HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3695
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3695)
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/11/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Update of One Bay Area Plan
Title: Update of Plan Bay Area and Draft Environmental Impact Report
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Committee direct staff to prepare comments regarding the Final
Draft Plan Bay Area and the Draft Environmental Impact Report, for review by the Committee at
its May 9, 2013 meeting.
Background
On March 22, 2013, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) released the Final Draft Plan Bay Area, the regional planning
document required by State law pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (2008). The Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the document was released on April 2, 2013. The agencies have
requested comments on the two documents by not later than May 16, 2013, and adoption of
the Plan Bay Area and EIR are scheduled for July by the ABAG and MTC executive boards.
Substantial additional background on the overall One Bay Area effort is available online on the
project website at: http://www.onebayarea.org/.
Discussion
The Final Draft Plan Bay Area and the Draft Environmental Impact Report are available online
at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay-area.html. An
overview of the Plan is included as Attachment A to this report and the schedule for review,
including outreach meetings, is included as Attachment B. Due to the recent release of the
document, staff has not had extensive time to review it before the Committee meeting, but we
believe it is very similar to the Preferred Scenario reviewed by Council last Spring. The housing
units and job projections have not yet been released (though they may be available prior to the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Committee meeting), but ABAG staff indicates they are identical to the Preferred Scenario
projections, which are included as Attachment C.
Staff is aware that some of the Committee members have not had extensive background
regarding this issue previously. The best sources of information are probably the staff reports
(and attachments) to City Council on February 21, 2012 (available online at:
http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30288) and on March 5,
2012 (available online at:
http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30448). The March 5,
2012 Council action approved the City’s comments regarding the Preferred Scenario
(Attachment D).
The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed plan and four alternative scenarios with regard to their
impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as a number of other environmental and
equity criteria. Staff had provided initial input to ABAG/MTC regarding alternatives that should
be considered (Attachment E), though none of the alternatives directly follows from or
responds to the City’s suggestions.
Staff will be prepared to provide more information and a suggested approach to respond to the
documents at the Committee meeting. Staff believes that the response at this stage should
reiterate comments made previously, but should generally focus at a high level on the City’s
preference for a particular alternative or alternatives. Following Committee discussion, staff will
develop a draft letter or letters to ABAG and MTC for further consideration at the Committee’s
May 9 meeting.
Timeline
The deadline for comments to the agencies, for both the Plan and the DEIR, is May 16, 2013.
Staff expects to prepare draft responses for consideration by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on May 1, the Regional Housing Mandate Committee on May 9, and the Council on
May 13, and will then forward the comments to the agencies. The boards of ABAG and MTC
are scheduled to consider the Plan and EIR for adoption in July.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Final Draft Plan Bay Area Overview (PDF)
Attachment B: Schedule for Plan Bay Area (PDF)
Attachment C: May 2012 Jobs and Housing Projections 2010-2040(PDF)
Attachment D: March 31, 2012 Palo Alto Response to Preferred Scenario (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment E: July 11, 2012 Palo Alto Response to EIR Notice of Preparation (PDF)
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region i
Strategy for a
Sustainable
Region
Draft
March 2013
Association of
Bay Area
Governments
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
o
e
BayArea
aLI1!
