Air Districts CEQA Guidelines, updated in June 2010, recommend air quality significance thresholds, analytical methodologies and mitigation measures for local agencies to use when preparing air quality impact analyses under CEQA. The updated CEQA Guidelines seek to better protect the health and well-being of Bay Area residents by addressing new health protective air quality standards, exposure to toxic air contaminants, and adverse effects from global climate change. Clean Air Plan At a public hearing on September 15, 2010, the Air District Board of Directors adopted the final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP), and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on the CAP. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, the 2010
Packet Pg. 386
9.j
Page3
CAP provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. Climate Change Climate change refers to changes in the Earths weather patterns, including the rise in the Earths average temperature due to an increase in heat-trapping or greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made problem caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal. Transportation accounts for about 40 percent of the Bay Areas GHG emissions. Climate change is expected to significantly affect the Bay Areas public health, air quality and transportation infrastructure through sea level rise and extreme weather. CMAs Congestion Management Agencies: Countywide agencies responsible for preparing and implementing a countys Congestion Management Program. CMAs came into existence as a result of state legislation and voter approval of Proposition 111 in 1990. Subsequent legislation made them optional. Most Bay Area counties still have them. Many CMAs double as a countys sales tax authority. CO2 Carbon dioxide: A gas that is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle or through human activities. The largest source of CO2 globally is the combustion of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and gas) in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources. In the Bay Area, the single largest source of CO2 emissions, some 41 percent, comes from transportation sources. Committed Revenues Funds that are directed to a specific entity or for a specific purpose as mandated by statute or by the administering agency. Conformity A process in which transportation plans and spending programs are reviewed to ensure they are consistent with federal clean air requirements; transportation projects collectively must not worsen air quality. Congestion Pricing A policy designed to allocate roadway space more efficiently by charging drivers a fee that varies with the level of traffic on a congested roadway. (See also Value Pricing.) CTC California Transportation Commission: A state-level commission, consisting of nine members appointed by the governor, which establishes priorities and allocates funds for highway, passenger rail and transit investments throughout California. The CTC adopts the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, and implements state transportation policy. Detailed Scenarios Following development of the Initial Vision Scenario, detailed scenarios that account for
Packet Pg. 387
9.j
Page4
available revenues will be developed, analyzed and discussed as part of the Plan Bay Area process. (See also Initial Vision Scenario and Preferred Scenario.) EIR Environmental Impact Report: State law requires that an EIR shall be prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. A draft EIR shall be included as part of the review and approval process whenever a public hearing is held on the project. Following adoption of a final EIR by the lead agency makes a decision whether to proceed with the project. Environmental Justice This term stems from a Presidential Executive Order to promote equity for disadvantaged communities and promote the inclusion of racial and ethnic populations and low-income communities in decision-making. Local and regional transportation agencies must ensure that services and benefits, as well as burdens, are fairly distributed to avoid discrimination. Equity Analysis Consistent with federal requirements for environmental justice, MTC and ABAG will conduct an equity analysis covering Plan Bay Area to determine how the benefits and burdens of the plans investment strategy affect minority and low-income communities. Equity Working Group This Equity Working Group was set up to advise MTC and ABAG staff in developing of an equity analysis related to low income and minority communities of concern for Plan Bay Area. It consists of representatives from MTCs Policy Advisory Council (PAC) and the Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG) The group is identifying some of the key issues and challenges for the region to grow equitably to help meet the sustainability goals as Plan Bay Area is developed. (See also Equity Analysis.) Executive Working Group The Executive Working Group including city managers, congestion management agency directors, regional agency executives, transit officials and others was formed to provide a forum for input on technical and policy issues surrounding development of Plan Bay Area. The Executive Working Group met on June 7, 2010. Additional meeting times/locations as well as meeting materials will be posted on the OneBayArea website. FHWA Federal Highway Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for administering the federal highway aid program to individual states, and helping to plan, develop and coordinate construction of federally funded highway projects. FHWA also governs the safety of hazardous cargo on the nations highways. Financial Constraint A federal requirement that long-range transportation plans include only projects that have a reasonable expectation of being funded, based upon anticipated revenues. In other words, longrange transportation plans cannot be pie-in-the-sky wish lists of projects. They must reflect
Packet Pg. 388
9.j
Page5
