The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 1741City of Palo Alto (ID # 1741) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/11/2011 July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 1741) Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine} Summary Title: Response to Initial Vision Scenario Title: Update of SB 375/Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Direction on City’s Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies, and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide input regarding the Initial Vision Scenario and revisions to staff’s letter response to the regional agencies. 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 SCS for the Bay Area is 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, is 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 over that time period. Staff has developed a letter outlining the City’s serious concerns about the IVS, 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. The Council will provide input to the letter to provide the City’s official comments on the IVS. The regional agencies expect to prepare 3-5 alternative scenarios for analysis in the next month, and then to release those for review by cities and July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 1741) counties in the region. A preferred alternative is expected for release in early 2012 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area region is to be finalized by early 2013. 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). The staff report providing that information is included as Attachment H to this staff report. At the same meeting, staff provided an overview of the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the SCS, which had been released on the prior Friday (March 11). The document was prepared jointly by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The supplemental information for the IVS was outlined in a memo to Council on the day of the meeting and is included as Attachment G to this staff report. The Council’s immediate reaction to the Initial Vision Scenario was that it clearly does not recognize the constraints on Palo Alto in providing for new housing, and was equally inadequate at representing the accurate potential for employment growth. Council indicated that the City’s initial reaction should be at a “big picture” level, and that tweaking the details of the plan would not be a meaningful change. On April 14th, the regional agencies and several environmental groups sponsored a forum to discuss the IVS, at which approximately a dozen (of about 100 total) attendees were from Palo Alto. In reality, however, the discussion entailed only a very general look at preferences in urban form and transportation for the region, and did not help illuminate issues of specific concerns to cities and counties. Staff understands that there will be additional forums for more specific input, and will let the Council and community know when those are scheduled. The regional agencies have been receiving preliminary responses from cities and counties in late May and into June. The agencies have also received input at a number of meetings with planning and transportation officials and with other stakeholders, providing input to the development of alternative scenarios to be considered in the process. On May 4th, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) considered this background and update and provided suggestions for topics to address in a letter response from the City to ABAG and MTC. These suggestions were incorporated into a letter (Attachment A) sent on May 25, 2011, and copied to the City Council. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee, of which Councilmember Scharff is a member, has met several times now as well,and the Committee’s progress is outlined below in the Discussion section. Please also note that Attachment N provides a Glossary of Acronyms and Terms related to the regional planning process. Discussion July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 1741) Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area is 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 the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is to create development patterns and a transportation network that would result in reductions of per capita GHG emissions by 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035. The IVS attempts to do so by assigning “place types” (“transit town center,” “mixed use corridor,” etc.), that reflect Priority Development Areas (PDAs) nominated by cities and counties, plus “growth opportunity areas” (GOAs) identified but not quantified by local jurisdictions. ABAG and MTC indicate that the growth included in the PDAs and GOAs accounts for approximately 70% of regional growth through 2035. The remaining 30% of the growth was allocated to cities relative to each city’s household growth anticipated in ABAG’s Projections 2009. ABAG and MTC indicate that they believe the housing projections from the State are high, given historical trends and the recent economy, and that those numbers will be adjusted downward, perhaps substantially (though they do not indicate when). ABAG and MTC also acknowledge that the IVS does not adequately address the distribution of jobs, so that there is not a similar relationship for employment to either PDAs or to transit access. Attachment B is a summary table of the household and job totals and growth for Santa Clara County and each city within the county. An overview of the IVS is included as an attachment to the March 14, 2011 supplement (Attachment G) and the entire document is available for viewing at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/. Adequacy of Place Types “Place types” are outlined on pages 13-18 in the Initial Vision Scenario (and are shown in the presentation materials in Attachment G). For Palo Alto, staff identified the California Avenue PDA as a “Transit Neighborhood,” identified downtown as a “Transit Town Center” growth opportunity area, and identified the El Camino corridor as a “Mixed Use Corridor.” Staff considered identifying downtown as an “Employment Center,” but did not since that place type seemed to exclude residential development entirely, and would seem more appropriate for a research park type of area. The maps included as Attachment E identify growth scenarios for “Transportation Analysis Zones” (TAZs) in Palo Alto and, in some cases, overlapping with other jurisdictions. These TAZs are used by the City, VTA, ABAG and others to analyze land use and transportation distributions for mapping and modeling purposes. It is fairly clear from these maps that the California Avenue PDA, downtown and the El Camino Corridor are locations noted for some substantive growth over the next 25 years. Staff has concluded that the place types identified for Palo Alto are probably okay, but they reflect increased growth over the density estimates that the City provided. ABAG has acknowledged that, to meet the overall growth targets, estimates from staff in most cities were increased. July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 1741) The growth in the PDAs and GOAs shown in the Initial Vision Scenario amount to about 70% of the total Bay Area growth through 2035. Additional housing was then dispersed among the cities outside of place types to achieve the desired totals. Of concern to staff is that, for most cities, the growth in PDAs and GOAs ranges from 60-80% of the city’s total growth estimates. In Palo Alto, however, the PDA and GOAs account for only 45% of the total growth, which means that extensive housing growth (55% of the total) was identified for areas outside those designated areas. Attachment B indicates that total housing growth increases in Palo Alto are similar to those in several other Santa Clara County cities. But Attachment F compares Palo Alto growth estimates outside the PDAs and GOAs to other cities, showing a significant burden on Palo Alto to provide more housing in areas without sufficient available land and in conflict with goals to provide housing close to transit and services. The subsequent analyses indicate that many of these growth areas are within existing single-family neighborhoods. ABAG has since indicated that the growth was not intended to be specific to residential TAZs, but should be located wherever it is best accommodated, such as in the PDAs or GOAs (though those are already beyond their capacity). Housing and Employment Trends Analysis Attachment C includes tables that compare ABAG’s 2007 and 2009 jobs, housing, and population projections with those outlined in the Initial Vision Scenario. The first table shows a significant decrease in jobs over time, reflecting the general decline in employment in the region since 2001 and the severe economic decline in recent years. The IVS expects a growth of 5,000 jobs in Palo Alto from 2010-2035. There is, however, a substantial increase in housing shown over that same period, a total of 11,990 households. This would comprise an average increase of 480 households per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a “boom” housing market. Staff believes this is an unrealistic rate of growth,particularly given the limited land resources and multiple other constraints. Analysis by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Staff has analyzed the data from the Initial Vision Scenario by TAZ (Attachment E shows the TAZs). There are 25 TAZs that encompass the IVS for Palo Alto. Thirteen (13) of those are entirely within the city limits, and another 12 are shared with other jurisdictions. The fact that a number of the TAZs are shared makes it difficult to be conclusive about any analysis, but there are several observations that are of concern to staff and that were conveyed to the regional agencies: ·Housing Ø Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360, and 363 are highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for the City) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Ø TAZ 365 is shared with Mountain View, but housing appears to be overstated, with 981 households, though the portion in Palo Alto is again a single-family zoned area. July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 1741) Ø TAZ 401 includes lands east of Hwy. 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain View, including the Moffett/NASA Ames property. This TAZ includes growth of over 4,000 households, with 2,118 specifically noted in the Moffett area PDA. Thus, it appears that almost 2,000 households would be planned in the E. Bayshore and Baylands area of Palo Alto, clearly an unrealistic figure. Ø TAZ 349 household growth is shown at only 13 households, which is understated, since this area includes Stanford properties subject to the “Mayfield Agreement,” with a minimum of 180 units required of Stanford. ·Employment Ø The total employment growth for the 13 TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to job growth of 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed for the city in the IVS. This does not include any jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jurisdictions. Ø TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The SUMC expansion entails 2,000 additional jobs in itself, so the jobs are substantially understated. Ø TAZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the allowable 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Research Park, however, employment increases would be expected closer to 2,500 jobs for these areas. Ø TAZ 365 is a small area shared by Palo Alto and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. Ø TAZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstated, since the area is single-family residential. In summary, staff believes that the TAZ analysis substantially overstates the potential household growth by at least 100%, and that the employment numbers understate the job growth by at least 50%, and perhaps more once a realistic economic projection is produced. Preliminary Response to Regional Agencies Staff has developed and sent a preliminary letter (Attachment A) to ABAG and MTC, outlining the City’s first response to the Initial Vision Scenario. The letter included the following key points, developed by staff after input from the PTC and considering the initial comments of the Council on March 14th: ·The City of Palo Alto in general supports the concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along El Camino Real, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those corridors. The City also supports the provision of affordable housing, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of housing in the region, the county, and the city. The City further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting GHG emission goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. ·The City of Palo Alto should be considered a key employment center in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, and the analysis should consider the type of jobs, the desire of July 11, 2011 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 1741) technology firms to locate here, and the GHG reduction benefits of locating jobs near transit (with reference to MTC and other studies). ·The IVS results in only a minimal decrease (2%) in GHG reductions. More extensive impacts are likely from focusing on jobs near transit or other mechanisms to reduce GHG. (PTC addition) ·The basic growth estimates based on State projections and regional assumptions need to be analyzed by independent experts to produce credible projections or ranges of projections. (PTC addition) ·The Initial Vision Scenario does not provide a reasonable evaluation of future employment increases. The IVS should recognize the City of Palo Alto as a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area, and employment analyses should consider a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto, b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (the proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain, industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit (jobs close to transit generate higher transit use than housing near transit). References are provided to a chart from MTC supporting that relationship ·The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be based on a concept of identifying transit commute sheds, such as within the Caltrain corridor and the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, in a way that establishes, for example, 30-45 minute thresholds for locating housing and employment centers linked by transit. This would help to move the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more subregional approach, allowing job growth where it is most attractive for employers and housing located where available land and costs are more affordable, but allowing for ready transit, bicycle or pedestrian access from housing nodes to employment centers. ·The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to the cost of land, traffic, school capacity, and community services. Staff attached the January 9, 2008 letter (Attachment I) from Mayor Klein to ABAG appealing the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which outlined many of those concerns. ·The housing growth estimates are severely overestimated and unrealistic, using the overstated 2009 Projections as a starting point. At least half of the potential increases in the IVS are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, which are not appropriate for intensification. Any increases in housing should be limited to the identified Planned Development Area and Growth Opportunity Areas. ·Any expectations of growth for the Sustainable Communities Strategy must be tied to provision of adequate transportation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. ·Any scenario for future development should separate Stanford University’s housing impact from that of the City. Those demands for housing should not be assigned as the responsibility of Palo Alto. ·The employment growth totals conflict with (are considerably less than) the sum of growth in the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). ·Staff identified the specific TAZ deficiencies discussed above. July 11, 2011 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 1741) The responses reflect comments added by the PTC, particularly for items #2 and 3 in the letter. Staff also suggests reference to the publication “Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America” in the response item #1 in the letter. Staff requests that the Council provide input and comment to help finalize the City’s response to ABAG and MTC, which would be transmitted over the Mayor’s signature. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC reviewed the Initial Vision Scenario and staff’s suggested responses on May 4, 2011. The PTC generally supported and reiterated staff’s key points. In addition, the PTC recommended that the letter include points to 1) note the minimal decrease in GHG resulting from this scenario, reinforcing the need to look at employment centers near transit and other strategies to achieve greater GHG benefits, and 2) request independent reviews of the demographic, economic, and growth assumptions underlying the preparation of the Initial Vision Scenario (and presumably the alternatives to be evaluated as well). These points were incorporated as items #2 and 3 in the letter. Responses of SCCAPO and Other Local Agencies The Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO) has met regularly during the SCS process and has formulated some initial suggestions to the regional agencies (Attachment K). SCCAPO has also compiled a survey of responses from Santa Clara County cities, which has been provided to ABAG and MTC (Attachment L). The County and the cities of Mountain View and Campbell have sent additional responses specific to their communities. Many of the themes were similar to those expressed in the Palo Alto letter, such as the need to better address job growth, the extensive constraints to housing (school capacity, infrastructure needs, traffic, etc.), and the lack of a supportive transportation network to accommodate projected development levels. Not all of the cities are aligned, however, as about half (generally those without transit stations and without extensive new housing expected) did not object to the Initial Vision Scenario. Staff notes that San Jose has, unlike prior projections, objected to the extent of housing envisioned for that city, suggesting a greater jobs allocation to balance its current housing inventory. Alternative Scenarios ABAG and MTC are expected to prepare and release 3-5 “alternative scenarios” for review, likely in July. The alternatives are expected to include variations that: 1) focus more growth in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; 2) focus more on job centers near transit and housing with reasonable “commute sheds”; 3) attempt to locate more than 70% of new housing in PDAs or growth opportunity areas; and/or 4) locate more growth in areas not proximate to transit. These concepts may be presented to the ABAG and MTC executive boards in the next couple of weeks for direction. Staff will report to Council and the PTC when something is released. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology Committee The RHNA Methodology Committee has met several times and has determined that there should be a close link between the housing criteria and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. July 11, 2011 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 1741) 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. There has also been discussion of “backloading” (given the current economy) to allocate less units in the 2014-2022 period and more in later years. The two primary topics of discussion have been: 1.The examples portrayed begin with the numbers used in the Initial Vision Scenario, which virtually no one buys into; and 2.The methodology generally relies on assuming 70% of the housing is provided in the PDAs and growth opportunity areas, and then various formulas may be used for the remaining 30%, with factors to be considered including prior affordable housing success, access to transit, quality of schools (not quantity), and/or others. Most of those, of course, are not favorable to Palo Alto. The attached memo from ABAG (Attachment M) was discussed at the March 26th meeting and describes some of the various options and implications. There was considerable objection and no consensus among the group. The Committee’s next meeting is on June 24th so staff and 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 Committee’s work has been extended to September or October, at least. 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 20- 40 hours per month) and lesser time for other department staff. There are, however, no direct costs associated with the staff review. Next Steps 1.The Council letter will be forwarded to ABAG and MTC. 2.Staff will return to PTC and Council with updates and recommended actions, if timely, once the Alternative Scenarios are released (expected in July). 3.Staff and Councilmember Scharff will report to Council in September regarding status and progress regarding the RHNA Methodology Committee’s progress. 