ii Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region iii
Draft Plan Bay Area
Table of Contents
Introducing Plan Bay Area Strategy for a Sustainable Region 1
Chapter 1 Setting Our Sights 17
Chapter 2 The Bay Area in 2040 29
Chapter 3 Where We Live, Where We Work 41
Chapter 4 Investments 61
Chapter 5 Performance 95
Chapter 6 A Plan to Build On 121
What’s Next for Plan Bay Area?135
Appendix 1 Supplementary Reports and Additional Resources 137
Appendix 2 Maps 139
iv Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Mountain View
Dublin
Emeryville
Los Gatos
Danville
San Carlos
Gilroy
San Pablo
Belmont
Colma
Sebastopol
Campbell
Burlingame
Woodside
Fairfax
Windsor
Los Altos
Hillsborough
Morgan Hill
Pacifica
Atherton
Mill Valley
San Bruno
El Cerrito
American Canyon
San Anselmo
Clayton
Calistoga
Yountville
Sausalito
Monte Sereno
Suisun City
Newark
Belvedere
Portola Valley
Larkspur
Cotati
Millbrae
Sonoma
Saratoga
Orinda
Oakley
Lafayette
Rohnert Park
CorteMadera
Ross
Piedmont
Benicia
Foster City
Albany
Hercules
Tiburon
Healdsburg
Pleasant Hill
Moraga
Dixon
East Palo AltoHalf Moon Bay
Rio Vista
Brisbane
Cloverdale
MenloPark
Los Altos Hills
Pinole Martinez
Cupertino
Pittsburg
San Ramon
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Brentwood
Redwood City
Livermore
Palo Alto
SouthSan Francisco
PleasantonSan Leandro
Vallejo
Concord
Napa
SanMateo Hayward
Santa Clara
Union City
Novato
Antioch
Vacaville
Walnut Creek
SantaRosa
Berkeley
Alameda
SanRafael
Petaluma
Fremont
Fair eld
Richmond
Daly City
OaklandSanFrancisco
San Jose
580
238
101
101
101
101
101 505
80
780
580
880
580
205
680
680
280
280
580
680
80
80
29
29
29
121
121
37
24
37
12
12
12
12
113
116
13
4
9
35
35 130
23782
1
25
152
152
17
35
92
23892
84
84
84
4
41
116
128
128
128
116
1
87
85
Minor Road
SanFranciscoLegend
Freeway
Major Road
ROADS
> 350,000
50,000–350,000
<50,000
Oakland
Novato
Pacifica
2010 POPULATION
Altamont Corridor Express
Amtrak
BART
Caltrain
Light Rail (Muni & VTA)
Cable Car (Muni)
RAIL SYSTEM
Urbanized area
Open space
Priority Development Area (PDA)
Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
San Francisco Bay Area - Transportation and Land Uses | 3.20.13
0
0
10 20 30
10 20 30 40
Miles
Kilometers
SantaClaraSanMateo
Alameda
ContraCosta
Marin
Sonoma Napa
SolanoSan Francisco
Bay Area:
Transportation
and Land Uses
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 1
Introducing Plan Bay Area:
Strategy for a Sustainable RegionMost of us living in the nine counties that touch San Francisco Bay are accustomed to saying we live in “the Bay Area.” This simple phrase speaks volumes — and underscores a shared regional identity. The 7 million of us who call the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area home have a strong interest in protecting the wealth of features that make our region a magnet for people and businesses from around the globe.The Bay Area is, after all, the world’s 21st-largest economy. The natural beauty of San Francisco Bay and the communities surrounding it, our Mediterranean climate, extensive system of interconnected parks and open space, advanced mass transit system, top-notch educational institutions, and rich cultural heritage continue to draw people who seek better opportunities. Yet we cannot take for granted that we will be able to sustain and improve our quality of life for current and future generations. With our region’s population projected to swell to some 9 million people by 2040, Plan Bay Area charts a course for accommodating this growth while fostering an innovative, prosperous and competitive economy; preserving a healthy and safe environment; and allowing all Bay Area residents to share the benefits of vibrant, sustainable communities connected by an efficient and well-maintained transportation network.
“The Bay Area has made
farsighted regional planning a
top priority for decades.”
2 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
A Legacy of LeadershipPlan Bay Area, while comprehensive and forward-reaching, is an evolutionary document. The Bay Area has made farsighted regional planning a top priority for decades. Previous genera-tions recognized the need for a mass transit system, including regional systems such as BART and Caltrain that have helped make our region the envy of other metropolitan areas. Our transbay bridges add cohesion to the regional transportation system by connecting communities across the bay. Likewise, we owe our system of parks and open space to past genera-tions of leaders who realized that a balance between urbanized areas and open space was essential to a healthy environment and vibrant communities.Plan Bay Area extends this legacy of leadership, doing more of what we’ve done well while also mapping new strategies to face new challenges. Among the new challenges are the requirements of California’s landmark 2008 climate law (SB 375, Steinberg): to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, and to accommodate all needed housing growth within our nine counties. By coordinating future land uses with our long-term transportation investments, Plan Bay Area meets these challenges head on — without compromising local control of land-use decisions. Each of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities must decide for themselves what is best for their citizens and their communities.