realistic assumptions about revenues that will likely be available during the 25 years covered in the plan. Flexible Funding Unlike funding that flows only to highways or only to transit by a rigid formula, this is money that can be invested in a range of transportation projects. Examples of flexible funding categories include the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. FOCUS A regional planning initiative spearheaded by ABAG in cooperation with MTC, and in coordination with the Air District and BCDC. FOCUS seeks to protect open space and natural resources while encouraging infill development in existing communities (See also PCA and PDA). FPI Freeway Performance Initiative: MTCs effort to improve the operations, safety and management of the Bay Areas freeway network via deploying system management strategies, completing the HOV lane system, addressing regional freight issues and closing key freeway infrastructure gaps. FTA Federal Transit Administration: U.S. Department of Transportation agency that provides financial and planning assistance to help plan, build and operate rail, bus and paratransit systems. The agency also assists in the development of local and regional traffic reduction programs. Global Warming See Climate Change. Greenhouse Gases Any of the gases including carbon dioxide, methane and ozone whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, in which the atmosphere allows incoming sunlight to pass through but absorbs heat radiated back from the earths surface. Greenhouse gases act like a heat-trapping blanket in the atmosphere, causing climate change. HOV Lane High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lane: The technical term for a carpool lane, commuter lane or diamond lane. Initial Vision Scenario As part of Plan Bay Area, the Initial Vision Scenario articulates the Bay Areas vision of future land uses and assesses its performance relative to statutory greenhouse gas and housing targets as well as other voluntary performance targets. The Initial Vision Scenario serves as a starting point for the development, analysis and discussion of detailed scenario alternatives that will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. Another reason the Initial Vision Scenario is just a starting point is because it is unconstrained by available revenues. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario.)
Packet Pg. 389
9.j
Page6
JPC Joint Policy Committee: This consortium coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, the Air District, BCDC and MTC. Land Use Model Used by researchers and planners to identify expected population, jobs and housing growth and to understand the interactions between land use, transportation, and the economy. Models help planners analyze and test various spatial distributions of jobs, population and land uses and describe to policy-makers and the public about the relationship between land use and transportation. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization: A federally required planning body responsible for the transportation planning and project selection in its region; the governor designates an MPO in every urbanized area with a population of over 50,000. MTC is the Bay Areas MPO. MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. One Bay Area One Bay Area is a new initiative meant to coordinate efforts of the Bay Areas regional government agencies the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in partnership with the regions 101 towns and cities to create a more sustainable future. One major effort now underway is the development of Plan Bay Area, the regions long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation and housing. Paratransit Door-to-door bus, van and taxi services used to transport elderly and disabled riders. Paratransit is sometimes referred to as dial-a-ride service, since trips are made according to demand instead of along a fixed route or according to a fixed schedule. PM Particulate Matter: A mixture of tiny solid and liquid particles such as those from dust, dirt, soot or smoke that are found in the air. When inhaled, these particles can settle deep in the lungs and cause serious health problems. PCA Priority Conservation Area: Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists a broad consensus for long-term protection and for which public funds may be invested to promote their protection. These areas must be identified through the FOCUS program. PDA Priority Development Area: Locations within existing communities that present infill
Packet Pg. 390
9.j
Page7
development opportunities, and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and services. Local jurisdictions identified these locations voluntarily through the FOCUS program. Performance Measures Indicators of how well the transportation system or specific transportation projects will improve transportation conditions. Place Types A place type groups neighborhoods or centers with similar sustainability characteristics and physical and social qualities, such as the scale of housing buildings, frequency and type of transit, quality of the streets, concentration of jobs, and range of services. For Plan Bay Area, Place Types are a tool of local-regional exchange to identify places and policies for sustainable development. Bay Area jurisdictions can select a place type to indicate their desired level of growth in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay Area Plan Bay Area is one of our regions most comprehensive planning efforts to date. It is a joint effort led by ABAG and MTC in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC. All four agencies are collaborating at an unprecedented level to produce a more integrated land use-transportation plan. Planning Directors Forums These are regularly scheduled meetings of local planning directors and staff in each county. Local and countywide issues of concern are discussed, and the forums act as a platform for information sharing. Other participants include congestion management agencies (CMAs) and staff from local community and economic development and public works departments. Potential New Revenues Funds that may be available for transportation investment in the future if proposed new revenue sources are approved. These potential revenues are not included in the financially constrained portion of long-term transportation plans and Plan Bay Area. Preferred Scenario Consideration of the detailed scenario alternatives will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Initial Vision Scenario.) Program (1) verb, to assign funds to a project that has been approved by MTC, the state or another agency, and (2) noun, a system of funding for implementing transportation projects or policies. Resolution 3434 MTC adopted Resolution 3434 in December 2001 to establish clear priorities for the investment of transit expansion funds over the next decade. It focused on identifying high-priority rail and express/rapid bus improvements to serve the Bay Areas most congested corridors.
Packet Pg. 391
9.j
Page8