4.Staff will continue to participate in regional and countywide meetings and report back to PTC and Council. ATTACHMENTS: ·Attachment A: May 25, 2011 Letter to Ezra Rapport (ABAG) Re Initial Vision Scenario(PDF) ·Attachment B: Table 2.4 -Initial Vision Scenario: Household and Job Totals and Growth (PDF) ·Attachment C: ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial Vision Scenario Comparison (PDF) ·Attachment D: SCS Initial Vision Scenario Household and Employment Analysis per TAZ (PDF) July 11, 2011 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 1741) ·Attachment E: Maps of Initial Vision Scenario Growth (Households and Employment) by TAZ (PDF) ·Attachment F: Graph and Tables 3.2-3.10c -PDA and GOA Growth Re Total Growth (PDF) ·Attachment G: March 14, 2011 Supplemental Staff Memo Re Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment H: March 14, 2011 Staff Report to Council Re Sustainable Communities Strategy Update (PDF) ·Attachment I: January 9, 2008 Letter from Mayor to ABAG Re Appeal of RHNA Determination (PDF) ·Attachment J: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Excerpt Minutes of May 4, 2011 (PDF) ·Attachment K: June 8, 2011 Letter from Santa Clara County Planning Officials to One Bay Area (PDF) ·Attachment L: Santa Clara County Planning Officials Survey of Responses to Initial Vision Scenario (PDF) ·Attachment M: May 26, 2011 Memo from RHNA Committee (PDF) ·Attachment N: Glossary of Acronyms and Terms (PDF) ·Attachment O: Initial Vision Scenario available at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/(TXT) Prepared By:Curtis Williams, Director Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager May 27, 2011 Ezra Rapport, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Ci~of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Re: Initial Vision Scenario for Sustainable Communities Strategy Dear Mr. Rapport: On behalf of the City Manager and City of Palo staff, we appreciate the opportunity to respond to One Bay Area's Initial Vision Scenario, released on March 11, 2011. City staff has reviewed the document with the City Council and with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and has prepared the preliminary responses below. We expect to visit with the Council again on June 27, 2011, and will then forward an updated letter from the Mayor and Council. The City of Palo Alto generally supports the intent and concepts of concentrating development (employment and housing) near transit stations or along transit corridors throughout the Bay Area, including around Caltrain stations and along El Camino Real on the Peninsula, qualified by the provision of adequate and enhanced transit service in those corridors. The City also supports the provision of affordable housing in the region, and has been a leader in that realm, despite the high cost of housing in the region, particularly in Santa Clara County and Palo Alto. The City, further recognizes that it plays a role in assisting the region in meeting greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals, as well as many other fiscal and social benefits of compact development. The City believes that it has modeled many of these principles in the past and continues to do so. The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS), however, offers a plan that is highly unrealistic and in some ways contrary to many of those goals. The City of Palo Alto has several key concerns with the IVS and requests that the regional planning group substantially modify the plan in its subsequent iterations to address these issues: 1. The Sustainable Communities Strategy and future alternative scenarios sho.uld recognize that Palo Alto is a key employment center on the Peninsula and in the. Bay Area. Employment analyses should consider: a) the nature and extent of jobs in Palo Alto (high percentage of technology professionals), b) the desire of technology firms to locate in and near Palo Alto (proximity to Stanford, Palo Alto amenities, Caltrain stops, the synergy of industry innovators, and high quality schools), and c) the benefits of jobs being located close to transit. According to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) studies, jobs close to transit generate at least twice the rate of transit use than housing near transit (see attached chart). A greater focus on locating jobs near transit is likely to produce significant benefits for GHG reduction. Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled pa~r processed without chlorine Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329.2240 Lel.lr:r to Ezl'Il R iJpporl: '\1ay 20 J J 2. The Initial Vision Scenario is expected to result in only a 2% decrease per capita in GHG emissions for the region by 2035 (10% under the "Current Regional Plans" scenario v. 12% under the IVS). The public is likely to ask "why is the IVS preferred over the existing planning scenario and is it worth the extent of change to accorrunodate such a minor reduction in GHG?" The Sustainable Corrununlties Strategy must more directly address the location of employment near transit, move away from a jurisdiction-specific approach, and should also focus on other strategies, such as pricing, to achie:ve more meaningful GHG benefits. 3. The Initial Vision Scenario (and therefore ultimately the Sustainable Corrununities Strategy) is based on housing increases and employment projections largely derived from the State of California and modified by ABAG and MTC. The models for projecting these fundamental housing and jobs figures should be thoroughly vetted by third parties to reflect many of the realities of the present and future, including economic trends and limiting constraints such as land cost and availability, needed infrastructure, and diminishing capacity for schools and other public services. 4. The Initial Vision Scenario does not provide a realistic evaluation of future employment increases in Palo Alto. The IVS shows an increase of slightly less than 5,000 new jobs in Palo Alto, when the City already has plans in the process or approved (Stanford Medical Center, downtown offices, remaining capacity in the Stanford Research Park, pending occupancy of 1 million square feet of vacant space in the Researeh Park, etc.) that would account for nearly that many jobs by 2020. 5. The construction of housing in Palo Alto is highly constrained by multiple factors, including but not limited to: a) the high cost and limited availability of land, b) traffic congestion, c) capacity of the Palo Alto Unified School District, and d) corrununity services. Attached is a January 9, 2008 letter from Mayor Klein to ABAG objecting to the City's most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which letter outlined many of those concerns and others. 6. The IVS and SCS and the upcoming RHNA methodology also rely heavily on ABAG's 2009 projections, which already overstate the potential housing growth in Palo Alto, as outlined in the attached 2008 letter. The SCS should provide an opportunity to move away from a city- specific approach (based on household formation) to regional and subregional growth patterns that better distinguish between employment centers and housing nodes and the means to connect the two with transit, bicycling, walking andlor shorter vehicle trips. The employment and housing linkage should be evaluated more dynamically, as appropriate locations for each are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. 7. The housing growth estimates arc highly overestimated and unrealistic. The potential increase of 11,990 households (HH) over the 2010-2035 timeframe represents an average increase of 480 HH per year, whereas the City has produced approximately 200 housing units per year over the past 14 years, during a "boom" housing market. And as housing has grown, land resources, school capacity and other services have decreased, so that it is extremel y difficult to imagine even that level of growth continuing through 2035. The City believes that the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) analysis (below) indicates that the IVS overestimates the potential household growth by at least 100%. Page 2 Letter to Ezra Rapport: May 25, 2011 8. At least half of the potential housing increases in Palo Alto are shown in areas that are now populated primarily with single-family land uses and zoning, lands which are not available or appropriate for intensification. The Sustainable Communities Strategy should be designed to strengthen existing communities, but implementation of the IVS would be contrary to that purpose. Any increases in housing growth should be limited to the City's identified Priority Development Area (PDA) and Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs). 9. Any expectations of growth for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must be tied to the provision of adequate transportation, and particularly transit, infrastructure. Policies of the SCS should emphasize this connection. 10. Any estimates of future growth in housing and jobs must clearly delineate what is generated on the Stanford University campus (apart from the medical center and research park). These areas are wholly within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. According to a tri-party agreement between the City, Stanford and the County, no part of the campus may be annexed to the City of Palo Alto, unlike many areas adjacent to other cities, where the County encourages annexations. The housing needs of the Stanford campus should not be assigned to the City of Palo Alto. 11. The City's TAZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and understatements of employment potential. Additionally, several of the T AZs encompass areas partly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto jobs numbers are understated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. The employment growth totals conflict with (are considerably less than) the sum of growth in the TAZs. The total employment growth for the TAZs wholly in Palo Alto amounts to 5,916 jobs, which exceeds the 4,860 jobs listed in the IVS. This does not include any Palo Alto jobs in the 12 TAZs shared with other jurisdictions. b. TAZ 355 includes the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Stanford Shopping Center, but shows only an increase of 1,290 jobs. The current SUMC expansion, near approval by the City Council, entails over 2,000 additional jobs in itself, and future growth of the Shopping Center is expected as well. c. T AZs 348 and 349 include the Stanford Research Park, and show an increase of 764 employees through 2035. With buildout of anything near the 700,000 square feet of additional space in the Research Park, however, employment increases would be expected closer to 2,500 jobs for this area. d. TAZ 365 is a small area shared by Palo Alto and Mountain View, but shows 859 employees in areas that are generally zoned for single-family residential. e. TAZ 360 shows employment growth of 579 employees, which again appears overstated, since the area is zoned for and occupied by single-family homes. 12. The City's TAZ analysis indicates several errors, omissions, and overstatements of housing potential. Additionally, several of the TAZs encompass areas partly in other jurisdictions, so it is difficult to gauge precisely how much the Palo Alto housing numbers are overstated. Some of the City's specific concerns include the following: a. Housing in TAZs 351, 359, 360 and 363 is highly overstated, with a total of 5,720 new households (almost half of the total for Palo Alto) in areas that are almost entirely single-family residential neighborhoods and zoned accordingly. Page 3 Letter to Ezra Rapport: May 25, 2011 b. TAZ 365 is shared with Mountain View, but housing appears to be overstated, with 981 households, though the portion in Palo Alto is again a single-family zoned area. c. TAZ401 includes lands east of Hwy. 101 in Palo Alto and Mountain View, including the MoffettJNASA Ames property. This T AZ includes growth of over 4,000 households, with 2,118 specifically noted in the Moffett area PDA. Thus, it appears that almost 2,000 households would be planned in the East Bayshore and Baylands area of Palo Alto, clearly an unrealistic figure and not proximate to any transit. d. TAZ 349 household growth is shown at only 13 households, which is understated, since this area includes Stanford properties subject to the "Mayfield Agreement," with a minimum of 180 units required of Stanford. In summary, the City of Palo Alto strongly suggests that the Sustainable Communities Strategy should be based on a concept of identifying transit commute sheds, such as the Cal train corridor and the EI Camino Bus Rapid Transit corridor, in a way that establishes, for example, 30 minute commute thresholds for locating housing notes and employment centers. This would help to move the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more subregional approach, allowing job growth where it is most attractive for employers and near transit. Most housing could then be located where available land and costs are more affordable, but facilitating transit, bicycle or pedestrian access from the housing nodes to those cmploymcnt centers. Thank you for your consideration of the above comments and suggestions. Staff expects that the Ci2' Council will forward its comments, which may expand on those outlined, following its June 27 Council meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650). 329-2321. Sincerely, ~W"~ Curtis Williams, Director Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: January 9, 2008 Letter from Mayor Klein to ABAG re: RHNA MTC Chart Showing Transit Ridership for Jobs v. Housing cc: City Council Planning and Transportation Commission James Keene, City Manager Doug Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Ken Kirkey, Association of Bay Area Governments Page 4 Table 2.4: Initial Vision Scenario – Household and Job Totals and Growth by Jurisdiction Households Jobs Santa Clara County 2010 2035 Growth % Change 2010 2035 Growth % Change Campbell 16,890 21,000 4,110 24.3% 22,100 26,900 4,800 21.7%Cupertino 19,830 21,590 1,760 8.9% 30,510 35,280 4,770 15.6% Gilroy 14,330 22,120 7,790 54.3% 16,650 22,670 6,010 36.1% Los Altos 10,670 11,970 1,300 12.2% 10,250 11,510 1,260 12.3% Los Altos Hills 3,050 3,090 30 1.1% 1,840 1,940 90 5.0% Los Gatos 12,430 13,150 720 5.8% 18,270 20,700 2,420 13.3%Milpitas 19,030 38,760 19,730 103.7% 46,780 55,620 8,840 18.9% Monte Sereno 1,230 1,270 40 3.3% 400 530 130 33.1% Morgan Hill 12,400 20,040 7,640 61.6%12,700 20,810 8,110 63.9% Mountain View 32,110 50,350 18,230 56.8%50,070 64,510 14,430 28.8% Palo Alto 26,710 38,690 11,990 44.9%73,300 78,160 4,860 6.6%San Jose 305,090 435,590 130,500 42.8%342,800 593,220 250,420 73.1% Santa Clara 43,400 67,670 24,270 55.9%103,190 138,390 35,200 34.1% Saratoga 11,000 11,120 120 1.1%6,830 7,280 450 6.6% Sunnyvale 54,170 73,420 19,260 35.5%72,390 96,410 24,020 33.2% Santa Clara County Unincorporated 31,600 37,990 6,390 20.2%50,300 64,480 14,180 28.2%Countywide Total 613,940 867,820 253,880 41.3% 858,380 1,238,410 379,990 44.3% ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial SCS Vision Scenario Jobs Comparison 2010 2035 25 yr Jobs Growth Percent Change 2010 2035 25 yr Jobs Growth Percent Change Projections 2007 3,693,920 5,247,780 1,553,860 42.1% Projections 2007 77,400 92,960 15,560 20.1% Projections 2009 3,475,840 5,107,390 1,631,550 46.9% Projections 2009 76,480 82,160 5,680 7.4% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 3,271,300 4,493,300 1,222,000 37.4% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 73,303 78,163 4,860 6.6% ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial SCS Vision Scenario Households Comparison 2010 2035 25 yr Households Growth Percent Change 2010 2035 25 yr Households Growth Percent Change Projections 2007 2,696,580 3,292,530 595,950 22.1% Projections 2007 27,980 34,810 6,830 24.4% Projections 2009 2,667,340 3,302,780 635,440 23.8% Projections 2009 26,700 36,500 9,800 36.7% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 2,669,800 3,572,300 902,500 33.8% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9% ABAG Projections 2007, 2009 and Initial SCS Vision Scenario Population Comparison 2010 2035 25 yr Population Growth Percent Change 2010 2035 25 yr Population Growth Percent Change Projections 2007 7,412,500 9,031,500 1,619,000 21.8% Projections 2007 64,500 78,900 14,400 22.3% Projections 2009 7,341,700 9,073,700 1,732,000 23.6% Projections 2009 61,600 84,000 22,400 36.4% Initial SCS Vision Scenario 7,348,300 9,429,900 2,081,600 28.3% Initial SCS Vision Scenario n/a n/a n/a n/a ABAG Region Population City of Palo Alto Population (Jurisdictional Boundary) ABAG Region Jobs City of Palo Alto Jobs (Jurisdictional Boundary) ABAG Region Households City of Palo Alto Households (Jurisdictional Boundary) SCS Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) Household and Employment Analysis 2010-2035 per Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) Employment SCS IVS for Palo Alto IVS 2010 2035 Growth % Change Jurisdiction Palo Alto 73,300 78,160 4,860 6.6% TAZ EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS TAZ TAZ CITY TOTAL EMPLOYEES 2010 TOTAL EMPLOYEES 2035 EMPLOYEE GROWTH 2010-2035 % PERCENT CHANGE 367 CPA 1,832 2,540 708 39 366 CPA 2,528 3,879 1,351 53 362 CPA 7,307 7,540 233 3 364 CPA 793 927 134 17 363 CPA 680 1,008 328 48 360 CPA 888 1,467 579 65 361 CPA 891 932 41 5 358 CPA 949 999 50 5 357 CPA 849 889 40 5 356 CPA 10,645 11,523 878 8 359 CPA 698 1,120 422 60 349 CPA 13,593 14,148 555 4 351 CPA 4,680 5,277 597 13 Subtotal CPA only TAZ's CPA 46,333 52,249 5,916 Subtotal of TAZ's shared with other jurisdictions Shared TAZ's with other jurisdictions 69,365 77,089 7,724 Total of all TAZ's with CPA 115,698 129,338 13,640 Households SCS Ivs for Palo Alto IVS 2010 2035 Growth % Change Jurisdiction Palo Alto 26,710 38,690 11,990 44.9% TAZ HOUSEHOLDS ANALYSIS TAZ TAZ CITY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 2010 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 2035 HOUSEHOLDS GROWTH 2010-2035 % PERCENT CHANGE 367 CPA 2426 2754 328 367 366 CPA 2037 4069 2032 366 362 CPA 1720 1788 68 362 364 CPA 938 1092 154 364 363 CPA 1150 2225 1075 363 360 CPA 2184 3240 1056 360 361 CPA 2430 2536 106 361 358 CPA 1963 2050 87 358 357 CPA 1854 1944 90 357 356 CPA 4473 7085 2612 356 359 CPA 1579 2618 1039 359 349 CPA 323 336 13 349 351 CPA 2076 3270 1194 351 Subtotal CPA only TAZ's CPA 25153 35007 9854 Subtotal of TAZ's shared with other jurisdictions Shared TAZ's with other jurisdictions 13615 22057 8442 Total of all TAZ's with CPA 38768 57064 18296 891932415 949999505 849889405 11712587 190201116 873894212 1376186348735 3576405047413 730775402333 79392713417 680100832848 698112042260 319933301314 512653352094 3086348039413 1832254070839 888146757965 13593141485554 4680527759713 1079193885980 10645115238788 12635134498146 25283879135153 173211859112707 2078723833304615 Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Boronda Lake 190201116 2078723833304615 1376186348735 3576405047413 1079193885980 1832254070839 25283879135153 730775402333 79392713417 680100832848 888146757965 891932415 949999505 84988940510645115238788 698112042260 173211859112707 12635134498146 11712587 319933301314 512653352094 13593141485554 3086348039413 4680527759713 873894212 San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Buckeye Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Cr e e k Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Cornelis Bol Park Esther Clark Park Greer Park Jerry Bowden Park John Boulware Park Mitchell ParkMitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Eleanor Pardee Park Alexander Peers Park Don JesusRamos Park Rinconada Park Don SecundinoRobles Park Juana BrionesPark Johnson Park Water QualityControl Plant Alta Mesa Memorial Park CommonArea "B" BaylandsAthletic Center The Bowl VenturaCommunityCenter Gunn High School Las Trampas Valley OhloneElementarySchool DuveneckElementarySchool Orchard AddisonElementary Main Library Art Center Walter HayesElementary School Greer Park SealePark Palo VerdeElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool JL StanfordMiddle School FairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementary Hewlett Packard Hewlett Packard Barron ParkElementary School Alta Mesa Memorial Park Alta MesaMemorial Park Juana BrionesElementarySchool Agilent nway Way Tower BaylandsInterpretiveCenter Timothy Hopkins Park Timothy Hopkins Park Castilleja School TIBCO SAP Terman Middle School Heritage Park El Camino Park TermanPark Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Palo AltoAirport JordanMiddleSchool Palo Alto HillsCountry Club Land Fill Sailing Station Hooks Island Hooks Point CompostingArea Gunn High School Foothills Park Foothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills Park MaintenanceYard Emily Renzel Wetlands MunicipalServiceCenter Mountain View Shoreline Park Palo Alto High School Veteran's Administration Hospital Flood Gates Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park FoothillReservoir #2 Arrillaga Property Midtown Area Cubberley Community Center VMware Byxbee Park Pearson -Arastradero Preserve Hig h w a y 2 8 0 401 373 374 365 367 366 362 364 363 360 361 358 357 356 359355 354 353 352 347 348 349 350 351 368 San Antonio Rd 280 A l a m eda de l a s P ulg a s S a n d H i l l R o a d 2 8 0 Junip e r o S e r r a Boule v a r d P a ge M i l l Road A r a s t r a d e r o R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio Av e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d G 5 A l t a m o n t R O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue r e e w a y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real A l p i n e R o a d F oothi l l Expr e s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Los Trancos Road Hi l lv i ew E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fabian Central Expressway El Camino Real Bayshore Freeway El M o nte R oa d S a n d H i l l R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d East Palo Alto StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Portola Valley Set of 4 Numbers What do the numbers mean? 1st number on top - 2010 IVS Employee Count 2nd number from top - 2035 IVS Employee Count 3rd number from top - Difference between 2035 IVS Emp to 2010 IVS Emp Count 4th number from top - Percent increase/decrease from 2010 to 2035 IVS Emp Count TAZ Label350 3086 3480 394 13 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Employment Growth 2010 to 2035 per TAZ: 1 to 99 jobs 100 to 499 jobs 500 to 749 jobs 750 to 999 jobs 1000 to 1500 jobs 3046 jobs City Jurisdictional Limits Transportation Stations TAZ Boundaries 0'3585' SC S I n i t i a l V i s i o n S c e n a r i o ( I V S ) 20 1 0 t o 2 0 3 5 Em p l o y m e n t G r o w t h A n a l y s i s pe r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A n a l y s i s Z o n e s ( T A Z ) CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2011-04-26 09:54:21TAZ 1454 SCS EMP Analysis 2035 byjobsincrease (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 17201788684 19632050874 18541944905 1952192412 3134310 323336134 14801519393 1238137914111 2426275432814 938109215416 243025361064 1200153133128 26347020779 287429791054 1116163351746 1635261698160 1136179065458 11502225107593 21843240105648 15792618103966 18383194135674 20763270119458 203740692032100 44737085261258 60946934084671 Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Boronda Lake San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Buckeye Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe CreekAdobe Creek Adobe Cr e e k Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Cornelis Bol Park Esther Clark Park Greer Park Jerry Bowden Park John Boulware Park Mitchell ParkMitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Eleanor Pardee Park Alexander Peers Park Don JesusRamos Park Rinconada Park Don SecundinoRobles Park Juana BrionesPark Johnson Park Water QualityControl Plant Alta Mesa Memorial Park CommonArea "B" BaylandsAthletic Center The Bowl VenturaCommunityCenter Gunn High School Las Trampas Valley OhloneElementarySchool DuveneckElementarySchool Orchard AddisonElementary Main Library Art Center Walter HayesElementary School Greer Park SealePark Palo VerdeElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool JL StanfordMiddle School FairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementary Hewlett Packard Hewlett Packard Barron ParkElementary School Alta Mesa Memorial Park Alta MesaMemorial Park Juana BrionesElementarySchool Agilent nway Way Tower BaylandsInterpretiveCenter Timothy Hopkins Park Timothy Hopkins Park Castilleja School TIBCO SAP Terman Middle School Heritage Park El Camino Park TermanPark Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Arastradero PreserveArastradero Preserve Arastradero Preserve Palo AltoAirport JordanMiddleSchool Palo Alto HillsCountry Club Land Fill Sailing Station Hooks Island Hooks Point CompostingArea Gunn High School Foothills Park Foothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills ParkFoothills Park MaintenanceYard Emily Renzel Wetlands MunicipalServiceCenter Mountain View Shoreline Park Palo Alto High School Veteran's Administration Hospital Flood Gates Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park Mountain View Shoreline Park FoothillReservoir #2 Arrillaga Property Midtown Area Cubberley Community Center VMware Byxbee Park Pearson -Arastradero Preserve Hig h w a y 2 8 0 401 373 374 365 367 366 362 364 363 360 361 358 357 356 359355 354 353 352 347 348 349 350 351 368 1952192412 60946934084671 1116163351746 1238137914111 1635261698160 2426275432814 203740692032100 17201788684 938109215416 11502225107593 21843240105648 243025361064 19632050874 18541944905 44737085261258 15792618103966 1200153133128 26347020779 18383194135674 287429791054 3134310 323336134 1136179065458 20763270119458 14801519393 San Antonio Rd 280 A l a m eda de l a s P ulg a s S a n d H i l l R o a d 2 8 0 Junip e r o S e r r a Boule v a r d P a ge M i l l Road A r a s t r a d e r o R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l San Antonio Av e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d G 5 A l t a m o n t R O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue r e e w a y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real A l p i n e R o a d F oothi l l Expr e s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Los Trancos Road Hi l lv i ew E a s t B a y s h o r e W e s t B a y s h o r e Fabian Central Expressway El Camino Real Bayshore Freeway El M o nte R oa d S a n d H i l l R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d East Palo Alto StanfordUniversity Menlo Park Mountain View Los Altos Los Altos Hills Portola Valley Set of 4 Numbers What do the numbers mean? 1st number on top - 2010 IVS Household Count 2nd number from top - 2035 IVS Household Count 3rd number from top - Difference between 2035 IVS HH to 2010 IVS HH Count 4th number from top - Percent increase/decrease from 2010 to 2035 IVS HH Count TAZ Label350 1136 1790 654 58 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Household Growth 2010 to 2035 per TAZ: 1 to 99 Households 100 to 499 Households 500 to 999 Households 1000 to 1500 Households 2000 to 2700 Households 4084 Households City Jurisdictional Limits Transportation Stations TAZ Boundaries 0'3585' SC S I n i t i a l V i s i o n S c e n a r i o ( I V S ) 20 1 0 t o 2 0 3 5 Ho u s e h o l d G r o w t h A n a l y s i s pe r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A n a l y s i s Z o n e s ( T A Z ) CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2011-04-26 10:01:08TAZ 1454 SCS Household Analysis 2035 byincreasehouseholds (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 31% 69% 46% 54% 55% 45% 14% 86% 19% 81% 41% 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ho u s e h o l d G r o w t h Redwood City Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose City of Santa Clara Sunnyvale Cities % of Households Growth within Priority Development Area (PDA) & Growth Opportunity Areas (GOA) in Relation to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth Growth outside of PDA & GOA Priority Development Area (PDA) & Growth Opportunity Area (GOA) Household Growth in relation to Total Household Growth (selected cities ) San Mateo County Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Redwood City - TOTAL GROWTH 29,620 41,032 11,412 38.5%Downtown RWC1 Redwood City City Center 786 6,139 5,353 681%Broadway OARWC3 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 1,962 2,325 363 18%Middlefield OARWC2 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 2,370 2,757 387 16%Mixed Use Waterfront OARWC4 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 876 1,916 1,040 119%Veterans Corridor OARWC1 Redwood City Mixed-Use Corridor 308 1,076 768 249% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total GrowthPDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 6,302 14,213 7,912 69% Santa Clara County Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Mountain View - TOTAL GROWTH 32,114 50,348 18,234 56.8% Whisman Station MVW1 Mountain View Transit Neighborhood 0 1,220 1,220 NA Downtown OAMVW1 Mountain View Transit Town Center 1,359 2,544 1,185 87% East Whisman OAMVW4 Mountain View Employment Center 104 203 99 95% El Camino Real Corridor OAMVW3 Mountain View Mixed-Use Corridor 2,561 4,121 1,560 61% Moffett Field/NASA Ames OAMVW5 Mountain View Suburban Center 166 2,283 2,118 1279% North Bayshore OAMVW6 Mountain View Suburban Center 278 2,653 2,375 853% San Antonio Center OAMVW2 Mountain View Transit Town Center 1,470 2,732 1,262 86% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 5,938 15,757 9,819 54% HouseholdsJursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Palo Alto - TOTAL GROWTH 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9% California Avenue PAL1 Palo Alto Transit Neighborhood 922 2,889 1,967 213% El Camino Real Corridor OAPAL2 Palo Alto Mixed-Use Corridor 4,272 6,116 1,845 43% University Avenue/Downtown OAPAL1 Palo Alto Transit Town Center 2,162 3,701 1,539 71% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 7,355 12,706 5,351 45% Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change San Jose - TOTAL GROWTH 305,087 435,585 130,498 42.8%Berryessa Station SJO5 San Jose Transit Neighborhood 1,926 8,024 6,098 317%Communications Hill SJO6 San Jose Transit Town Center 2,423 5,198 2,775 115%Cottle Transit Village SJO2 San Jose Suburban Center 59 2,989 2,930 4952%Downtown "Frame"SJO4 San Jose City Center 5,799 24,458 18,659 322%East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor SJO8 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 2,306 6,396 4,090 177%Greater Downtown SJO1 San Jose Regional Center 3,217 10,117 6,900 215%North San Jose SJO3 San Jose Regional Center 9,488 42,128 32,640 344%West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors SJO7 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 8,299 16,923 8,624 104%Bascom TOD Corridor OASJO4 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 227 1,627 1,400 617%Bascom Urban Village OASJO5 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 1,089 1,889 800 73%Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village OASJO7 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 519 1,619 1,100 212%Camden Urban Village OASJO6 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 346 1,346 1,000 289%Capitol Corridor Urban Villages OASJO8 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 3,692 9,892 6,200 168%Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages OASJO11 San Jose Suburban Center 1,504 3,754 2,250 150%Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village OASJO10 San Jose Suburban Center 2,302 9,802 7,500 326%Saratoga TOD Corridor OASJO2 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 1,495 2,595 1,100 74%Stevens Creek TOD Corridor OASJO1 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 1,066 4,966 3,900 366%Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village OASJO9 San Jose Suburban Center 559 3,059 2,500 447%Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor OASJO3 San Jose Mixed-Use Corridor 2,026 4,026 2,000 99% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 48,341 160,807 112,466 86% HouseholdsJursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Santa Clara - TOTAL GROWTH 43,403 67,672 24,269 55.9% Central Expressway Focus Area OASCL5 Santa Clara City Center 0 4,000 4,000 NA El Camino Real Focus Area OASCL1 Santa Clara Mixed-Use Corridor 1,305 2,183 878 67% Great America Parkway Focus Area OASCL6 Santa Clara Urban Neighborhood 0 3,400 3,400 NA Lawrence Station Focus Area OASCL3 Santa Clara Transit Neighborhood 0 6,194 6,194 NA Santa Clara Station Focus Area OASCL2 Santa Clara City Center 167 3,502 3,335 1997% Tasman East Focus Area OASCL4 Santa Clara Transit Neighborhood 0 1,805 1,805 NA PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 1,472 21,084 19,612 81% Households Jursidiction or Area Name Key Jurisdiction Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Sunnyvale - TOTAL GROWTH 54,170 73,425 19,255 35.5%Downtown & Caltrain Station SUN2 Sunnyvale Transit Town Center 1,353 5,321 3,968 293%El Camino Real Corridor SUN3 Sunnyvale Mixed-Use Corridor 9,466 14,680 5,214 55%Lawrence Station Transit Village SUN1 Sunnyvale Transit Neighborhood 1,465 2,354 888 61%East Sunnyvale ITR OASUN3 Sunnyvale Mixed-Use Corridor 1 601 600 60000%Moffett Park OASUN1 Sunnyvale Employment Center 0 0 0 NAPeery Park OASUN2 Sunnyvale Employment Center 0 0 0 NAReamwood Light Rail Station OASUN4 Sunnyvale Employment Center 0 0 0 NATasman Station ITR OASUN5 Sunnyvale Mixed-Use Corridor 202 805 603 299% PDA & GOA Growth % of PDA & GOA Growth to Total Growth PDA & GOA Growth relative to Total City Growth 12,487 23,761 11,273 59% TO: City of Palo Alto Memorandum HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ID#: 1348 DATE: MARCH 14, 2011 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Item No.6: Release of Initial Vision Scenario by ABAGIMTC The staff 'report for this item indicated that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were scheduled to release an Initial Vision Scenario for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).on March 11,2011. The report was released last Friday and staff has quickly, but less than comprehensively, reviewed the documents and supporting information. The full report and background is available online at: htt.p:llwww.onebayarea.org!spotlight.htm. While staffhas not had adequate time to substantially digest or analyze the materials, the summary below outlines pertinent representations from ABAG and MTC regarding the Initial Vision Scenario. Intent of Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario is intended to: • Incorporate the 25-year regional housing need encompassed in the SCS; • Provide a preliminary set of housing and employment growth numbers at regional, CO\.U1ty, jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels; and • Be evaluated against the greenhouse gas reduction target as well as additional perfonnance targets adopted for the SCS. Attachment A is a memo from ABAG and MTC introducing the Initial Vision Scenario to their respective boards and the public, and Attachment B is an overview of the document, inclu~ng a number of tables outlining potential growth under this scenario of land liSe and transportation patterns. The agencies (ABAG and MTC) indicate that the Initial Vision Scenario is meant to start the conversation about the SCS among local jurisdictions, regional agencies, and other interested stakeholders. This scenario proposes a future development pattern that depends upon a strong economy, sufficient funding for affordable housing and supportive public infrastructure and transportation investments. The proposed distribution of housing focuses on areas close to transit stations and corridors. This focused growth pattern is also intended to preserve open space and agricultural land in the Bay Area. ID#: 1348 Page 1 of 3 The agencies further present that this step in the SCS process is designed to solicit comment primarily from local elected officials and their constituents. This input will inform the development of the detailed scenarios to be drafted by the summer of 2011. Through integrated regional land use, housing, and transportation investments, the Initial Vision Scenario proposes a sustainable pattern of regional growth intended to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating the entire region's housing need through 2035. In this scenario, which is "unconstrained" in terms of financial and other resources to support housing growth, Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Infill Opportunity Areas (areas not designated as PDAs, but that share many of the same attributes), and transit corridors would accommodate a major share of housing growth. The Overview (Attachment B) specifies that the Initial Vision Scenario would meet the regional housing target and achieves an incremental improvement over current regional plans with the.- reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) per capita by 12 percent in 2035. Thus, it falls short of the 15% GHG per capita reduction target in 2035 established by the California Air Resources Board. So other infrastructure and transportation demand management strategies must be evaluated in order for the region to achieve the GHG target. As outlined in the discussion below of potential Palo Alto and Santa Clara County growth in this scep.ario, the PDAs and other areas have been targeted for extensive housing, rather than job, growth. The agencies believe that strategies to encourage more job growth in PDAs and near transit nodes would substantially improve the performance of the targets, especially the greenhouse gas emi~sions target. These strategies will be the subject of the upcoming detailed scenarios analysis, and are clearly a critical area of interest to Palo Alto. Scenario Growth Concepts for Palo Alto and Santa Clara Comty For Palo Alto, the "place types" factored into the Vision Scenario include the California Avenue Area PDA, the Bl Camino Real corridor, and the University Avenue transit area. The initial Vision Scenario, however, describes a development pattern "unconstrained" by public service limitations, fiscal, transportation, or other infrastructure, and is focused primarily on housing growth rather than jobs. Attachment C is a slide presentation made last week by ABAG and MTC to their boards, including background for the Initial Vision Scenario, along with potential growth numbers for the region, each county, and each city. The regional agencies make a point of not calling these numbers "proj ections," rather a growth scenario to begin further discussions. Of particular interest are the following potential housing and job employment numbers: • The Bay Area would grow by approximately 900,000 households from 2010-2035, designed to house enough residents to avoid any increase in net in-commuting. • The Bay Area population would grow by approximately 2 million people in that period. • Bay Area employment would increase by 1.2 million new jobs in that period. • Santa Clara County would grow by approximately 250,000 households from 2010-2035, an increase of about 41 %, the largest county growth in the region. • Santa Clara County employment would increase by approximately 380,000 jobs in that period, an increase of over 44%, the largest county growth in the region. • The City of Palo Alto would grow by just less than 12,000 households from 2010-2035, an increase of almost 45%, the sixth largest increase in households for a city in Santa Clara County, excluding San Jose. ID#: 1348 Page 2 of 3 To: MTC Planning Committee, ABAG Administrative Committee Fr: ABAG and MTC Executive Directors Re: Initial Vision Scenario ATTACHMENT A Date: March 4, 2011 The Initial Vision Scenario starts the conversation on the Sustainable Communities Strategy among local jurisdictions, regional agenoies, and other interested stakeholders. This soenario proposes a future development pattern that depends upon a strong economy, sufficient funding for affordable housing and supportive public infrastructure and transportation investments. The proposed distribution of housing focuses on areas close to transit that have been identified by local jurisdictions. This focused growth pattern preserves opell space and agricultural land in the Bay Area This important step in the Sustainable Communities Strategy process Lilt designed to solicit oomment primarily from local elected officials and their constituents. This input will inform the development of the detailed scenarios to be drafted by the summer of2011. Through integrated regional land USCJ housingt and transportation investments. the Initial Vision Scenario proposes a sustainable pattern of regional growth that maximizes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while accommodating the entire region's housing need through 2035. In this scenario, which is-unconstrained in tenus of financial and other resources to support housing growth, Priority Development Areas (PDAs), InfiU Opportunity Areas (areas not designated as PDAs, but that share many of the same attributes), and transit corridors accommodate a major share of housing growth. The development of the transportation network in the region by 2035 is aligned with those areas. As such the transportation network for the Initial Vision Scenario is based on Transportation 2035, but also includes improved transit headways to serve increased growth in PDAs and Infill Opportunity Areas. The attached maps show the Priority Development and Intill Opportunity Areas for the region and for each county .. The Initial Vision Scenario relies on input from local jurisdictions and the characteristics of the places they identified for the distrl~ution of growth. The Initial Vision Scenario differs from previous forecasts (Projections 2007, 2009,2011) in identifying places to accommodate an additional demand for 267,000 households beyond Projections 2011 so that the current phenomenon of6>6>in-commuting" from adjoining regions does not worsen in the future. These prior forecasts were derived from Census Tracts. This scenario was constructed uti1i2:ing a detailed place-based approach, meaning that growth was distributed in speoific neighborhoods or geographic locations based on their characteristics. Between November 2010 and January 2011 J MTC and ABAO received input from local planners on the capacity for sustainable growth in PDAs and new Infill Opportunity Areas to supplement the information gathered through the PDA Assessment. To the extentpossible~ MTC and ABAG staffused local estimates of growth to meet the housing target. However, this scenario includes addi1ional housing units in some PDAs or IniUl Opportunity Areas beyond the number submitted by local jurisdictions. The Initial Vision Scenario assumes a growth of 903,000 households up to 3.6 million. and 1.2 million jobs up to 4.5 million by 2035 compared to today. About 95 percent of new households are accommodated within the urb~ footprint. PDAs and Infill Opportunity Areas include about two thirds of household growth in the region. At the county Ieve~ San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa are projected to absorb a m~or share of the total increase in the number of households, at nearly 80%. They also absorb the majority of the regio!1.'s job growth, also nearly 80010. It should be noted that the Initial Vision Scenario does not substantially reallocate jobs to PDAs and assumes continued job growth in employment campuses dispersed throughout the region. Major cities take the lead in the projected growth of housing in the region. San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland are projected to produce one third of the housing needed by 2035 by building upon their regional centers and intensifying transit corridor development. At the same time, medium-sized cities that range from city centers to transit towns (FremoI}~ Santa Rosa, Berkeley, Hayward) RichmondJ Concord, and Santa Clara) would accommodate 17 percent of the regional total. When assessed against the performance targets adopted by the regional agencies, the Initial Vision Scenario reflects significant progress towards the sustainability and equity targets of the region. The Initial Vision Scenario meets the regional housing target and achieves an incremental improvement over our current regional plans with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OHO) per capita by 12 percent in 2035. Thus~ it falls short of the 15% GHG per capita reduction target in 2035 established by California Air Resources Board. As expected, we will need to evaluate other infrastructure and transportation demand management strategies in order for the regIon to achieve the GHG target. The performance of the Initial Vision Scenario on healthy and safe communities, equitable access, and transportation system effectiveness targets is mixed, indicating some improvements over previous trends and previous forecasts. These results point to the need for additional policies and strategies to meet the regional perfonnance targets. In particular, strategies that will encourage more job growth in PDAs and near transit nodes would substantially improve the perfonnance of the targets, especially the greenhouse gas emissions target. These strategies will be the subject of the upcoming detailed scenarios analysis. The complete report on the Initial Vision Scenario with detailed analysis, data, and maps will be released for public review and presented at your March 11,2011 joint meeting. Steve Heminger HCOMMITm\Plarullng Committee\20 L l\March 11 \Initial Vision Scenario M Memo Fina12-28-11 dkvl.doc 2 ATTACHMENT B lin Overview of the Initial Vision Scenario In 2008, Senate Bi11375 (Steinberg) was enacted. The state law requires that our Regional Transportation Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy (together, Plan Bay Area) that integrates land-use planning and transportation planning. For the 25-year period covered by Plan Bay Area_ the Sustainable Cornnlunities Strategy must identify areas within the nine-county Bay Area sufficient to house all of the region's population, including all economic segments of the population. It must also attempt to coordinate the resulting land .. use pattern with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from personal-use vehicles (automobiles and light trucks). The Initial Vision Scenario for Plan Bay Area is a first-cut proposal that identities the areas where the growth in the regionts population might be housed. This proposal builds upon a rich legacy of integrative planning in the Bay Area. For over a decade, the region and its local governments have been working together to locate new housing in compact fonus near jobs, close to services and amenities. and adjacent to transit so that the need to travel long distances by personal vehicle is reduced. Compact development within the existing urban footprint also takes development pressure off the region's open space and agrlculturallands. We have referred to this type of efficient development as "focused. growtht"and the regional program that supports it is called FOCUS. (See Table 1.) Planning for New Housing and Supporting Iufrastructure The Initial Vision Scenario is constructed by looking first at the Bay Area's regional housing needs over the next 25 years. This analysis was performed using demographic projections of household growth. It is not a forecast of the region. a.nd does not take into account many factors that constrain the fegion's supply of new housing units, such as limitations in supporting infrastructure~ affordable housing subsidies, and market factors. The principal purpose of the Initial Vision Scenario is to articulate how the region could potentially grow over time in a sustainab1e manner, and to orient policy and program development to achieve the first phases of implementation. Under the assumptions of the Initial Vision Scenario, the Bay Area is anticipated to grow by over 2 million people, from about 7,350,000 today to about 9,430,000 by the year 2035. This popUlation growth would :require around 902,000 new housing units. The Initial Vision Scenano proposes where these new-unitS might be accommodated. (See Tables 2 -12.) This Initial Vision Scenario is designed around places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. These places are defined by their chaT8cter, scale, density, and the expected housing units to be built over the long term. Using "place types:' areas with similar characteristics and physical and social qualities) ABAG asked local governments to 1 identifY general development aspirations for areas within their jurisdictions. These places were mostly the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) already identified through the FOCUS program. They also included additional Growth Opportunity Areas, some similar to PDAs and others with different sustainabitity criteria. Based on local visions, plans and growth estimates, regional agencies distributed housing growth across the region, focusing on PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. ABAG in some cases supplemented the local forecast with additional units based on the typical characteristics of the relevant locally-selected p]ace type. ABAG also distributed additional units to take advantage of significant existing and planned transit investment, and it assigned some units to locally identified areas that present regionally significant development opportunities .fur greater density. The Initial Vision Scenario accommodates 97 percent of new households within the existing urban footprint. Only 3 percent of the forecasted new homes require "greenfield development" (building on previously undeveloped lands). Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas contain about 70 percent of the total growth (743~OOO households). Among . counties, three take the lion's share of growth: Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa absorb a little over two-thirds of the total. These same counties also are anticipated to take the majority of the region'sjob growth (64 percent). (See Tables 13 -22.) The region's three major cities do a lot of the heavy lifting. Thirty .. two percent of the forecast and proposed housing growth occurs in San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland. Seventeen percent goes to medium-sized cities like Fremont, Santa Rosa, Berkeley) Hayward, Concord, and Santa Clara. The analysis embodied in the Initial Vision Scenario is founded on the location of housing. Employment forecasting and distribution in this Scenario is not directly related to land use policy. Employment location can have a strong influence on travel demand. vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle greenhouse .. gas emissions. In light of these factors and considering economic competitiveness, transit sustainability, and a balanced relationship between employment and housing) regional agenci~ will be embarking. with local partners, on further analysis regarding appropriate employment locations in relation to future honsing growth and the transportation network. This wiJ] inform the development of the detailed scenarios. The Initial Vision Scenario reflects the transportation investments from MTC's current Regional Transportation (known as the Transportation 2035 Plan). To support the increased housing growth, it also includes some tentatively proposed improvements to the region's transit network. These include increased frequencies on over 70 local bus and several express bus routes, improved rail headways on BART, eBART, Caltrain, Muni Metro, VTA light .. rail, and Altamont Commuter Express, and more dedicated bus lanes in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, all resulting in overall growth in transit capacity. However, the Bay Area's transit system is fmancially unsustainable with operators unable to afford to run the current service levels into the future, much less expanded. headways contemplated under the Initial Vision Scenario. MTC's Transit Sustainability Project will propose a more sustainable transit system for inclusion in the detailed scenarios to be tested. 2 Measuring Performance Against Targets The Initial Vision Scenario results in a 12 percent per capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction from personal~use vehicles in 2035, compared to a 2005 base year. This reduction falls short of the region's state-mandated 15 percent per capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. It's clear that additional strategies will need to be employed if we want to attain the greenhouse gas targets, and other targets previously adopted by ABAG and MTC. MTC andABAG have adopted a set of Plan Bay Area performance targets to describe in specific, measureable terms the region's commitment and progress toward the "three E" principles of sustainability (Economy, Environment, and Equity). The Initial Vision Scenario meets some regional targets, including accommodating all the projected housing need by income level (in other words, no more in-commuting by workers who live in other regions); reducing the financial burden of housing and transportation on low-income households by providing more affordable housing; and housing the majority of new development within the existing urban core. Also, more residents are projected to ride transit, walk and bike more than existing residents because much of the new housing is located close to services, amenities and jobs, and adjacent to transit in complete communities. (See Figure 1 for the target results.) . The Initial Vision Scenario brings more residents into the region, thus increasing the total amount of travel. New residents will still drive for some trips. Even though vehicle miles traveled per capita in the Bay Area are projected to be lower in the Initial Vision Scenario than it is today, total miles driven within the region are projected to increase. With more Bay Area residents and more miles driven within the region, we can also expect an increase in the total number of injuries and fatalities. Health impacts from exposure to particulate emissions from automobiles and trucks are likewise projected to worsen with more driving; however, state and federal efforts to clean up heavy duty truck engines will more than off set the increases from automobiles, resulting in overall reductions sooty particulate pollution. fI} Finally, it must be said that while bringing more people into the Bay Area will increase the amount of driving and collisions within the region, it is still a net win in the larger sense. The amount of overall driving and greenhouse gas emissions statewide is certainly less than if the new residents were commuting to Bay Area jobs from communities in neighboring regions that do not offer such amenities. Next Steps The Initial Vision Scenario is offered as basis for discussion with local governments, stakeholders, and the general public about how the Bay Area can accommodate all its population growth over the next quarter century. It is by no means a fait accompli. Over the next several months we will seek input through elected official briefings, local government staff discussions, and public workshops. The comments received will assist ABAG and MTC in developing and testing a range of detailed scenarios that achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 3 The purpose of the SCS is. to forge consensus in the Bay Area on a preferred long-tenn regibnwide growth pattern. Under SB 375, local governments are explicitly not required to update their general plans in accordance with the SCS. The SCS does not carry the same authority as Regional Housing Needs Allocation but it wilt inform the distribution of housing at the local level. The adopted SCS land development pattern will help guide regional policies and invesbnents that are made pursuant to the RegionalTransportation Plan. These regional policies and investments are intended to create financial and other incentives to implement the adopted land pattern in ·the ses. ABAG is currently working with its Housing Methodology Committee to develop a methodology for distributing regional eight-year housing targets to Bay Area local jurisdiotions; the methodology win be adopted by ABAG later this year. The Initial Vision Scenario kicks off a two-year oonversation among local jurisdictions and regional agencies on what ultintately will become the Sustainable Communities Strategy, as a part of Plan Bay Area, During that tinte, the regional· agencies will engage local agencies and the public to help identify and assess several detailed Sustainable Communities Strategy scenarios that demonstrate ways that land-use strategies, transportation investmentSt pricing and other strategies could achieve our adopted goals and targets. The scenarios also will need to address how the Bay Area's land-use plans can assist adaptation to climate change. The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to coordinate regional agencies' initiatives and requirements related to sea-level rise, air quality, and other climate change related issues. These detailed scenarios will lead to selection of a preferred scenario early next year that would include an integrated transportation investment and land~use plan; this plan would also undergo a detailed environmental impact review that local agencies could use to streamline environmental assessments of their own local development projects as provided for in SB 375. Finally, the ABAO and MTC boards would be asked to adopt the complete Plan Bay Area, including a Sustainable Communities Strategy, by April 2013, , (See Figure 2.) The regional agencies look forward to further dialogue on these assumptions with our local government and transportation partners, stakeholders, and the general public. Attachments 4 Table 3 Initial Jlislon Scenario -Total Jobs all4 Job Growth by County Table 4 Initial Jlision ScelUlrio -Alameda County Total Households anti Household Growth by Jurisdiction Table 7 Initial 'Vision Scenario -Napa County Total Households and Household Growth by Jurisdiction TableR Initial Vision Scenario -Sa" Frllnclsco COllnty Total Households and Household Growth Table 9 Initial 'Visiol' Scenario -San Mateo County Total Households and Household Growth by Jurisdiction Table 10 Initial Vision Scenario -Santa Clara County Total Households, and Household Growth by Jurisdiction Table 11 Initial Vision Scenario -Solano County Total Households and Household Growth by Jurisdiction Little activity has occurred since the January update. The discussion below provides information regarding 1) the RHNA Housing Methodology Committee, 2) Council members meeting with the ABAG Executive Director, 3) the status of preparing a subregional housing allocation, and 4) the anticipated release of the Initial Vision Scenario by the regional agencies. RHNA Housing Methodology Committee The initial meeting of the RHNA Housing Methodology Committee was held on January 27, 2011 in San Francisco, and a second meeting was held on February 24, 2011. "fhe Committee is comprised of a total of 45 individuals, 33 of which represent local governments, with the remainder representing business, civic, housing, and environmental organizations in the region. Of those 33, five are from Santa Clara County, including council members from Mountain View and Palo Alto (Greg Scharff), and three planning directors or senior staff from San Jose, Santa Clara County, and Morgan Hill. Alternates are planning directors from Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is among the members of the civic organizations. The initial meeting focused primarily on providing background on State housing law and the process for establishing the methodology, how the methodology was established for the current housing period, and the relationship of the RHNA process to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The latter discussion emphasized that the RHNA process will now run simultaneous with the term of the Regional Transportation Plan (8-year periods) and both will be integral elements of the SCS. Two memos from ABAG are attached (Attachments B and C) that provide overviews of relevant housing law and the methodology that was used to establish the numbers for 2007-2014. "fhere was also some discussion about what issues and factors might be considered to contribute to the consideration of the housing methodology. There was no attempt or intent to make any decisions at this point about which are most important or would be included. At the second meeting, there was further discussion about the various criteria, as well as a description of the rationale and requirements of RHNA (Attachment D). The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for March 24, at which time a few possible allocation formulas will be presented for discussion. Meeting with ABAG Executive Director On February 28, 2011, Councilmembers Burt, Scharff and Schmid, Planning and Transportation Commission chair Tuma, the City Manager, and the Planning Director met with the Ezra Rapport, Executive Director of ABAG, to discuss issues related to the RHNA methodology and the approach to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Mr. Rapport spoke to many of the issues of concern to the City (e.g., housing and employment projections, housing allocation process, and a sustainable transit network). He emphasized the need to establish an initial vision that focuses on "places" appropriate to accommodate increased development proximate to transit, rather than evaluating projections of housing units or employment increases. Mr. Rapport categorized the SCS as a framework for discussion of the important land use and transportation issues the region must address to maintain its leadership role in the economy and environment of the state. He asked that the City of Palo Alto and other cities respond to March 14, 2011 (10 # 1348) Page 2 of4 Staff expects to report on the Initial Vision Scenario upon its release in March (at the Council meeting if available by then) and will also keep the Council updated regarding the Housing Methodology Committee's work. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the Council will have an opportunity to comment and provide recommendations to the regional agencies and to consider whether to initiate any legislative or other action outside the prescribed review process. Resource Impact This report results in no immediate impact to the City. Environmental Review This update is not subject to environmental review. Courtesy Copies Planning and Transportation Commission Attachments: • Attachment A: January 10, 2011 CMR 110:11 (PDF) • Attachment B: January 20, 2011 Memo from ABAG re: RHNA Process Requirements (PDF) • Attachment C: January 20, 2011 Memo from ABAG re: Review of Last RHNA Cycle (PDF) • Attachment D: February 16, 2011 Memo from ABAG re: Rationale for the SCS and Requirements of RHNA (PDF) • Attachment E: February 10, 2011 Recommendation of Cities Association re: Subregional RHNA Process (PDF) • Attachment F: SB375 Glossary (DOCX) Prepared By: Department Head: City Manager Approval: March 14, 2011 (lD # 1348) Curtis Williams, Director Curtis Williams, Director James Keene, City Manager Page 4 of4 January 9,2008 ABAG Executive Board c/o Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: ~!iy~!P~A!~ Department of Planning and Community Environment The City of Palo Alto thanks you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the revised Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which \Vas adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on November 15,2007. ., . . -· .. t. . . '. The City acknowledges ABAG's modification to PaloAlto's R.HNAto address t.he City'~ Sphere of Influence circumstance with the COU)1ty,ofSantaClctra and Stanford' U;niversity.:< .. However, our City Council, the Planning and Transportatioll Conlwission ati4~tatf.have a.ll·deterlnined that the RHNA of 2,860, even after the reductioli of 645 units,. is completely un~chievable in Palo Alto given the lack of available land, the higli'cost of land a¢quis'ition~andll1~ impacts of that amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods and infrastructure. Setting these requirements' that call1lot be achieved threatens the credibility and viability of important public institutions and becomes simply an exercise 'in futility. . . . Palo Alto has an extensive arid iong hlstory of leading and implem¢)J:ting affordable housing in an area highly impacted by·the 'high cost of housing. W~;-Y\f;~¥t¥Jhe first to implement inclusionary zoning in this: region and Palo. Alto Housing Corpor~t!9.11!":w.as established back in: 1970 as a non-profit affordab~e housing provider. Although the,cHy":6f Palo Alto has adop'ted' zoning and programs supporting . core concepts behind the al1oc~~'PJ1':lUethod such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rural :"~~¢~$:~',:,~t?stricting urban sprawl, and transit oriented develOpment, there, should be a reasonable ~xpe~t~tip'j:i.::ofsuccess in meeting goals When assigning allabitions to cities. ·"·,,: •• i: .............. . Factors such as essential hlfr.astru6ftire needs and service reqtilf¢.~elJ:l~';;~Wl~t:)~~~~fl to be taken i~t'o consideration. Many comp'Qn~nts of the City's i)1frastructur~~ie,;ali~~ayit>;ea,pacity and an~ther critical factor is the capacity limitations ofthe",Palo Alto Uftifjed 'SQh,ool:Q:i~b1ct. The cutrent school popUlation has alreaqy pushed.. the :pres~nt . facilitles' beyond' capacity so that ' every elementary school now has multiple PP':rtables. Students. fr9ID an additional 2,86Q .housirtgunits . simply cannot be acconunodatd:fwith:the eJtis!ip'-g "Iac1litie$:'a:nd budget. Giveil that-the' s~hool district is at capacity, and there is ,no .avai,tablytunqillg ·to"a.~commddate'.the jncreasedsnid~nt population from the allocation, these requIrements 'Would -amourit to an unfu.nded'Mandate for Palo Alto. . .. ' . Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 BUilding 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329:2240 Mr. Henry Gardner Page 2 of4 January 9, 2008 As staff has indicated previously in transmittals to ABAG, the population and household growth projections for Palo Alto will not be realized and should be adjusted to reflect a population growth rate of approximately 3.0 % over the next RENA period within our jurisdictional boundary. ·ABAG's Projections 2007 assumes a popUlation growth rate of approximately 7% during the next 7 years in our jurisdictional boundary. Historically, the City of Palo Alto's popUlation has grown only by approximately 4.7% over the last thirty years. We understand that the methodology uses Sphere of Influence popUlation projections but we believe that the popUlation trend within our Sphere of Influence is proportional to the historic jurisdictional boundary population trends. Although the City has experienced a growth rate of approximately 8% during the last seven years, this has been a period when Palo Alto has constructed significant new housing development well in excess of histori~ averages and that rate cannot be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. Therefore, it's very likely that the. City's popUlation growth will remain far below ABAG's projections since it will be very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development it has experienced in the last seven years. During the last RHNA period, the City's population growth was largely attributable to a single development of approximately 1,000 units on the City's only remaining vacant large residential site. This City's housing growth occurred during a temporary period of substantial decline in the market for commercial development and increasing demand for housing. Taking this anomaly and extrapolating this into the future is not appropriate. By using its own overestimated Projections 2007 popUlation numbers, the RENA methodology compounds this error by assigning a 45% weight to the population projections that ABAG itself created. This logic appears circular in that the driver behind this growth appears to be the mandate from ABAG. Additionally, the City should receive credit in this RENA cycle for the 1,036 units that were built during that last RHNA period that exceeded the City's assigned allocation. The City exceeded its above moderate allocation by 1,282 units and its low allocation by 14 units with a deficit of 51 units in the very low category and 208 in the moderate category. Palo Alto has also protected and retained existing units that are more affordable and should receive further credit to offset the City's RHNA requirements. The City also continues to oppose the inclusion of an additional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD, in effect penalizing cities that have developed smart growth policies. Additional growth requirements for built out cities like Palo Alto should be predominantly TOD housing, not the core ABAG allocation plus TOD housing. The emphasis of transit use in the methodology is unrealistic at least for Palo Alto. Transit at the University and California Avenue stations is used more efficiently by commuters and not Mr. Henry Gardner Page 3 of4 January 9, 2008 .so efficiently by residents; many more people take transit TO Palo Alto than FROM Palo Alto. A greater concentration of jobs in the vicinity of transit will promote mass transit in Palo Alto more effectively than the concentration of housing. Furthennore, Palo Alto has been assigned additional units'based on transit access from the San Antonio Avenue station. However, this station is located in and serves primarily Mountain View, not Palo Alto. Also, Caltrain only services the San Antonio Caltrain station once per hour during rush hours further reducing its TOD effectiveness. Palo Alto has promoted smart growth in its Comprehensive Plan policies and its Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning all in the midst ofVTA reducing bus services to Palo Alto neighborhoods and with little or' no proj ected additional funding for transit to support the TOD aspects ofRHNA. However, Palo Alto's diligence and success in implementing smart growth policies, appear to have led ABAG to assume that the City has no limit to further intensifying with infill development. Given the RHNA mandate to provide housing for all income levels, it is impossible for the City to provide the 1,875 units assigned for below market rate income levels. Palo Alto prioritized affordable housing as one of the City's top five goals and built over 90 percent of the City'S very low and low income housing allocation for the last RHNA cycle. However, the current RHNA methodology uses 2000 Census income distribution data for allocating housing based on affordability, and does not reflect the City's success in building affordable housing over the last seven years. Instead, the current methodology allocated more affordable housing to Palo Alto compared to the region as a whole. Additionally, due to the extraordinary cost of land in Palo Alto, all very low and low income rental housing that has been developed recently has required significant City subsidy. The cost of low and very low income projects in Palo Alto are averaging $400,000 to $500,000 per unit. Recently the City has had to subsidize approximately 50% of the proj ect cost for most low income. and very low income proj ects. . This is in large part due to the exorbitant land costs in Palo Alto which average $10 million an acre but have been as high as $16 million an acre. In order to develop the assigned 1,234 units of low and very low income housing under current funding conditions, the City would be expected to provide a subsidy of approximately $245 to $310 million, which is clearly unrealistic and unattainable as the City struggles to maintain revenues adequate to support basic services to its residents and businesses. Given state subsidy restrictions, and because of the high land costs in Palo Alto, moderate income units are achieved only through the City's inclusionary zoning program, which requires 15 -20% affordability. As a result, approximately 70% of the ABAG allocation would need to be subsidized by Palo Alto. In order to provide the assigned 641 moderate income level units, the City would have to develop 3,205 -4,272 market rate units. The high cost to the City of providing this 'housing as well as supporting services and facilities, schools, transit and parks, is an unfunded state mandate. There may also be insufficient water resources available to serve this additional popUlation. Until there is state Mr. Henry Gardner Page40f4 January 9, 2008 subsidy available for affordable units, identifying adequate sites to meet proposed RHNA housing for lower income levels in communities like Palo Alto will be a paper exercise. The City requests that you confinn that the job growth anticipated with the proposed Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Facility expansions are included in ABAG's projections for the City's job growth for the 2007-2014 period, and the City will not be assigned these jobs a second time in a future RHNA regardless of those projects' occupancy dates. Finally, much discussion has occurred about the impact of commute emissions on climate change. Palo Alto has just concluded a comprehensive climate change impact analysis. A significant finding of that report is that 11 % of Palo Alto's C02 emissions are attributable to trips into Palo Alto. Consequently, the report indicates that even an additional 2,860 units with similar commuting characteristics would impact Palo Alto C02 emissions by less that 0.1 % or 1/1000th Palo Alto's total C02 In closing, the City requests that ABAG revise Palo Alto's RHNA to reflect a 3% population growth over the seven-year RHNA period, exclude the San Antonio station from our transit factor, adjust the transit factor to elinlinate any "double counting" and credit the City with the 1, 036 units the City built in excess of our last RHNA assignment. The City also urges ABAG to consider factors such as land costs and availability as well as community needs to provide adequate open space and essential services in developing a realistic RHNA. Given that there was no representative from the 250,000 residents of North Santa Clara County on the Housing Methodology Committee, we were not adequately represented and, therefore, unique factors prevalent in our area were not sufficiently considered in the ABAG allocations. If ABAG adopts more realistic and achievable ~A allocation goals, this will enable cities to focus on actually providing adequate housing for a diverse" population, a goal strongly supported by the City Council and the Palo Alto community. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our appeal of the assigned allocation. Sincerely, ~, .. -?7--l$e' Larry Klein Mayor cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director Planning and Transportation Commission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Verbatim Minutes May 4, 2011 EXCERPT Chair Tuma: We will move onto item two, an update of SB375 and Initial Vision Scenario and the City’s Preliminary Response. Welcome. 8 9 10 Other Items: 11 12 13 1. Update of SB375/Initial Vision Scenario and City’s Preliminary Response. Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Thank you Chair Tuma and Commissioners. We are here tonight to talk to you about the Initial Vision Scenario that has been developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC. This is in furtherance of their efforts to implement the Sustainable Community Strategy that we have talked to you about before that was required by Senate Bill 375 a couple of years ago. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Staff made a presentation a few days after this came out in March to the Council. We were scheduled to update them on the activities so we did, and this came out and we quickly put together some information. That packet was attached to your Staff Report. Since at that time we, and when I say we I mean mostly mean Roland, has been able to spend some time analyzing some of the numbers behind the proposal that the two agencies have put together. So what I am going to do tonight is I am going to flash through the presentation that One Bay Area, which is the name of this unified effort between ABAG and MTC, put together in presenting the Initial Vision Scenario. So this is not necessarily what Staff’s presentation would be if we started from scratch, but it has a lot of the basics in it. So I think it is good to do that. I am just going to hit a handful of slides out of the 30 or whatever that are in the packet. This is for the most part attached also in your packet. It was attached to the Council Report, the full presentation. Then I will talk just a little bit about some of the analysis that we have done. What we really would like to get to is I would like to have this discussion as a lead in to Staff preparing a letter to ABAG and MTC responding to the Initial Vision Scenario. So they have basically asked for responses from cities by the end of May. My guess is it is probably going to go beyond that, and I know that not a lot of cities are going to do it by the end of May. So I am figuring it is pretty much through June and we will get to the Council either late in May or early in June and talk to them about this before we send them an official letter. Then there have been a couple of recent developments since about a week ago that I want to bring you up to speed on as well. At any rate, I am not going to spend much time we did the SB375 presentation before. The intent to reduce greenhouse gases by 15 percent per capita through a combination of land use and transportation measures, linking the housing needs to RHNA, Housing Needs Allocation, to the transportation plan for the region. Those would be done at eight-year intervals basically with the beginning of the Sustainable Community Strategy being adopted in 2013, the first RHNA cycle being 2014 to 2022, and the Regional Transportation Plan being that time period as well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So this Initial Vision Scenario, as the agencies call it, is a starting point for a conversation about how to accommodate 900,000 new households, about 2.0 million new people, and 1.2 million new jobs in the Bay Area, and how to do that in a sustainable way. Those numbers are numbers that have generally been handed down from the state, from the Department of Finance, and they are subject to modification most likely downward in the next few months, but we don’t know how much downward. It does look like there may be some changes in those. So their starting point has been to start working from the places that Staff has identified over the last few years as our Priority Development Area. Then they asked us to look at also where there might be other opportunities for growth in like corridors, El Camino Corridor being one that has been identified by several cities and VTA as an option. Downtown we didn’t specifically note before so that was another one. Then assigning what they call Place Types to that whether it is an employment center, or a transit town center, or a transit neighborhood, or a mixed use corridor those kinds of things that have associated development intensities with them. The philosophy generally being to provide increased development intensity near transit and reducing automobile trips. So again, the sort of totals of this. This is from 2010 through 2035, and these numbers here 900,000 additional households, 2.0 million population, 1.0 million employed residents, and 1.222 million jobs. Then the total totals. They distributed these by county, and as you see Santa Clara County generally takes on most, more than any other county in terms of both jobs and housing, certainly not surprising in the jobs area, maybe a little less so in housing. Then they tried to distribute that housing in these Priority Development Areas and what they call the Growth Opportunity Areas, which again were not initially specified by cities, but they came back and asked us for those. In doing that attained about 70 percent of the growth that they are looking at for the region. So 30 percent doesn’t sort of fit within, and in fact more than 30 percent doesn’t fit within it. In order to accommodate 70 percent they increased everybody’s numbers more than what the cities had suggested might be accommodated in those areas. So they did that to get 70 percent. Thirty percent they then sort of distributed. I can’t really tell you what the formula was. I don’t understand it precisely but I know that whatever it was it worked against Palo Alto as I will show you in a minute. Then the housing distribution, you see over here the percent of the growth in housing for us. Our growth is projected at almost 12,000 new residential units, and that is about a 45 percent increase over the existing. Now you see a lot of others here. Mountain View is 57 percent. Santa Clara is 56 percent. Morgan Hill is smaller and has a lot of open space so maybe 61 percent is not as surprising. But in any event very significant numbers in terms of the increases that they are looking at. These are in terms of the Place Types. This is where that map with the pie charts was that I was telling you about. I knew I saw it somewhere. So what they have done is shown sort of how much for each city is their Priority Development Area, how much are these Additional Growth Opportunity Areas, and how much of sort of the remainder was distributed to those cities. What you see in Palo Alto up here is that less than half of our estimate is the areas that we have defined as possible growth areas. Most other cities like San Jose about 85 or 90 percent of San Jose’s is in their Defined Growth Area so they didn’t get a lot more from the region assigned there. They are a big city. Santa Clara City is almost all in the Growth Opportunity Areas. That reflects their recently adopted Master Plan. I will show you the table in a minute, but Palo Alto if we were left with just these two areas would be about 45 percent of the number that has been shown so far. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So these are some of the Place Types. Transit town centers is one that I think we indicated might fit Downtown Palo Alto. It is kind of mixed use areas that are not really necessarily at the same scale as an Oakland or a San Jose or something like that, but is a suburban sort of center of town. Mixed use corridor, El Camino Real certainly fits into that type of criteria. Then I think we had California Avenue as the transit neighborhood. So something that is a little lesser scale but close to transit still, and mixed use, and services. What? eBART? Improved headways. Commissioner Martinez: On the second bullet. 19 20 Mr. Williams: Improved headways, eBART is how you travel electronically on BART. Got me. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 They have these series of roadway capacity, transportation capacity. One thing I didn’t mention is this is to be sort of their unconstrained scenario. E-BART is East Contra Costa BART Extension. Thank you, Roland. This is an unconstrained scenario. So they start out and just basically say if we could have all the services, the transit, and utilities, and schools, and everything else and there weren’t any of those constraints what might happen? So this is showing the really significant increase in transit infrastructure that would correlate with this level of growth, which of course we know is not likely to be the reality. This is comparisons to those greenhouse gas – I should go back and show this. So the target for the Bay Area in 2020 is seven percent reduction, and 15 percent by 2035 in the per capita greenhouse gas. Their modeling based on this Initial Vision Scenario shows that we would be at 12 percent reduction. So we wouldn’t even be to the 15 percent that was kind of the target on this. I don’t even want to go there. We are starting to analyze the validity of that analysis and what all went into it. It is pretty difficult to do. We will do that another day. So it creates more affordable housing and brings more people into the regions. One of the reasons it says that is as you will recall we reported to you before that one of the criteria through SB375 is that each region essentially house the potential growth in its region without assuming that anybody lives outside that region, on a net basis at least. So we are not sending a lot of people who work in nine county Bay Area region over to Modesto or someplace else to live and commute from. These are other targets that have been analyzed and discussed. So the conclusion is that this produces housing and more sustainable locations if we have adequate resources and transit. It meets the 2020 greenhouse gas but not the 2035 greenhouse gas targets, and there will need to be additional land use transportation non-infrastructure strategies required. So the employment location is another issue. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So the Initial Vision Scenario, and this is readily admitted by the agencies, is that they did not distribute the employment according to transit locations and such, and that they intend to do that. So we have not gotten to that point. They acknowledge that there is more transit benefit from employment than from residential. So I don’t think that is news to them, but I don’t know exactly how you go about getting to this point without having that critical piece plugged in there as well. So the intent on this process is for the agencies to sponsor public outreach to communities and to Councils and elected and such. Through, what now looks like it will be probably well into the summer, all these timelines here that were outlined in March are already starting to expand. I know the RHNA methodology, which says July 2011 is now September or October. They have added a few meetings to that. What they want to do is try to have that timing be a little better with the timing on this Vision Scenario exercise too. So they are developing alternatives, at least three alternatives to the Vision Scenario. I went to a meeting yesterday and saw some of the concepts that they are looking at. They make sense. Some of the things that in our bullet points here that we are indicating to you that might be good comments they seem to be responding to in terms of identifying employment centers, and identifying transit commute sheds that would feed those and not tying housing as closely to employment by jurisdiction as this does or as some prior exercises have. So there are a couple of varieties of that flavor. Then there is another one that would essentially put more of the growth in outlying jurisdictions that perhaps created sort of mixed use downtowns/employment areas, and maybe it is a possibility that – and some of them are commenting on that. Some cities are saying we want to have a mixed use downtown and build up some of that, have some more housing and hopefully employment, and you ought to consider that. So that is another one of the options they are looking at. But over the course of beginning in July I think they will be getting into that and modeling some of those scenarios more too. So in some ways they are somewhat quickly moving past the Initial Vision Scenario but I still think it is incumbent on us to make comments on what we have now and be able to look at that. Commissioner Keller reported last time about the outreach meeting that they had in Mountain View. That was something that there were probably ten or so I guess people from Palo Alto at that meeting. It did not seem to be very useful. I have reported that back to the agencies and they said they have gotten that comment from others as well. They are planning on doing additional sessions that are not sort of under the rubric of the environmental organization that sponsored that one. These are some questions that they have posed for cities to respond to, but are just ideas and thoughts. How do the growth distributions work? What to do differently? What resources would we need to support the growth? How might regional transportation dollars support that growth? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 What further analysis we have done. There are a few tables and these maps in your Staff Report. The first table, Table 2.4 it is labeled from their report, outlines all the jurisdictions and their numbers. A second table that included we don’t have for a slide up on the screen was essentially comparing the changes in ABAG’s projections. It documents the projections 2007, projections 2009, to the Initial Vision Scenario. Those basically show that our jobs percentage keeps going down, which may be somewhat accurate at least. We know that jobs certainly have overall been reduced, but the growth would be less over those 25 years than they were previously projecting, whereas the housing keeps going higher. So in projections 2007 – oh, he does have it there. So it is this table. Essentially it shows that the housing projections 2007 for Palo Alto showed a 24.4 percent increase to 2035, and now in the Initial Vision Scenario it is up to 44.9 percent. So it sort of keeps going up and employment on the top is reduced. The other exercise was to look at transportation analysis zones. So the city is divided up for modeling purposes, other purposes, I don’t know what the other purposes are, but into transportation analysis zones but primarily for transportation modeling purposes. Then ABAG and MTC did provide us with information that wasn’t exactly along the same lines as the way we have things broken up. Some combined TAZs and some of their TAZs since they are larger actually went into either Mountain View or Menlo Park or into the county. So it was a little difficult to tell sometimes how much of the growth that was being shown was in which. In any event the table in Attachment C sort of puts in a tabular fashion what is being shown, and some of the things that we noticed. For instance under Employment the Initial Vision Scenario is showing 4,860 new jobs in Palo Alto, and then it is broken down by these TAZs. Roland added those up and for the ones that are entirely within Palo Alto there are actually closer to 6,000 jobs. So we don’t know why that is. It is clearly an error. Then there is another 7,700 that are in shared TAZs with other jurisdictions. So without knowing more about how much is at Moffett Field versus in our Baylands it is a little hard to tell. One TAZ is basically our Baylands and Moffett Field. So if you look at it from that perspective then it doesn’t …. So then the household ones were done the same way and didn’t necessarily have – again we don’t know of this number how much of that is in – there is big chunk of that like 4,000 or something that is in that TAZ that is Moffett Field to the Baylands. We are hoping that is mostly in Mountain View and not proposed in the Baylands. So that is housing. So we mapped those out and this basically shows the number of net new housing units in each of those TAZs, and color-coded to represent the numbers. The main takeaway from this that we found was yes some of the El Camino Corridor and California Avenue and Downtown certainly had sort of the highest percentage. They probably were hirer than what we gave ABAG but at any rate we understand that those are growth areas. But, in addition, in a TAZ like this is showing over 1,000 new residential units in an area that is essentially all single-family homes. We have one, two, three, like at least four of those in this, which just kind of makes no sense at all. There are areas that don’t have vacant land. There are areas that don’t have really re- developable parcels. So it looks like again they looked at some of the growth areas, really loaded those up and there were a lot left over and sort of spread that out. I think they sort of understand now that that is what happened, and that they need to find another way to allocate those units. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 There is a similar map for the employment. Again, in some of the growth areas there were some discrepancies that were found. Like in the Stanford Hospital area they are showing 1,000 more jobs or something like that. Well, the hospital has 2,000 more jobs right there and who knows what is going to happen with the shopping center. So we will point out a lot of these number crunching details. What we really would like to do tonight and for this initial letter is stay at a higher level and try to just talk more conceptually about what we think the problems are with the Initial Vision Scenario. So on pages 4 and 5 of your Staff Report, about halfway down page 4 it begins with some bullets. I am going to quickly run through those and indicate that those, with the exception of the last two on page 5, are ones that we think would be useful to convey to ABAG and MTC now at a sort of high level of analysis. Then we will probably include as attachments sort of the list of this TAZ analysis, and some of that for them. It helps sort of support our statements here. The first one is that just generally the concept of concentrating development, employment, and housing near transit stations along El Camino Real proximate to transit is a sensible, sustainable principle. The City has I think exemplified good intentions towards affordable housing in the future. We certainly approve projects that are exemplary in that respect. I think we should point that out and take credit for it. Obviously no city does enough to meet the numbers that are outlined by ABAG but we certainly do that. In the City our Comprehensive Plan statements recognize that it plays a regional role as well as just a local role. So just starting on a somewhat positive overall note that we recognize what the overall intent is here. However, I was looking at this this afternoon and thinking probably in a letter we would reorganize some of these points, but first of all that construction of housing is very highly constrained. There are a lot of cities that have some vacant land left to build housing on, not to mention they might also have general plans that call for that. We are also limited not just by the availability of land and cost of land but also by traffic, school capacity, community services, and we probably would outline a little bit more than that. We would suggest attaching, which we attached to your report, the letter that was sent to ABAG over Mayor Klein’s signature back in 2008 in response to the RHNA projections at that point to show all the various constraints that we do have, and what we felt were the inadequacies in the analysis at that time. Secondly, that again they have not looked at employment. That the scenario should look at the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County generally as being a real employment centers in the Bay Area, and the city on the peninsula and within Silicon Valley, and should consider the nature and extent of jobs. The desire of technology firms to locate here and why that is and why that will continue, and recognize that, and the benefits of jobs being located close to transit, which we have both in the Research Park proximate to California Avenue train station, and then Downtown and the shopping center and hospital relative to the University Avenue station. Thirdly that we should be looking more at those employment centers in a transit commute, what I call transit commute sheds, whereby people can get to and from employment. Not to say we don’t have any housing but that there are other communities that are looking to build a lot of housing and where it is more affordable to build housing, but they are ten or 15 minute train ride from Palo Alto’s employment centers. That it makes sense at least as an alternative to be really looking at that kind of a scenario that might be more efficient in terms of moving people, and in terms of providing real affordable housing or more affordable housing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 That the housing growth estimates are severely overestimated and unrealistic. At least half of the potential units are shown in single family neighborhoods that would not happen, and are not appropriate for intensification, and that they should really be focusing their attention on the planned development area for or Priority Development Area for California Avenue and some along El Camino and Downtown, those types of areas. Then sort of lastly in terms of the broad comments would be that there really needs to be a tie between the infrastructure availability and service availability and the growth, particularly in transit area. You can’t really expect, or this is not going to have real benefits of increasing any of this intensity anywhere unless there is transit to help serve that and there is a commitment financially to make that happen. Then as I mentioned, these last couple in terms of the employment growth totals conflict, and then a specific Transportation Analysis Zone deficiencies, or something we would probably throw in a little appendix to the letter and specifically outline a number of the points that we made elsewhere in the document here. So we would like you to give us any thoughts that you have on this approach. Happy to try to answer questions. Then what we will do is try to synthesize those and put something together for a Council meeting in several weeks, and take a draft letter to them before we send it onto ABAG and MTC. Thanks. Sorry for the length of the presentation but there is a lot here. Chair Tuma: Okay, appreciate that. I think that is a lot of what this evening is about is getting us up to speed on the presentation. Did you have some comments as to or essentially one of the key things that you are looking to get out of this evening is our input into this letter and the comments. Give us some idea about the letter itself. What scope, how long do you envision the letter being, what level of detail are we talking about? 