Building Upon Local Plans and Strategies For over a decade, local governments and regional agencies have been working together to en-courage the growth of jobs and production of housing in areas supported by amenities and in-frastructure. In 2008, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) created a regional initiative to support these local efforts called FOCUS. In recent years, this initiative has helped to link local community development aspirations with regional land use and transportation planning objectives. Local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and these form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area.PDAs are areas where new development will support the day-to-day needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. While PDAs were originally established to address housing needs in infill communities, they have been broadened to advance focused employment growth. Local jurisdictions have defined the character of their PDAs according to existing conditions and future expectations as regional centers, city cen-ters, suburban centers or transit town centers, among other place types. PCAs are regionally significant open spaces for which there exists broad consensus for long-term protection but
Cal
t
r
a
n
s
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 3
California Senate Bill 375: Linking Regional Plans to
State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Plan Bay Area grew out of “The California Sustainable Com-
munities and Climate Protection Act of 2008” (California Sen-
ate Bill 375, Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18
metropolitan areas — including the Bay Area — to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Signed
by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the law requires
that the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) promote
compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development. To meet the goals of SB 375, Plan
Bay Area directs more future development in areas that are or will be walkable and bikable and
close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. Key elements
of SB 375 include the following.
• The law requires that the Bay Area and other California regions develop a Sustainable Com-
munities Strategy (SCS) — a new element of the regional transportation plan (RTP) — to
strive to reach the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target established for each region by
the California Air Resources Board. The Bay Area’s target is a 7 percent per capita reduction
by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035. Plan Bay Area is the region’s first
RTP subject to SB 375.
• In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the
land use and housing assumptions for the SCS, which adds three new elements to the RTP:
(1) a land use component that identifies how the region could house the region’s entire
population over the next 25 years; (2) a discussion of resource and farmland areas; and (3) a
demonstration of how the development pattern and the transportation network can work
together to reduce GHG emissions.
• Extensive outreach with local government officials is required, as well as a public participa-
tion plan that includes a minimum number of workshops in each county as well as three
public hearings on the draft SCS prior to adoption of a final plan.
• The law synchronizes the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) process — adopted in
the 1980s — with the regional transportation planning process.
• Finally, SB 375 streamlines the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for housing and
mixed-use projects that are consistent with the SCS and meet specified criteria, such as
proximity to public transportation.
nearer-term development pressure. PDAs and PCAs complement one another because promot-ing development within PDAs takes development pressure off the region’s open space and agricultural lands. Building upon the collaborative approach established through FOCUS, local input has driven the set of alternative scenarios that preceded and informed the development of Plan Bay Area.
4 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
The non-profit and business communities also played a key role in shaping the plan. Business groups highlighted the need for more affordable workforce housing, removing regulatory bar-riers to infill development, and addressing infrastructure needs at rapidly growing employ-ment centers. Environmental organizations emphasized the need to improve transit access, retain open space, provide an adequate supply of housing to limit the number of people com-muting into the region from nearby counties, and direct discretionary transportation funding to communities building housing in PDAs. Equity organizations focused on increasing access to housing and employment for residents of all income categories throughout the region, and establishing policies to limit the displacement of existing residents as PDAs grow and evolve. All of these diverse voices strengthened this plan.
Setting Our SightsDeveloping a long-range land use and transportation plan for California’s second-largest met-ropolitan region, covering about 7,000 square miles across nine Bay Area counties, is no simple task. We set our sights on this challenge by emphasizing an open, inclusive public outreach process and adopting objective performance standards based on federal and state require-ments to measure our progress during the planning process.
Reaching OutWe reached out to the people who matter most — the 7 million people who live in the region. Thousands of people participated in stakeholder sessions, public workshops, tele-phone and internet surveys, and more. Befitting the Bay Area, the public outreach process was boister-ous and contentious. Key stakehold-ers also included the region’s 101 cities and nine counties; our fellow regional agencies, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; community-based organizations and advocacy groups, and some three dozen regional transportation partners. (See “Plan Bay Area Prompts Robust Dialogue on Transportation and Housing,” in Chapter 1.)
Establishing Performance TargetsBefore proposing a land use distribution approach or recommending a transportation invest-ment strategy, planners must formulate in concrete terms the hoped-for outcomes. For Plan Bay Area, performance targets are an essential means of informing and allowing for a discus-sion of quantitative metrics. After months of discussion and debate, ABAG and MTC adopted 10 targets in January 2011, reflecting input from the broad range of stakeholders engaged in the process.
Noa
h
B
e
r
g
e
r
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 5
Two of the targets are not only ambitious; they are also mandated by state law. The first man-datory target addresses climate protection by requiring the Bay Area to reduce its per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent by 2040. The second mandatory target addresses adequate housing by requiring the region to house 100 percent of its project-ed population growth by income level. Plan Bay Area achieves both these major milestones.The eight voluntary targets seek to promote healthy and safe communities by reducing pre-mature deaths from air pollution, reducing injuries and fatalities from collisions, increasing the amount of time people walk or cycle for transportation, and protecting open space and agricultural lands. Other targets address equity concerns, economic vitality and transporta-tion system effectiveness. Plan Bay Area meets some, but not all, of the voluntary targets. (See Chapter 1, Table 1 for a summary of all the Plan Bay Area performance targets.)