RAWG Regional Advisory Working Group: An advisory group set up to advise staff of ABAG, MTC, BAAQMD and BCDC on development of Plan Bay Area. Its membership includes staff representatives of local jurisdictions (CMAs, planning directors, transit operators, public works agencies) as well as representatives from the business, housing, environmental and social-justice communities. RHNA Regional Housing Need Assessment: The Regional Housing Need Assessment process is a state mandate regarding planning for housing in California. ABAG is responsible for allocating this state-determined regional housing need among all of the Bay Areas nine counties and 101 cities. Factors used by ABAG in its allocation process include projected household growth, existing employment and projected employment growth, and projected household and employment growth near transit. RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program: A listing of highway, local road, transit and bicycle projects that the region hopes to fund; compiled by MTC every two years from priority lists submitted by local jurisdictions. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) must either approve or reject the RTIP in its entirety. Once the CTC approves an RTIP, it is combined with those from other regions to comprise 75 percent of the funds in the State Transportation Improvement Program or STIP. (Also see STIP.) RTP Regional Transportation Plan: A master plan to guide the regions transportation investments for a 25-year period. Updated every three years, it is based on projections of growth in population and jobs and the ensuing travel demand. Required by state and federal law, it includes programs to better maintain, operate and expand transportation. The Bay Areas most recent update of its long-range transportation plan, is known as Transportation 2035. The next RTP will be included as part of Plan Bay Area. Sales Tax Authority An agency that administers a voter-approved county transportation sales tax program; in most Bay Area counties, the congestion management agency (CMA) also serves as the sales tax authority. SB 375 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg): SB 375 became law in 2008. It includes two main statutory requirements and a host of voluntary measures. It is designed to complement AB 32, which requires the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first requirement is to reduce per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars and light duty trucks, primarily by building more compact communities with better access to mass transit and other amenities, so people have more transportation choices and do not have to drive as much. The second requirement is to house 100 percent of the regions projected 25-year population growth, regardless of income level.
Packet Pg. 392
9.j
Page9
Smart Growth A set of policies and programs designed to protect, preserve and economically stimulate established communities, while protecting valuable natural and cultural resources and limiting sprawl. STIP State Transportation Improvement Program: What the California Transportation Commission (CTC) ends up with after combining various RTIPs, as well as a list of specific projects proposed by Caltrans. Covering a five-year span and updated every two years, the STIP determines when and if transportation projects will be funded by the state. Projects included in the STIP must be consistent with the long-range transportation plan. Sustainability Sustainability means doing things and using resources in ways that protect them so they will be available for current and future generations. The Three E goals of sustainability are Economy, Environment and Equity. Sustainability is all about helping support a prosperous and globally competitive economy, providing for a healthy and safe environment, and producing equitable opportunities for all Bay Area residents. Sustainable Communities Strategy The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is an integrated land use and transportation plan that all metropolitan regions in California must complete under Senate Bill 375. In the San Francisco Bay Area this integration includes ABAGs Projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and MTCs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Title VI Refers to Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and requires that transportation planning and programming be nondiscriminatory on the basis of race, color and national origin. Integral to Title VI is the concept of environmental justice. TLC Transportation for Livable Communities: Program created by MTC in 1998 to fund small-scale, community- and transit-oriented projects that improve neighborhood vitality. TOD Transit-Oriented Development: A type of development that links land use and transit facilities to support the transit system and help reduce sprawl, traffic congestion and air pollution. It includes housing, along with complementary public uses (jobs, retail and services), located at a strategic point along a regional transit system, such as a rail hub. TOD Policy To promote cost-effective transit, ease regional housing shortages, create vibrant communities and preserve open space, MTC adopted a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy in 2005 that applies to transit extension projects in the Bay Area. Research shows that residents living within half a mile of transit are much more likely to use it, and that large job centers within a quarter mile of transit draw more workers on transit.
Packet Pg. 393
9.j
Page10
Travel Model Used by researchers and planners for simulating current travel conditions and for forecasting future travel patterns and conditions. Models help planners and policy-makers analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative transportation investments in terms of performance, such as mobility, accessibility, environmental and equity impacts. Value Pricing The concept of assessing higher prices for using certain transportation facilities during the most congested times of the day, in the same way that airlines offer off-peak discounts and hotel rooms cost more during prime tourist seasons. Also known as congestion pricing and peakperiod pricing, examples of this concept include higher bridge tolls during peak periods or charging single-occupant vehicles that want to use carpool lanes. (See also Congestion Pricing.) VMT One vehicle (whether a car carrying one passenger or a bus carrying 30 people) traveling one mile constitutes a vehicle mile. VMT is one measure of the use of Bay Area freeways and roads.
Packet Pg. 394