27 28 29 30 31 32 Mr. Williams: I would really like to keep it to a couple of pages. Right now they are going to get 110 letters probably from agencies and then who knows how many from individuals or from organizations. A lot of business and social justice and environmental organizations are pretty active in attending these meetings and keeping up with this. So I am sure they are going to be weighing in as well. I think if we can keep focused on some of the big picture things, like the Council said at its initial discussion something to the effect of it is not at a point where you are talking about tweaking it and a lot of details. It is kind of overall what is the concept. So I think we would like to stay at that level, make it maybe three pages at the most, and I think we will have a lot better chance of the staff of ABAG, and that is really going to be the ones who take this and run with it, so of them seriously considering it if we are pointed in our comments. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chair Tuma: I think the other thing in terms of making sure that we are comprehensive in documenting our position, one of the things to bear in mind is that you are planning to attach Mayor Klein’s letter in which a lot of the same types of arguments and positions that we would 44 45 46 take in response to this Initial Vision Scenario are incorporated in that letter. So from our discussions earlier it sounds like what you really want to do is reserve the main body of the letter to kind of big hits, big arguments that we have. A lot of it will still be documented because of the attachments and other things that you will submit, but the letter itself is kind of what are our best, biggest structural type arguments. Is that fair? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Williams: That is correct. 7 8 Chair Tuma: Okay, great. So Commissioners, I would like to see if we can do this in one round, five minutes each. If there are additional comments, concerns, questions I am sure Staff would be happy to receive those in writing. So with that let’s start with Vice-Chair Lippert followed by Commissioner Keller. 9 10 11 12 13 Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I had a host of questions that I think are particularly important in terms of framing this conversation. What is the role of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and also the Air Board? 14 15 16 17 Mr. Williams: Well, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is sort of operating under the umbrella of the Air Board’s direction. The Air Board in consultation with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District came up with the emissions goal of the 15 percent. That emissions target is different for the various regions around the state. I think there were eight regions the Council of Governments like ABAG that are addressing SB375. So the Air Board in consultation with the Air Quality Districts in each of those regions came up with in this case the 15 percent for the Bay Area. I think their role from now on will be mostly working with the agencies to model what the different scenarios might result in in terms of reductions. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Vice-Chair Lippert: The reason I ask that is it is a pretty important point, because the Air Board is really the lead agency for AB32, which SB375 is supposed to work with. So one of the I guess flaws that I see here even though SB375 links transit with land use the whole idea is to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions here. So what we really need to be presented with are what those target are in terms of us reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and whether we actually can achieve that through other programs before we get into looking at housing. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I think you said it particularly well, which is that they are not really looking at the jobs they are looking at the housing. Whereas Commissioner Keller and you had identified it could be the jobs that are in fact driving this, but we are not looking at the jobs. We are looking at the linkages between transit and housing, and we are being imposed with this housing. What I think is happening here is that starting off with the jobs/housing imbalance that we have in this city. This is anecdotal. We have 65,000 people that live in Palo Alto but we have 100,000 jobs. So maybe the way to achieve that is to begin to look at capping, and I think our Commissioners in the last review talked about capping maybe the amount of office space we have here, so that you begin to limit the number of jobs we have here so that it is proportional to the housing, and that we only remove that cap as we see increased transit. Just throwing it out there but I think we are looking at this perhaps backwards, which is we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the net result is that we are forced to take on more housing to begin to build onto the jobs/housing imbalance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The other point that I want to make here is the environmental review for this. It basically says the MPOs don’t have the ability to impose I guess the land use decisions so to speak, but yet they are imposing the numbers. Specifically SB375 promotes transparency through several public participation provisions for the development of both sustainable communities, etc. and APS, which are Alternative Planning Strategies. I think Alternative Planning Strategies are going to play a very important role here because I don’t think that the numbers are achievable so we have then look at the alternatives. That is why I am talking about alternatives here. Each MPO or Metropolitan Planning Organization must conclude at least two forms specifically for local government elected officials. Was that one of the two? The form that you went to. Mr. Williams: I suspect they would consider it to be, yes. 15 16 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Additional public participation plan must include outreach to a variety of potential stakeholders including private groups, public transit entities, and provision is made for public workshops and urban simulation computer modeling if practicable. I am just going to wrap this up here. This is where the rub is. Here you are you are holding a gun to our heads or they are holding a gun to our heads. It says there must be a minimum 55-day comment period on a draft SES. I assume that this is a draft SES. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Williams: This is not a draft SES. 24 25 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then again it says at least two or three public hearings depending on whether the MPO is a single county or multi-county, well this is a multi-county MPO. So it is at least three public hearings for this. 26 27 28 29 Mr. Williams: Yes, and we are not anywhere close. If they stay on schedule the draft SES would be in probably early to spring of 2012. Then all that stuff kind of kicks in as far as being required. This is like they say an Initial Vision Scenario, there are going to be three alternatives, and there is going to be a preferred scenario turned into a draft. So I would expect that they would say that those things are targeted towards once there is a draft. But, nevertheless they have outreach plans and hearings scheduled for a number of these as we go through the process. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, I have one more comment and then I can let somebody build onto that if they want. At a time when funds for public transit, at a time when transit is being cut it is really difficult to look at this as a growth plan when they are saying link transit to housing, but yet they cut service. One of the largest areas that they have identified is Gilroy. They are cutting train service to Gilroy. So what are we doing here? We are adding housing when we are cutting train service. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller followed by Fineberg. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: So I have a couple of comments that are high level in terms of suggestions on what you might want to put in the letter in that capacity. The first is to consider the location of employment and to encourage transit-oriented development for employment. In particular to encourage what I would call transit oriented job placement as opposed to jobs sprawl. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The second point is that in terms of housing and location of housing we should consider the price of land for housing, and the availability of land for infill development for housing, and actually do that analysis and see where that land is available. The third consideration is to consider where there is available school capacity and available land for new schools, and where increased housing development and other development will revitalize schools. The housing development should be focused on where there is school capacity and where housing development will revitalize schools like the discussion that we had a few months ago where there was somebody telling us about how new housing developments would revitalize schools. Well, that applies to certain communities but not to Palo Alto, and that is what they should consider, exactly that discussion, where that applies. The fourth item is there is a comment there about strengthen existing communities. Well, one important part of strengthening existing communities in that slide was preserve existing low- density residential neighborhoods. I would like that to be a particularly strong point. It is okay to think about increasing the density of development along transit corridors and transit stuff, but if you really want to strengthen existing communities you don’t do it by destroying existing communities by increasing the density in existing low-density residential neighborhoods. Then two other comments. One comment is that it isn’t a housing/jobs imbalance. It is a triangle of transit, housing, and jobs. We need to think of it as a triangle. We need to think about the idea that when you have jobs here and housing there that transit is used. If you look at cities that have a lot of transit use, namely the New York Metropolitan Area, they get transit use by having dense jobs area with transit leading in all directions towards that dense jobs area. You don’t increase transit use by increasing more housing in Manhattan. You look at say Chicago that has various transit uses, there is a dense jobs area and transit bringing people into that dense jobs area, and then you have surrounding neighborhoods that feed into that dense jobs area. So the whole idea that we have a jobs/housing imbalance and you need to fill it in on a city-by-city basis is basically stupid planning. It makes no sense from a land use perspective. The only sense it makes is from a fiscalization of land use perspective. If you don’t think about fiscalization, if you think about really promoting transit use that is not the strategy that you would apply. Finally, we should think about putting into our policies, written down so we can thumb it in the face of these agencies that say put more housing near transit, is we should have a policy that limits housing expansion based on both provision and use of transit. So if they say more housing means more transit use, we should measure the transit use, we should measure the provision of transit, and say well this doesn’t work. It doesn’t make any sense. Consider putting policies like that to basically show them that they are full of effluent and that they should revise their policies for things that actually make sense. Thank you. Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg followed by Martinez. 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: I have four points I would like to make. I will go over them, naming them first and then talk as fast as I can in detail. The first is that this is a planning exercise without being constrained by reality. Second is there should be a peer review of the model to develop the statewide growth estimates. I am thinking along the lines of the study that Berkeley did on the high-speed rail ridership figures. I understand our Director said that those numbers are coming downward. Third is the scenario will be a deathblow to public education in California. The fourth is what areas does Palo Alto have to deal with anticipating this in our Comprehensive Plan and also if reality is being suspended for the planning do we get to suspend reality in our implementation of the planning, because fair is fair. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So the first thing. It is a planning exercise without being constrained by reality. Removing the constraints is a wonderful way to go through a creative process, but this is not a creative process for a lovely vision. This is real world. Unless there can be documented ways to cover costs, it is an unfunded mandate. Unless there can be documented ways to deal with the fact that private parties already control the land, Staff has to figure out the right wording, but I would question whether the suspension of reality and real-world constraints is appropriate in a state planning process with legal requirements that are going to flow from ignoring reality. In terms of the peer review, I applaud Staff for the very detailed and accurate analysis of specific issues in Palo Alto. Good job on that. I think the City needs to also somehow question the underlying numbers of growth statewide. I don’t see where it is supportable that there is going to be a million jobs, a million new houses. We have been losing jobs. Google is hiring but the numbers just aren’t supportable. So even if they are reduced slightly if they are completely erroneous then all the effluent that is spread around there is still too much to start with. So pick your words more carefully than I just did but I think that there needs to be some significant challenge of the statewide numbers, and we might be in the opportunity to somehow generate that if we can point to the right body that would do a peer review or whatever the appropriate measurement would be. Number three, the scenario would be a deathblow to public education in California. I understand we are the City we are not the schools. I just did a quick calculation of if this scenario runs how much land would the school district need to buy and what the cost would be. I am figuring 12,000 new households, one student per new household. If we double the size of the population on each campus and build a new campus at the same size that we currently use for high school, middle school, and elementary. So that would be doubling the population on the same amount of land. We would need 50 acres for a high school for 3,000 students, 25 acres for one middle school with 2,000 students, and ten acres for seven elementary schools or 75 acres for the 7,000 elementary school students. That is 150 acres. Where would we find 150 acres to build new schools? Where would we find at $5.0 million an acre the $750 million? That is three-quarters of a billion. The school district is not going to be able to find that money. In areas that are revenue limit rather than basic aid the state budget funds that pay for development of new schools is about to run out of money. If and when that happens the underlying laws revert back to some earlier cases that the projects will not be considered fully mitigated by payment of the development impact fees. So the underlying legal structure that development happens under will change. If this rate of development happens it is simply going to be a death knell of public education. I don’t think there is any excuse to say that that is an acceptable thing to plan for. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Then the last thing was just echoing other Commissioners’ comments. I agree with what they are saying about what opportunities do we have in our Comprehensive Plan, or in our planning models to defend ourselves against unfunded mandates, against destruction of our public schools, and that is more implementation rather than in the letter. Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez followed by Garber. 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: I don’t know if I can follow that. I appreciate our Planning Director really wanting to go toe-to-toe with ABAG. I want you to know we are in your corner. But can we talk first? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I think that in the letter that questions sort of their numbers and wanting to come up with better numbers sort of buys into this let’s build more housing and the basis. I wanted to know whether there is really, since this is the Initial Vision Scenario, a chance to really look at it in a different way, or have they gone too far down the road and there are too many communities that are also looking at this and we better sort of stick with the program and just try to win the battles that we can. Do you have a sense of that? Mr. Williams: I think it depends on what that alternative or alternatives are that you would have in mind. I think what the agencies would certainly feel that they are committed to is, assuming the state numbers didn’t change or whatever the state numbers end up being, that they sort of are assigned. By the way, they are challenging those too. They think they are high and part of their game plan here is to try to work the state down to something that seems more realistic. But assuming that they still have some big number up there I think they would feel committed that they have to find a way to accommodate that number, in some way that seems more sustainable than continuing business as usual growth into green field areas, and spreading out in ways that assure that transit won’t work. So within some of those parameters they probably feel backed up against the wall. I am not sure what you have in mind. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Commissioner Martinez: I am not sure what I have in mind either. As much as I love this lady, I know that every community is going to be arguing the impact on their schools, and the lack of infrastructure, and community facilities. It is something they are going to say well, welcome to the club. Similarly the argument of let’s put the housing somewhere else we are a primary job generating hub. I am not sure that sort of goes well with other communities. If we go back to our last item where Commissioner Tanaka was saying housing costs us more than an employment base would. What community would want to support us with providing housing when we are getting the benefits of providing the jobs? I am not sure that argument would go very far either. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I think if there is the possibility to look at it in a different way I would look at not just the transit– related benefits of the plan, but really the benefits of looking at all greenhouse gas emission uses especially of the automobile. If you look at certain cities like San Jose where as big as that city is there are still more people leaving the city for work than coming there. That seems like kind of an odd situation. It is not like San Francisco where they are promoting more people going there with probably more employment growth there than any of the other counties in the ABAG region. It seems to me that it would be a more reasonable planning approach to say let’s look at the places where automobile traffic is leaving the city for work, and try to concentrate the employment growth there. Maybe it is there and maybe it is in Redwood City, maybe it is in Oakland, maybe it is in Richmond. There are a lot of communities that are not creating – pardon me? Atherton. And look at really that as an alternative strategy. The Council asked us to look at a big picture and it seems to me that the big picture is not buying into this housing and jobs model too quickly. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber followed by Tanaka. 