Planning Scenarios Take Aim at Performance TargetsTaken together, the Plan Bay Area performance targets outline a framework that allows us to better understand how different projects and policies might affect the region’s future. With the targets clearly identified, MTC and ABAG formulated possible scenarios — combinations of land use patterns and transportation investments — that could be evaluated together to see if (and by how much), they achieved (or fell short of) the performance targets. An iterative pro-cess of scenario-testing begun in 2010 yielded preferred alternatives, both for transportation investments and a land use strategy. Adopted by the boards of MTC and ABAG in May 2012, they form this draft Plan Bay Area.
Looking Toward the FutureABAG and MTC track and forecast the region’s demographics and economic trends to inform and guide Plan Bay Area investments and policy decisions. The forecasts reflect the best pic-ture we have of what the Bay Area may look like in 2040, so that today’s decisions may align with tomorrow’s expected transportation and housing needs. These forecasts form the basis for developing the regional land use plan for Plan Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and, in turn, the region’s transportation investment strategy.
Taking Equity Into Account
About one-fifth of the Bay Area’s total population lives in areas with large
numbers of low-income and minority populations. Promoting these people’s
access to housing, jobs and transportation not only advances Plan Bay Area’s
objective to advance equity in the region, it also increases our chances of meet-
ing the other performance targets. MTC and ABAG adopted five Equity Analysis
measures to evaluate equity concerns: housing and transportation affordability,
potential for displacement, healthy communities, access to jobs, and equitable
mobility. (See Chapter 1, Table 2: “Plan Bay Area Equity Performance Measures.”)MT
C
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
s
6 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Projections in three main areas informed development of the plan: population, employment and housing. Here are some highlights of each.
• Population: By 2040 the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to add 2.1 million people, increasing total regional population from 7.2 million to 9.3 million, an increase of 30 percent or roughly 1 percent per year. This growth means the Bay Area will continue to be California’s second-largest population and economic center.
• Employment: The number of jobs is expected to grow by 1.1 million between 2010 and 2040, an increase of 33 percent. This is a slower rate of job growth than previous forecasts.
• Housing: During this same time period the number of households is expected to in-crease by 27 percent to 700,000, and the number of housing units is expected to in-crease by 24 percent to 660,000. The demographic implications of these topline numbers are far-reaching, and some trends in particular weighed heavily in the development of Plan Bay Area. These are touched on below and examined in greater detail in Chapter 2.
Project-Level Performance Assessment of
Transportation Projects
By developing the preferred land use and transportation investment strategies, ABAG and MTC
were able to answer many big picture questions about the Bay Area’s future. For example, should
the region focus on expanding the transportation system or on maintaining what we have already
built? And should the Bay Area invest more in transit for future generations or emphasize highway
projects to improve the commutes of today’s drivers? And how should our transportation invest-
ments support future growth in employment and housing?
Plan Bay Area also is based on a commitment to evaluate individual transportation projects to make
sure dollars are being allocated to the most cost-effective projects. In order to take a closer look at
major transportation projects, MTC performed a project performance assessment, examining bil-
lions of dollars of potential transportation projects to identify the highest-performing investments
across the region. This enabled funding prioritization for the highest-performing projects. Most
of them focused on leveraging existing
assets and improving their efficiency, while
supporting future development. Notable
projects include BART Metro, which will
increase service frequencies on the highest-
demand segment of the BART system, and
San Francisco’s congestion pricing initia-
tives. (See Chapter 5 for a list of high-per-
forming projects.)Noa
h
B
e
r
g
e
r
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 7
Aging Baby Boomers Expected to Change
Travel and Development PatternsThe U.S. Census Bureau defines baby boomers as people who were born between 1946 and 1964 during the post-World War II baby boom. By 2040 the oldest baby boomers will be in their 90s and the youngest will be in their 70s. Today, people who are 65 and over represent 12 percent of the Bay Area’s total population, but by 2040 the number of seniors will increase to 22 percent. That’s more than 1 in 5 people in our region. It is expected that many of these seniors will relocate to smaller homes in more urban locations to have easier access to essential services and amenities and the Bay Area’s extensive transit system.Mobility will be a special challenge for seniors who lose their ability to drive. MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Program supports projects that address mobility and accessibility needs of low-in-come and disabled people throughout the region. Between 2006 and 2012, roughly $172 million was invested to support about 220 projects. Closely related are MTC programs that provide funding to sustain and improve mobility for elderly and disabled persons in accordance with and even beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These types of projects have included travel training, sidewalk and bus stop improvements, supportive ride programs and other com-munity initiatives. Plan Bay Area reaffirms the importance of Lifeline and Elderly & Disabled programs by adding over $800 million in discretionary funding for the Lifeline program, and almost $240 million for the Elderly & Disabled programs over the 28-year period of the plan.