12-5-11 Response To SB375 Alternatives

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

12-5-11 Response To SB375 Alternatives

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9

City of Palo Alto

City Council Staff Report

Prepared By: Department Head: City Manager Approval:

City of Palo Alto

Packet Pg. 323

Attachment: Attachment A: SB375 Issues Summary (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)

California Demographic Forecasts: Why are the numbers overestimated?

Prepared by City of Palo Alto

Actual California Population growth

14.8 12.8 11.6 10.2

Packet Pg. 326

Recent State forecasts have been consistently over-estimated

Packet Pg. 327

Attachment: Attachment B: Demographic Forecasting in California (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)

Critical Components of Change and the Future

Packet Pg. 328

Attachment: Attachment B: Demographic Forecasting in California (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)

Packet Pg. 329

Attachment: Attachment B: Demographic Forecasting in California (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)

Sources of Demographic projections about California

Greg Schmid October 2011

Packet Pg. 330

Attachment: Attachment B: Demographic Forecasting in California (2210 : Response to SB375 Alternatives)

over last 20 years: +10,000 jobs per annum

Department of Finance Historical Trends

trends: + g existing Continuin

October 17, 2011 Last Update: 10/15/2011

2011 BEST CITIES RANKING

SILICON VALLEY CAN NO LONGER SAVE CALIFORNIA -- OR THE U.S.

Subscribe to Articles feed

Enter your email address Go!

NewGeography.com is a joint venture of Joel Kotkin and Praxis Strategy Group

View all subjects

Packet Pg. 332

RECENT BLOG POSTS

FREE Divorce Wksht & Cklist

Packet Pg. 333

Google Offers in San Fran

Login or register to post

How Did Steve Jobs Do It?

Email this Story Middle Class

ShareThis California Economics Silicon Valley

Subjects: Urban Issues

Genius is a choice, not a gift.

RECENT POPULAR CONTENT

Packet Pg. 334

Packet Pg. 335

The White City

Log in Create new account

Request new password

2011 New Geography

Stay up to date: RSS FEED

Website design and development by:

Packet Pg. 336

What's New | Release Calendar | Site Map

Databases & Tools

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Local Area Unemployment Statistics

CALCULATORS Inflation Location Quotient Injury And Illness

HELP Help & Tutorials FAQs Glossary About BLS Contact Us

Packet Pg. 337

Packet Pg. 338