11 12 Commissioner Garber: Well, there is not a lot left to say. I think the Commissioners have had some great points and I am supportive of I think nearly all of them. The way that I read what we have been given here, the City has been given here is demand as it has been described by yourself and Commissioner Fineberg, it is unconstrained by anything. The standard model of planning is you take demand and you take supply and you see if they match. If they don’t if you want to bridge it, and if do want to bridge it what do you do? If we had all of the time and all of the money that we would need to it would seems to me at some point we need to figure out what our supply is. There is a variety of ways of understanding that which is with the existing zoning, what is it today, what is it if we were to take full advantage of how our land uses are currently disposed around the city, and compare that against this demand. Then you can really have more of a substantive conversation about how close you want to get to that. Recognizing that we don’t have all that time and money I understand why we sort of picked these points and sort of posit them as a way of mitigating the potential impacts and not abdicating ourselves from the conversation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 So again, I think what your plan is for the letter and your details here are spot on. I think you have hit everything that I can imagine that should be in there. I would love to be able to have, as exhibits for it these sorts of supply figures and scenarios against that demand so that we could so that, but I recognize that is probably outside the scope of what needs to come back here because that is not a small task. Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: I also agree with a lot of my fellow Commissioners’ comments. I think Staff captures a lot of the big salient points. The only question I have for Staff is, I think as I was listening to all of the comments and reading this report, one thing I was wondering is what is our representation here? I thought Council Member Scharff was pretty active on this. I thought Palo Alto would have a bigger say this round versus last time when we had some pretty high numbers. Can you talk a little bit about what is our participation representation here? I think that is one of the biggest underlying – I think whatever letter we send I think we need to have our active participation in this process. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Williams: Thank you that is a good point I had not mentioned. So the need to distinguish between the Initial Vision Scenario, which is the Sustainable Community Strategy being 45 46 developed for the Bay Area over a 25 year period from the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which is what we have gotten previously for a five to seven year period is now going to be an eight year period. So Council Member Scharff is on a committee that is helping to determine what the methodology will be for assigning that housing need over those eight years. He is not on a committee that is reviewing the Initial Vision Scenario and the big grand plan for the next 25 years. However, those two things are very closely tied together and sort of aligned at this point in time. The committee has had four meetings now, once a month in the last four months, I have gone to all of those. Council Member Scharff has not been able to make all of them but we have talked. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 The committee, as I mentioned, is now going to have more time to come up with a recommendation on the methodology primarily because this Vision Scenario came out and everybody is starting to see, well how can you be talking about one and saying you are going to have this many units and then you are going to be saying there are this many in 25 years, and well, if this is in eight years is only one-tenth of what the 25 year scenario that is not going to make much sense. So I think there has been some acknowledgement that maybe it is not exactly one-third, one-third, one-third. That one way to do the methodology for the RHNA process is just to take well you have a 25-year period from 2010 to 2035, and if you just divide it into thirds you essentially have your three eight-year RHNA numbers setout. Then what you have to do is decide if the income levels that go with that as part of the RHNA. I mean, if we were all in agreement for what the Vision Scenario is for 25 years that probably would be an acceptable way to go. When they brought this issue up, I and some other people said, well that is a nice idea but if you don’t buy into the Vision Scenario being anywhere close to what is realistic then no, not likely to agree. Greg, Council Member Scharff has said the same thing. So I think that is why they pushed out the housing numbers is so that we can get down the road a bit with these Alternative Vision Scenarios, get away from this one a little bit and get into some of those, and start looking at different scenarios and how those play out. At the last housing meeting they actually provided us with a spreadsheet of every city and how with the 70/30 percent split what that would mean as far as our numbers for the next, if you basically took one-third of that. Then others are saying well, maybe that makes some sense but you should sort of backload that period because of the economic times that we are in right now it is going to take awhile before you really start getting up, so you really shouldn’t do a third, maybe you should do a quarter, 25 percent, in this first eight years and then ramp up beyond that. So those kinds of discussions are going on but again Council Member Scharff is one of 45 people on that methodology committee. Then the Vision Scenario is ultimately adopted by the Executive Board of ABAG and the Executive Board of MTC. I don’t know how many people are on those, but that will be after their full assembly’s meet, which will basically be comprised of somebody, representatives, from every city in the county and region, and various other special agencies and districts. Then the groups that I am going to I attend this Regional Advisory Working Group once a month that probably has varied from anywhere from 60 or so people at the meetings to 100 or more than 100. The Santa Clara County Planning Directors is meeting at least once a month to talk about this. So you have the 15 or whatever it is cities in the county. So it has all this input from all these places. There is a mass of people and no one person or one city can really, even a San Jose or a San Francisco, can dominate this discussion. 1 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: I guess I just wanted to make sure that we have our two cents in there. It sounds like you are doing all the things that we can do. 4 5 6 Mr. Williams: I think we are as active as we can sort of legally be active. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: If there is something that we can do more, right? Like if one of the Planning Commissioners should also be active in that process I think…I don’t know but anything else that would help I think would be useful. 9 10 11 12 13 14 I realize I am out of time but can I finish out my comments? Mr. Williams: It was mostly me. I was the one talking during your time. 15 16 Chair Tuma: That is fine. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I like the concept that Commissioner Martinez said about really kind of optimizing for the region versus for a city. I think really that is what you need to do. You need to optimize the dollars for the whole region not necessarily for a particular county or city. That goes with greenhouse gases as well. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 For instance, this is not a new idea it is actually an old idea, I think Commissioner Keller actually mentioned it. East Palo Alto is right adjacent to Palo Alto so if you want a lot of affordable housing East Palo Alto is right there. It is a different county but I think a lot of these boundaries are somewhat artificial. It is not like we are Palo Alto the island off in the middle of the Pacific and no other city is near us. We are all adjacent to each other. So I think that is something that needs to be considered and that is something that could be written into the letter is the fact that by partnering across these city boundaries that are kind of artificial, because these cities are all adjacent, we really are not optimizing for the maximum benefit of all the citizens in the Bay Area, as well as for the greenhouse gases. So I think if that could be contemplated. That is one point that was not in your list of bullets. If that could be emphasized I think that would be good. I think the reality is a lot of people move to a certain area in terms of housing for the schools and they commute to their job no matter how painful that might be. So I don’t actually believe we have a housing-job imbalance. I think Commissioner Keller said it very well, about how jobs generate more transit usage than housing. I was actually reading several studies on Manhattan, as Commissioner Keller mentioned, and it is one of the greenest areas in the world because of its density. So really optimizing for greenhouse gas, trying to save our important oil, and our environment, we really want to think about this more regionally versus trying to stuff everything into a city to make everything artificially balance, which it isn’t balance. That is one of the reasons why I don’t think we should necessarily have a cap on office or commercial. Maybe it does make sense to have more jobs in this particular area than other places, especially given the fact that we don’t necessarily have room for services as some other Commissioners mentioned, in terms of the schools. You would need a lot of acreage. 1 2 3 Anyway, it looks like it is pretty comprehensive already so thank you for your work. Chair Tuma: There was a slide up there that talked about the target percentage being 15 and they thought this was going to be something like 12. Can you put that slide back up for a second? I thought I noticed something on there that just didn’t make any sense to me, and maybe we can’t. 4 5 6 7 Mr. Williams: There it is. 8 9 Chair Tuma: Right. So that is it. I didn’t read this right. I think what this says is if we stayed on the track we are on by 2035 we would achieve ten percent, and if we go with this Vision Scenario we would achieve 12 percent. Is that right? Current Regional Plans versus Initial Vision Scenario. 10 11 12 13 14 Mr. Williams: Well first of all Current Regional Plans is not sort of business as usual. Current Regional Plans is meeting ABAG’s current sort of projections for numbers and housing near transit and that. 15 16 17 18 Chair Tuma: Right. 19 20 Mr. Williams: So on that, yes under that scenario we would be ten percent reduction by 2035. The Initial Vision Scenario would be 12 percent by then. 21 22 23 Chair Tuma: Those numbers, when I look at that it just doesn’t seem to make sense. I mean they are saying that basically we would achieve 20 percent more. Twelve percent versus ten percent is 20 percent more by doing all of this. That just seems like a fundamental flaw there. 24 25 26 27 Mr. Williams: I think we reported this when we talked to you first about the whole Sustainable Communities Strategy effort is that first of all this is a per capita reduction. That the overall total greenhouse gas even with a 15 percent per capita reduction is actually I think an increase of like two percent in the total greenhouse gas emissions. That is to be offset overall because this is just part of AB32. In fact it is a relatively small, it is about nine or ten percent of the overall reduction that we are looking for in greenhouses gases statewide. Most of it is coming from vehicle standards and those kinds of improvements are where we are getting a lot of improvement. So this is sort of the last ten percent of how do we address it. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Chair Tuma: Okay. So I would agree several of the other Commissioners who said essentially what you have in here as sort of where you are going with this letter completely makes sense to me. I don’t see anything in there that I disagree with. I think the only question is a matter of emphasis and where do we fight the fight. To me the numbers are eventually going to come out where the numbers come out. You can have a lot of lower level discussion about that later on, and maybe I am saying something that others have said in a different way, but over and over as we have talked about this historically mostly in the context of RHNA we have always talked about how the artificial boundaries of a city limits just don’t make any sense. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 If I were to say that there is one thing that the City would put its resources behind in terms of trying to make this whole thing make sense is to get around this notion that the subregional approach doesn’t work or you can’t have it because you can’t go across the counties, or that sort of thing. It just defies all logic. I understand that it is sort of the easy way because you say well, each municipality has its own government, and how do you get all these governments to work together. Well, I think that is the difficult question in this whole exercise but it is also the right question in this whole exercise. Maybe it has to be driven by the counties, maybe it has to be driven by some other body, I don’t know, but this notion that you are going to solve this by individual municipalities doing what they are told to do just – greenhouse gases don’t stay in one place. Jobs are not driven by housing. The fundamentals here don’t make sense. So really if I could change one thing about this whole process it would be the ability to work across boundaries on an entirely regional basis. I understand there are 45 people working this RHNA. Maybe there needs to be 45 people looking at this whole thing, and it is difficult. We have state legislatures and other bodies that are large that manage to get the job done, and this is so fundamental to the future of the Bay Area and the future of California that I think that is what is necessary. So I would say the one punch, the one thing, the one focus would be on not being constrained by municipalities, and focus on subregional or some other model. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I have lights again from Commissioners Lippert and Keller. Do you guys have just something brief that can’t be submitted in writing? Go ahead Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I think it was two years ago, 2009, I sort of warned about this tsunami coming. It was a bit melodramatic in my approach but hopefully it resonated with you. What we are seeing here in terms of this housing tsunami I never expected it to be this large, ever. I think that that is the bit that is a little overwhelming or daunting right now. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I want to read something. This is from the National Resources Defense Council, their take on SB375. Step one in terms of Sustainable Communities Strategies tasks is to map or identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region. Presumably this will be done in the form of a land use map. That is what we are basically being provided here. SB375 does not require parcel specific maps only general locations need to be identified. That is where I am having some of the difficulty here is that it is taking our neighborhoods and it is identifying them as wholesale housing, higher density housing. I continue with this document because later on it has in here a thing called Saving Clauses. SB375 contains several important saving clauses. It provides that neither SCSs nor the APSs regulate the use of land and that neither of them supercedes the land use authority of local governments. There is no requirement for local governments to conform their land use plans to SCSs or APSs. Now this is particularly important. What we are talking about here is land use and its relationship to transit. They don’t have the ability to come in and say you are going to build so many housing units based on our local land use designations. But the one thing SB375 does is it begins to provide the cascading exemption from CEQA review. So as you begin to incorporate some very important policies for for instance below market rate housing, housing density bonuses, it begins to take sustainable construction, it begins to take off the requirements of CEQA review. So what I see as a possible scenario, and I don’t say that there is any manipulation or a bad thing going on here, all I am just saying is that the possibility is that a developer could very well come in and pick up a site let’s say that is within half a mile of a transit center like Downtown or California Avenue and say hey, I don’t need to comply with CEQA. I am doing what SB375 is requiring of me. So that is where I think the difficulty is going to be. It is not necessarily in the land use it is going to be in the CEQA review. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what Commissioner Lippert just said and in particular the piece of this that CEQA review doesn’t take into account is traffic. We are going to see horrendous traffic increases. In fact, that is what was done in the scenarios talked about in the One Bay Area stuff that was a few weeks ago. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I want to close with this, which is inspired by Commissioner Fineberg’s comment. It is a phrase, ‘willing suspension of disbelief,’ which is from Samuel Taylor Coleridge, for whom Coleridge Street in Palo Alto was named. This is from Wikipedia. Willing suspension of disbelief is a formula for justifying the use of fantastic or nonrealistic elements in literature. It was put forth in English by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge who suggested that if a writer could infuse a “human interest and semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. The phrase ‘suspension of disbelief’ came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century often used to imply that the onus was on the reader rather than the writer to achieve it. It might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. The fictional premises may also lead to the engagement 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 of the mind and perhaps the proposition of thoughts, ideas, arts, and theories. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 So what we have here is a document that is based on fiction. That intends for us to have a willing suspension of disbelief so that we will deal with the idea that based on inconsistencies, based on inappropriate assumptions on how much we should grow, they will then assign to us ABAG numbers. It is interesting that all of this only gets us one percent reduction from 2020 to 2035 in greenhouse gases. That seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with this. What is fundamentally wrong is the balance between housing, jobs, and transit. If don’t take into account transit and jobs, and you only take into account housing then you have not taken advantage of what you can. Thank you. Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg if you could take us home. 39 40 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I would like to thank Commissioner Keller for his very articulate recital on the willing suspense of disbelief. I had actually thought about it and could not recall enough about my 11th grade English Literature class to speak so eloquently to that. 41 42 43 44 45 46 The last point I would like to raise is something that the Director mentioned regarding the allocation during the three different housing cycles for affordable housing. It brought to mind that that is going to create a process that can’t occur logically. Forgive me that I don’t have these detailed numbers so I am just going to come up with some big round numbers. Let’s say if we have three periods of the seven or eight years over the cycle, and in each of those periods we will have 4,000 housing units that have to be built. Some proportion of those, help me out, will have to be affordable. Is it like 2,000 in each period? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Williams: Well, that is to be determined, but if you base it on this last go around more than half of our units are in affordable housing categories, maybe 60 percent. 7 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so if it is 2,000 over three periods that would be 6,000. So we are then at the end of the 35 year period going to have a shift in our population that we would have 6,000 new homes built that are extremely affordable and the 26,000 existing plus 6,000 so call it 30,000-plus. So there is going to be quantum shift in the proportion of people of very modest and limited means, and are there even enough people from surrounding areas that would occupy those homes if every neighborhood up and down the Peninsula suddenly built 30 percent affordable housing stock? At a certain point it becomes a logical impossibility. You can’t keep building 30 percent of your housing stock being that low and affordable, and maybe you change it in the fourth cycle out, but it is not a plan that could work in three cycles. You are going to run out of people. So I don’t know how – I am not trying to diminish the need or the value or the absolute dearth of affordable housing that exists right now, but it is just not a logical way to run a model. It won’t work. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Chair Tuma: Okay. With that Commissioners we will close that item. A couple of points of business before we wrap it up for the evening. We have minutes of March 23 and 30. Do I have a motion on that? 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of March 23 and March 30 Meeting minutes. MOTION Commissioner Keller: So moved. 31 32 33 34 SECOND Vice-Chair Lippert: Second. 35 36 37 38 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Tuma: Motion by Commissioner Keller, second by Vice-Chair Lippert. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? Passes unanimously. 