Increased Racial and Ethnic Diversity Will
Increase Demand for Multifamily HousingThe Bay Area and California are at the forefront of one of the greatest demographic changes in our nation’s history: growth in the Latino population. In January 2013 the California Depart-ment of Finance projected that the state’s Hispanic population will equal the non-Hispanic
Joy
c
e
B
e
n
n
a
0%
50%
20402010
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
Tot
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pacific Islander and American Indian
MultiraceAfrican-AmericanAsianLatinoWhite
Figure 1 Share of Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2040
Sources: 2010 Census, California Department of Finance, ABAG
8 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
white population by mid-2013. By early 2014 it expects that California’s Hispanic population will have become a plurality for the first time in state history.This state forecast aligns with Plan Bay Area’s projection that by 2040 the Bay Area population will become substantially more racially and ethnically diverse. Latinos will emerge as the larg-est ethnic group, increasing from 23 percent to 35 percent of the total population. The number of Asians also will increase, growing from 21 percent to about 24 percent of the population. Both population groups have demonstrated an historic preference for multifamily housing, and they form multigenerational households at a higher rate than the general population. This is expected to drive higher demand for multifamily housing, in contrast to the historic devel-opment pattern of building primarily single-family homes. Likewise, many Latinos and Asians rely more on public transit than non-Hispanic whites. This, too, is expected to increase demand for a robust transit system that makes it easier for people who don’t own cars to commute, shop and access essential services.
Demand for Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Areas Close to Transit
Expected to IncreaseSingle-family homes represent the majority of housing production in recent decades, but recent trends suggest that cities once again are becoming centers of population growth. Construction of multifamily housing in urban locations in the Bay Area increased from an average of 35 percent of total housing con-struction in the 1990s to nearly 50 percent in the 2000s. In 2010 it represented 65 percent of all housing construction.As discussed above, demand for multifamily housing is projected to increase as seniors downsize and seek homes in more urban locations. The growing numbers of Latino and Asian households will create a similar shift in the housing market. Finally, population growth of those aged 34 and younger is expected to have a similar effect, as this demographic group also demonstrates a greater preference for multifamily hous-ing. All told, the number of people per Bay Area household is expected to increase from 2.69 in 2010 to 2.75 in 2040. Market demand for new homes will tilt toward townhomes, condomini-ums and apartments in developed areas near transit, shops and services.
Building a Development Pattern That Aligns
With Where We Live and WorkPlan Bay Area provides a vision for how to retain and enhance the qualities that make the Bay Area a great place to live, work, and play. It builds on the legacy of leadership left to us by previous generations. In fact, many of the attributes that make the Bay Area special — a strong
MT
C
A
r
c
h
i
v
e
s
The Crossings, Mountain View
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 9
economy, protected natural resources, a network of diverse neighborhoods — would not have been possible without our predecessors’ forward-thinking actions.Looking ahead to the growth expected in the Bay Area over the next several decades, we face many similar problems as past generations, while also confronting new challenges that threaten the region’s economic vitality and quality of life. Our economy is still recovering from the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which has resulted in uneven job growth throughout the region, increased income disparity, and high foreclosure rates. At the same time, housing costs have risen for renters and, to a lesser degree, for home buyers close to the regions’s job centers. Finally, Bay Area communities face these challenges at a time when there are fewer public re-sources available than in past decades for investments in infrastructure, public transit, afford-able housing, schools and parks.
A More Focused FutureThe planning scenarios and land use and transportation investment strategies developed during the Plan Bay Area process seek to address the needs and aspirations of each Bay Area jurisdiction, as identified in locally adopted general plans and zoning ordinances. They also aim to meet the Plan Bay Area performance targets and equity performance standards. The framework for developing these scenarios consisted largely of the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) recommended by local governments. The preferred land use scenario identified in Chapter 3 is a flexible blueprint for accommodating growth over the long term. Pairing this development pattern with the transportation invest-ments described in Chapter 4 is what makes Plan Bay Area the first truly integrated land use transportation plan for the region’s anticipated growth.