39 40 41 June 8, 2011 Mr. Ken Kirkey Planning Director Association of Bay Area Governments 101 Eight Street Oakland, CA 94607 Mr. Doug Kimsey Planning Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eight Street Oakland, CA 94607 Re: SCCAPO response to the SCS Initial Vision Scenario Dear Gentlemen, On behalf of the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO), I want to express our appreciation for the work done by ABAG and MTC staff, as well as BAAQMD and BCDC staff and others,in completing the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that was released on March 11, 2011.While regional and local staff naturally hold different perspectives on how to address the planning landscape in our distinctive but related communities, it is imperative that we each act on behalf of our jurisdictions through the assigned responsibilities with which we are charged, at the same time respect and consider those distinct points of view of the others, and then recognize how we must work in concert in planning the future of the Bay Area region as a diverse but interconnected community.The regional exercise platted by the SB375 legislation has made the ties between and among the agencies' staffs at the local and regional level stronger than they have ever been by the dialogue and work we are doing together. It is evident in the SCS discussions,particularly since the roll out of the IVS, that the reactions to both the requirements and the implications of SB375 are multifaceted.Local agency planners, by their education and training at the very least, appreciate the value of a regional perspective where our geographic and topographic features of the Bay Area define an incredible environmental, economic and social ecosystem.Sub-regionally, we recognize that our "unique"communities flow from one to another, such that housing, jobs, amenities and transportation blend somewhat imperceptibly across boundaries. At the same time, interest in local control by citizens within any defined jurisdiction is a very strong driver of policy and actions.While there is much to do before we can determine how successful this first effort may be,there is little doubt that we shall all be more cognizant of each others’needs and, in SCCAPO Response to SCS Initial Vision Scenario June 6, 2011 Page 2 working together, bring into the light the idea that the best interests of the greater region are extremely important for the welfare of the individual communities. Local planning staffs have been working diligently both independently and collaboratively through the SCCAPO meeting framework to understand the objectives and obligations of SB375. The release of the IVS heightened these efforts, and we have prepared this response to the IVS. It includes the summary of a survey conducted through SCCAPO. It should be noted that this survey does not necessarily represent a consolidated or formal position statement from SCCAPO.Rather, it is a collective summary of responses at this stage of the SCS process in response to the IVS figures and the specific questions posed by ABAG staff at the recent RAWG meetings to develop the next alternative scenarios.Our intent here is to simply give a reaction to the IVS as a work product that was created as a critical starting point in the SCS process. It is time to put our energies into moving the process forward. The steps that follow will be more important with the backdrop of the IVS, as it informs the input we can provide and the work we can do together to craft alternative scenarios, and ultimately a Preferred Scenario that we can all embrace. We view the unconstrained IVS as an intentional schema that arrays future jobs and housing growth across our region in a way that could achieve or nearly achieve the target greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions called for by SB375. However, it seems to address sustainability only in a technical way in that it may reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but not in the sense that it recognizes that thriving communities that are sustainable must make a varied selection of decisions that balance job growth and housing production and consider all of the other amenities that make them livable communities as well. The discussions we have had at our monthly SCCAPO meetings and the results of our internal survey of communities in Santa Clara County reflect the following comments: 1.The assumption that we would house all new job-related households within our regional boundaries is not supportable. The significant changes in households and jobs in some communities appears to be attributed to this factor to some degree. 2.Significant deviations from Projections 2009, upon which most jurisdictions have relied for their planning calculations, challenge the credibility of the IVS estimates. 3.The IVS distributions of housing and jobs do not reflect the unique characteristics of the communities that make up the fabric of the subregions, or therefore the region as a whole. Applying targets from the top down is difficult at best, and insensitive to community character at least, and overall result in missing the land use opportunities that the local planning agencies can develop to the best advantage in a plan for sustainable growth through local complete community concepts. 4. The incorporation of the RHNA process into the IVS creates a troublesome quantity and timing conflict that must be reconciled if RHNA figures are to influence local Genera Plan preparations, particularly with respect to the challenges of the required Housing Elements. SCCAPO Response to SCS Initial Vision Scenario June 6, 2011 Page 3 5.Opportunities for growth are recognized in a variety of locations by local planning efforts, not only in identified PDAs or even the growth opportunity areas that have been summarized in the IVS. The input of local jurisdictions in the preparation was only a start and cannot truly reflect the complex planning nuances at the local level. 6.Transportation and transit priorities cannot be properly evaluated if the basic jobs and housing distribution assumptions are still in question. Local and subregional transportation infrastructure and transit initiatives are not accounted for in the broad-brush presentation of the IVS. In closing, we want to reiterate and emphasize that SCCAPO highly supports the regional planning dialogue that has been facilitated through the SCS process and the vision of compact sustainable growth. While we recognize the challenge this presents under the current suburban and rural fabric of Santa Clara County, we are committed to defining and developing complete communities with diverse housing, employment and transportation options that preserve the environmental health of the region and the State. You have already received from the individual jurisdictions many responses that speak to what we must do going forward together to create a plan that can be implemented and that will assure that our region’s many communities are both sustainable and livable. We look forward to providing input and working with you in the ongoing Alternative Scenarios process. Respectfully, on behalf of the members of SCCAPO, ____________________________________ Kevin L. Riley Director of Planning & Inspection City of Santa Clara H:\Dir P & I\SCCAPO\SCCAPO 2011\SCCAPO resp re IVS June 2011.doc March 2011 Draft Initial Vision Scenario SCCAPO Member Survey Results May 2011 IVS General Conclusions • Jobs Projections: mixed acceptance • Household Projections: too high or reasonable for most cities • Housing Units Allocation: too high or reasonable for most cities • Transportation Capacity: insufficient information; several indicate too low • Place Types: general acceptance Too high: Campbell County Cupertino Los Altos Hills Morgan Hill IVS Jobs Projections Too Low: Gilroy (maybe) Los Gatos Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose Close Enough Milpitas Sunnyvale Other Los Altos Too high: Campbell County Milpitas Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose IVS Household Projections Too Low: Los Gatos Close Enough Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Hills Sunnyvale Other Los Altos Too high: Campbell County Milpitas Morgan Hill Palo Alto San Jose Housing Unit Allocations Too Low: [None] Close Enough Cupertino Los Altos Hills Mountain View Sunnyvale Gilroy Other / N/A Los Altos Los Gatos Too high: [None] Transportation Capacity Too Low: County Palo Alto Gilroy Close Enough Cupertino Milpitas Morgan Hill Other/Unknown Campbell Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Mountain View Sunnyvale “None are a Neat Fit” Campbell Place Type Designations N/A: County Cupertino Los Gatos Close Enough Los Altos Milpitas Morgan Hill Mountain View Sunnyvale Other Los Altos Hills Palo Alto Gilroy San Jose “Other place types should be considered” (economic centers) Gilroy General Recommendations Growth Distributions • Decrease household and jobs projections to reflect historical patterns, particularly in unincorporated areas • Growth constrained by lack of available land and other economic and community-based factors (e.g. schools, parks, municipal services, etc.) • Adjust IVS growth distributions to reflect local plans and constraints General Recommendations Transportation Needs • Fund expressway pavement maintenance, operations/safety and congestion-relief projects • Fund VTA list of local road projects ($700M) • Prioritize transportation funding for communities willing to accept growth • Expand BRT and VTA light rail • Secure funding for Caltrain • Expand VTA bus and local shuttle services General Recommendations Infrastructure Needs • Provide funds to increase school capacity • Target infrastructure funding for PDAs and growth opportunity areas • Fund infrastructure improvements for rural areas • Increase sewer/wastewater treatment capacity • Fund water supply, recycled water improvements • Fund flood control improvements, adaptation measures • Replace aging infrastructure General Recommendations Legislative Actions • Amend Housing Element Law to address funding for RHNA capacity, senior units, unincorporated areas • Provide more state grants to support affordable and inclusionary housing • Streamline CEQA, air quality and traffic analyses • Enact appropriate local zoning for PDAs and growth opportunity areas General Recommendations Regional Planning Support • Support sub-regional dialogue and planning coordination among County, cities, VTA/CMA on SCS and RHNA • Provide grants to support sub-regional planning, PDA plans, policy support for SCS implementation, and GHG reductions • Support transportation projects such as Caltrain and BRT • Revise population and employment projections based on realistic trends General Recommendations Open Space Preservation • Limit development and preserve open space, recreation, natural resource and agricultural lands outside of growth management boundaries • Preserve lands with Williamson Act • Complete Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) • Establish growth boundaries and greenbelts • Expand public/private efforts (e.g. conservation easements, TDR, land trusts) Future Vision Scenario Preferred Land Use Concept • More Urban Jobs – Housing Fit 7 YES • Even More Aggressive Urban Jobs – Housing Fit : 5 YES, 1 NO • More Suburban Jobs – Housing Fit 1 YES, 3 Depends on Area, 3 NO Future Vision Scenario Unique County Aspects • Diverse urban and non-urban areas, 75% County rural • Diverse geography, economy & community identities • Center for technology innovation and synergy • Global economy, high-tech employment center • High housing/land costs, affordable housing challenge • High in-commuting from outside County • Unique transportation system by VTA, County & cities • Future impact of high speed rail • Half of water supply from local runoff, reservoirs and groundwater Future Vision Scenario Principles for Sustainable Economy • Reliable and convenient transportation options • Efficient and coordinated multi-modal transportation (VTA, BRT, Caltrain, SamTrans) • Jobs and housing growth at PDAs, growth opportunity areas and near transit • Diversity of housing for workforce, including affordable housing • Address infrastructure, schools, parks and quality of life needs Future Vision Scenario Principles for Housing Growth • Balance of housing to match employment growth • New housing near planned employment centers • Focused growth at PDAs and growth opportunity areas with good transit access • Higher density housing at transit stations and corridors • Grand Boulevard Initiative principles • Option for transfer of housing units between jurisdictions Future Vision Scenario Other Suggested Principles • Connect principle of sustainable compact urban development with support for Bay Area as a global center for innovation • Emphasize compact urban villages with complete neighborhoods and streets • Plan for transit for in-migration commuting, not just more housing • Along with identifying where growth should be directed, address where growth should NOT occur with incentives Date: May 23, 2011 To: SCS Housing Methodology Committee From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG Planning Director Subject: Revised Allocation Methodology – Fair Share Factors Overview At the April 2011 Housing Methodology Committee (HMC), ABAG and MTC staff presented several versions of an initial allocation methodology that attempted to incorporate the sustainability framework that underlies the Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the “fair share” principles that are integral to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. This memo summarizes the changes made to the allocation methodology based on the feedback provided by the HMC. Revised Allocation Methodology In the initial RHNA methodology proposed by ABAG and MTC for 2014‐2022, 70 percent of the region’s total housing need will be allocated to the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Growth Opportunity Areas identified by local jurisdictions, while the remaining 30 percent of the total housing need will be allocated based on household formation growth. At the April 2011 meeting, there was broad support from the HMC for using the PDA and Growth Opportunity Area sustainability framework for assigning most of the RHNA allocation to jurisdictions. However, most committee members expressed a desire to see other factors, including school quality, employment, transit, and past RHNA performance, in the methodology for allocating the remaining 30 percent of the total need to jurisdictions. The revised methodology example retains the use of the PDAs and Growth Opportunities for allocating 70 percent of the total housing need as Part 1: Sustainability Component, and incorporates the suggested additional factors for the remaining 30 percent of need as Part 2: Fair Share Component. The approach used for including each factor is described below. Part 1: Sustainability Component Seventy percent of the region’s total housing need is allocated based on the total household growth for each PDA and Growth Opportunity Area over the eight‐year RHNA period, as shown in the SCS Preferred Scenario (in this example, we are using the Initial Vision Scenario as a placeholder for the Preferred Scenario). The total amount of growth in a jurisdiction’s PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas is then compared to the amount of growth forecasted for the jurisdiction based on household formation. Jurisdictions where the growth in PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas represents more than 125 percent will not receive additional growth, but will retain the growth assigned to these areas. All other jurisdictions will receive additional growth based on the “fair share” factors applied to the remaining 30 percent of total housing need. Allocation Methodology Examples May 23, 2011 Page 2 Part 2: Fair Share Component To ensure that each community in the region does its fair share to provide affordable housing, 30 percent of the region’s total housing need will be allocated based on household formation growth modified by the factors suggested by the HMC: school quality, employment, transit, and past RHNA performance. Each of these factors is described in more detail below. School Quality The school quality factor includes the Academic Performance Index (API) scores for 2009 for 1400 public elementary and middle schools in the Bay Area. The API scores for each school in a jurisdiction were averaged to provide a single school quality score for each jurisdiction in the region. Each jurisdiction received a “score” based on its average API:  900 or above = 5  From 800 to 899 = 3  From 700 to 799 = 1 In the allocation methodology, those jurisdictions with a higher average school quality score will receive a higher share of the region’s housing need. Employment The employment factor is based on National Establishment Time Series (NETS) data for 2010. The NETS data is gathered by individual business and includes number of jobs, industry type, and location. Staff analyzed the data to determine the number of jobs in each jurisdiction that are within a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area and the number that are located outside one of these areas. Jurisdictions were rated based on the total number of jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area. Only the jobs outside of PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas were considered because this factor is being used to allocate the 30 percent of total need that has not already been directed to these sustainable locations. The score for each jurisdiction is assigned as follows:  More than 40,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 5  Between 20,001 and 40,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 4  Between 10,001 and 20,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 3  Between 5,001 and 10,000 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 2  Less than 5,001 jobs outside of a PDA or Growth Opportunity Area = 1 Those jurisdictions that have a higher number of jobs outside of PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas will receive a higher RHNA allocation. Transit The transit factor is based on measures of service frequency and overall coverage for an entire jurisdiction. Service frequency is measured by average daily headways (time in minutes between transit arrivals over a 24‐hour weekday period) in 2009 by jurisdiction. The calculation is done at the Allocation Methodology Examples May 23, 2011 Page 3 intersection level based on how frequently a transit vehicle arrives at that location; therefore, the average headway only takes into account intersections within a jurisdiction that have transit stops. Jurisdictions where the service frequency was higher than the median received a “high” score, while jurisdictions where the service frequency was lower than the median received a “low” score. Transit coverage is measured by the percent of intersections within a jurisdiction that have transit stops. This information helps avoid overstating the overall availability of transit jurisdiction‐wide based on the fact that some jurisdictions have a small number of stops that happen to have frequent transit. Jurisdictions where the service frequency was higher than the median received a “high” score, while jurisdictions where the service frequency was lower than the median received a “low” score. Jurisdictions were then grouped into four categories, and given a score as shown below:  High frequency + high coverage = 5  High frequency + low coverage = 3  Low frequency + high coverage = 3  Low frequency + low coverage = 1 Those jurisdictions that have better transit service and coverage will receive a higher RHNA allocation. RHNA Performance This factor evaluates a jurisdiction’s performance in issuing permits to meet its RHNA allocations for very low‐ and low‐income units for the 1999‐2006 RHNA period. The scores were calculated using the information included in ABAG’s report A Place to Call Home: Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area (August 2007). Jurisdictions were scored on the following scale:  0% of RHNA permitted = 5  1 – 25% of RHNA permitted = 4  26 – 50% of RHNA permitted = 3  51 – 75% of RHNA permitted = 2  76 – 100% of RHNA permitted = 1  More than 100% permitted = 0 Those jurisdictions that have permitted less of their past RHNA allocations will receive a higher RHNA allocation for this period. This is the only factor that was not scored on a scale of 1 – 5. The inclusion of a zero score for jurisdictions that permitted more than 100 percent of their RHNA allocations for very low‐ and low‐income households gives this factor slightly more weight in the allocation methodology. Allocation Methodology Examples May 23, 2011 Page 4 Combining the Factors Each jurisdiction’s scores on the four factors listed above are summed to determine their total factor score. For jurisdictions throughout the region, the data analysis determined that the total factor scores range from 3 to 16. The allocation adjustment assigned to each score is as follows: Score Allocation Adjustment 3 ‐80% 4 ‐70% 5 ‐60% 6 ‐50% 7 ‐40% 8 ‐30% 9 ‐20% 10 ‐10% 11 0% 12 10% 13 20% 14 30% 15 40% 16 50% Depending on a jurisdiction’s score, the corresponding allocation adjustment is applied to the amount of growth assigned to the areas outside of PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas (from the Preferred Scenario plus the redistribution of growth from jurisdictions that have already been assigned more than 125 percent of their household formation growth). The amount of growth assigned to the areas outside PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas will be reduced for jurisdictions that have total factor scores below 11 (the median score for all jurisdictions). The allocations will increase for jurisdictions with higher total factor scores (above 11). Each county will retain its control total for the growth outside of PDAs and/or Growth Opportunity Areas. Part 3: Determining the Total Allocation A jurisdiction’s total RHNA allocation is the sum of the Sustainability Component (units assigned to the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas) plus the Fair Share Component (units assigned to the areas outside of those sustainable places). 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 Area’s 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 F Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 2 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 California’s 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 District’s 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 District’s 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 Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 3 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 Earth’s weather patterns, including the rise in the Earth’s 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 Area’s GHG emissions. Climate change is expected to significantly affect the Bay Area’s 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 county’s 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 county’s 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 Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 4 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 plan’s 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 MTC’s 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 nation’s 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, long- range transportation plans cannot be pie-in-the-sky wish lists of projects. They must reflect Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 5 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: MTC’s effort to improve the operations, safety and management of the Bay Area’s 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 earth’s 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 Area’s 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.) Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 6 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 Area’s 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 Area’s 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 region’s 101 towns and cities to create a more sustainable future. One major effort now underway is the development of Plan Bay Area, the region’s 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 Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 7 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 region’s 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 Area’s most congested corridors. Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 8 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 Area’s 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 region’s 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 Area’s 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 region’s projected 25-year population growth, regardless of income level. Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 9 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 ABAG’s Projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and MTC’s 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. Sustainable Communities: Glossary Page 10 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 peak- period 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. 2572.txt Link only Page 1