Pet
e
r
B
e
e
l
e
r
Richmond Transit Village
10 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
2040 Employment Distribution HighlightsPlan Bay Area’s distribution of jobs throughout the region is informed by changing trends in the locational preferences of the wide range of industry sectors and business place types in the Bay Area. These trends capture ongoing geographic changes, as well as changes in the labor force composition and workers’ preferences. The employment distribution directs job growth toward the region’s larger cities and Priority Development Areas with a strong existing em-ployment base and communities with stronger opportunities for knowledge-sector jobs.
Table 1 SF Bay Area Total Job Growth 2010-2040, Top 15 Cities
Rank Jurisdiction
Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth
2010 2040 Total Growth
Percentage
Growth
1 San Francisco 568,720 759,470 190,740 34%
2 San Jose 375,360 522,050 146,680 39%
3 Oakland 190,250 275,490 85,240 45%
4 Santa Clara 112,460 145,560 33,100 29%
5 Fremont 89,900 119,870 29,970 33%
6 Palo Alto 89,370 119,030 29,650 33%
7 Santa Rosa 75,460 103,930 28,470 38%
8 Berkeley 77,020 99,220 22,210 29%
9 Concord 47,520 69,310 21,790 46%
10 Hayward 69,100 89,900 20,800 30%
11 Sunnyvale 74,610 95,320 20,710 28%
12 San Mateo 52,930 73,460 20,530 39%
13 Redwood City 58,340 77,830 19,490 33%
14 Walnut Creek 41,650 57,300 15,650 38%
15 Mountain View 47,800 63,380 15,570 33%
Source: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, ABAG, 2012Almost 40 percent of the jobs added from 2010 to 2040 will be in the region’s three largest cities — San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland — which accounted for about one-third of the region’s jobs in 2010. Two-thirds of the overall job growth is anticipated to be in PDAs throughout the region. Due to the strength of the knowledge sector, nine of the 15 cities expected to experience the greatest job growth are in the western and southern part of the region surrounding Silicon Valley. The remaining communities expecting high levels of job growth are in the East Bay and North Bay, owing to their strong roles in the current economy, diverse employment base, and their proximity to a large base of workers. The 15 cities expected to experience the most job growth will account for roughly 700,000 jobs, or just over 60 percent of the new jobs added in the region by 2040. (See Table 1 above.)
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 11
2040 Housing Distribution HighlightsThe Plan Bay Area housing distribution is guided by the policy direction of the ABAG Executive Board, which voted in July 2011 to support equitable and sustainable development by “maxi-mizing the regional transit network and reducing GHG emissions by providing convenient access to employment for people of all incomes.” This was accomplished by distributing total housing growth numbers to: 1) job-rich cities that have PDAs or additional areas that are PDA-like; 2) areas connected to the existing transit infrastructure; and 3) areas that lack sufficient affordable housing to accommodate low-income commuters. The housing distribution directs growth to locations where the transit system can be utilized more efficiently, where workers can be better connected to jobs, and where residents can access high-quality services.
Table 2 SF Bay Area Total Housing Unit Growth 2010-2040, Top 15 Cities
Rank Jurisdiction
Total Housing Units 2010-2040 Housing Unit Growth
2010 2040 Total Growth
Percentage
Growth
1 San Jose 314,040 443,210 129,170 41%
2 San Francisco 376,940 469,350 92,410 25%
3 Oakland 169,710 221,200 51,490 30%
4 Sunnyvale 55,790 74,780 18,990 34%
5 Concord 47,130 65,170 18,040 38%
6 Fremont 73,990 91,610 17,620 24%
7 Santa Rosa 67,400 83,420 16,020 24%
8 Santa Clara 45,150 58,920 13,770 30%
9 Milpitas 19,810 32,430 12,620 64%
10 Hayward 48,300 60,580 12,290 25%
11 Fairfield 37,180 48,280 11,100 30%
12 San Mateo 40,010 50,180 10,160 25%
13 Richmond 39,330 49,020 9,690 25%
14 Livermore 30,340 40,020 9,670 32%
15 Mountain View 33,880 43,270 9,390 28%
Source: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, ABAG, 2012Substantial housing production is expected on the Peninsula and in the South Bay, where eight of the top 15 cities expected to experience the most housing growth are located. Two-thirds of the region’s overall housing production is directed to these 15 cities, leaving the more than 90 remaining jurisdictions in the region to absorb only limited growth. This development pattern preserves the character of more than 95 percent of the region by focusing growth on less than 5 percent of the land. (See Table 2 above.)
12 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Transportation Investments Plan Bay Area structures an infrastructure investment plan in a systematic way to sup-port the region’s long-term land use strat-egy, relying on a performance assessment of scenarios and individual projects. The plan makes investments in the region’s transporta-tion network that support job growth and new homes in existing communities by focusing the lion’s share of investment on maintaining and boosting the efficiency of the existing transit and road system. Plan Bay Area also takes a bold step with strategic investments that provide support for focused growth in Priority De-velopment Areas, including the new One Bay Area Grant program.Plan Bay Area transportation revenue forecasts total $289 billion over the 28-year period. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of these funds are from regional and local sources, primarily dedicated sales tax programs and bridge tolls. Making up the remainder of the pie are state and federal revenues (mainly derived from fuel taxes). Of the total revenues, $57 billion are “discretionary,” or available for assignment to projects and programs through Plan Bay Area.The plan invests those discretionary funds via six key investment strategies, as shown in Figure 2 and presented in greater detail in Chapter 4. (See Table 3 for a look at the “big-ticket” plan in-vestments, overall.) The first two discretionary strategies merit special mention.
Maintain Our Existing SystemThough its fund sources are many and varied, Plan Bay Area’s overriding priority in invest-ing those funds can be stated quite simply: “Fix It First.” First and foremost, this plan should help to maintain the Bay Area’s transportation system in a state of good repair. Plan Bay Area’s focus on “fix it first” ensures that we maintain existing transportation assets, primarily con-centrated in the region’s core, which reinforces the plan’s focused growth strategy. Build
Next Generation
Transit
($5 Billion)
9%
Boost Freeway andTransit Efficiency($4 Billion)7%
Protect Our
Climate
(<$1 Billion)
<1%
Reserve
($2 Billion)
3%
Maintain ExistingSystem
($15 Billion)
26%
Support
Focused Growth:
One Bay Area
Grant Program
($14 Billion)
25%
County
Investment
Priorities
($16 Billion)
29%
Figure 2 Plan Bay Area — Discretionary
Investment Summary
(in year-of-expenditure $)
Joh
n
B
e
n
s
o
n
Caltrain Baby Bullet train
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 13
In total, Plan Bay Area dedicates 87 percent of all available funding (committed and discre-tionary) to sustaining the existing transportation network. Given the age of many major assets — BART turned 40 last year and S. F. Muni turned 100 — this should come as no surprise.
Support Focused Growth — One Bay Area Grant ProgramThe OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region’s transportation funding program with SB 375 and the land use pattern outlined in Chapter 3. The OBAG program rewards jurisdictions that focus housing growth in Priority De-velopment Areas (PDAs) through their planning and zoning policies, and actual production of housing units. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in a community’s transportation infrastructure by providing funding for Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to Schools projects and Priority Conservation Areas.
Plan Bay Area Achieves Key Performance Targets As described earlier, Plan Bay Area was developed within a framework of objective perfor-mance standards, both mandatory and voluntary or aspirational. As has been the case in past long-term transportation plans, no single strategy is able to achieve all the plan’s performance targets. An analysis of the 10 main targets and five sub-targets (for a total of 15 performance measures) clearly bears this out. Specifically, the draft plan meets or exceeds six targets, including the statutory greenhouse gas emissions and housing targets, narrowly misses three targets, falls well short of two targets and unfortunately moves in the wrong direction on four of the targets. In other words, the draft plan makes great progress on nine of 15 performance
“Top 10” Plan Bay Area Investments, by Project
(includes Committed and Discretionary funds)
Table 3 Ten Largest Plan Bay Area Investments
Rank Project
Investment
(YOE*
Millions $)
1 BART to Warm Springs, San Jose, and Santa Clara $8,341
2 MTC Regional Express Lane Network $6,657
3 Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Downtown Extension (Phases 1 and 2)$4,185
4 Integrated Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)$2,259
5 Presidio Parkway/ Doyle Drive US 101 seismic replacement $2,053
6 Caltrain Electrification and Service Frequency Improvements $1,718
7 SF MUNI Central Subway: King St to Chinatown $1,578
8 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Express Lane Network $1,458
9 San Jose International Airport Connector $753
10 Hunters Point and Candlestick Point: New Local Roads $722
* YOE = Year of Expenditure
14 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
measures, which represents a solid first effort. The region will need to focus future attention on conceptualizing breakthrough strategies to achieve the four targets where we are falling behind. For a more detailed discussion of the plan’s performance as measured against each individual target, please see Chapter 5.
A Plan to Build On Plan Bay Area is a work in progress that will be updated every four years to reflect new ini-tiatives and priorities. It builds upon the work of previous initiatives, complements ongoing work and lays the groundwork for closer examination of certain critical issues that can further prepare the region to meet the future head-on. The plan highlights the relationship between transportation investments and land use planning, and represents the region’s newest effort to position itself to make the most of what the future will bring. No single level of government can be expected to address all the critical components needed to create a stronger and more resilient Bay Area. It will take a coordinated effort among diverse partners to promote regional economic development, adapt to climate change, prepare for natural disasters, get creative about how to provide affordable housing for all Bay Area resi-dents, ensure clean and healthy air for our communities, and prepare for emerging technolo-gies that will change the way people work and get around. Further steps will be needed to fully realize the Plan Bay Area vision and implement some of its forward-looking plans and policies. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of some needed “next steps.”)But we have made a strong start. Look closely at Plan Bay Area, and you will see a plan that takes great strides toward:
Tackling problems that cross boundaries and require regional solutions Housing, air quality, traffic, jobs, economic development, open space preservation — the list is a long one.
Embodying local visions Priority Development Areas were recommended by local governments, and land use and transportation strategies are linked to local input and priorities; different kinds of investments and development are envisioned for different parts of the region.
Helping to ensure a vibrant and healthy region for our children and grandchildren Cleaner air, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, more housing options, improved infra-structure, better access to jobs, and access to open space and recreation — these are the building blocks of a better future.
Making Bay Area businesses more competitive A well-constructed, sustainable regional plan can help us attract private sector invest-ment and compete for federal and state funding.
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 15
Providing a range of housing and
transportation choices A greater variety of multifamily and single family housing will be available in places with better transit access, and improved walking conditions and local services.
Stretching tax revenues through
smart investments By making the most of existing infra-structure, using a performance-based approach to transportation investments and coordinating the location of future housing and jobs with major transporta-tion investments, we can get more bang for our buck in public expenditures.
Preserving open spaces, natural resources,
agriculture and farmland By developing in existing downtowns, main streets and neighborhoods, we don’t need to develop on open spaces or in places that over-utilize our water supply, energy resources and road capacity.
Helping to create healthy communities More people will be able to live in neighborhoods where they can walk to shops, transit and local parks because of the groundwork laid in this plan.Plan Bay Area cannot guarantee these outcomes, of course, but we believe it can greatly boost the region’s odds of achieving them. For surely we must work together as a region to promote sustainability, and to leave a better Bay Area for our children and grandchildren. By helping to harmonize local decision-making and regional goals, by better integrating transportation in-vestment and land use planning, by more closely aligning our policies with our vision — in short, by creating a strategy for a sustainable region — Plan Bay Area gives us a chance to do that.
MTC and ABAG welcome your comments on this draft Plan Bay Area. An extensive
outreach eff ort is planned during the spring of 2013 to provide ample opportunity
for the region’s residents to make their views known. Please see “What’s Next for
Plan Bay Area” at the end of this plan for details, or visit http://onebayarea.org
Kar
l
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
16 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
What’s Next for Plan Bay Area?135
What’s Next for Plan Bay Area?ABAG and MTC, in partnership with public agencies and with public input from thousands, crafted the draft Plan Bay Area to lay a course for future job and housing growth supported by almost $300 billion in transportation investments. After two and a half years, there remain several critical steps ahead before the �inal adoption of the plan as outlined below.
The Road to AdoptionThe release of this draft plan begins the �inal phase of this planning effort. Starting in April 2013 there will be a series of outreach meetings in every county, a telephone survey, and op-portunities to provide online and written feedback for those who are unable to attend county workshops or other public meetings. The details on the public workshops are in the table below. All public workshops are expected to run from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. with an of�icial period of Public Hearings from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Noa
h
B
e
r
g
e
r
Draft Plan Bay Area
releasedLate March 2013
Public meetings in each countyApril-May 2013
Commentperiod closesMid-May 2013
Adoption of
Plan Bay Area
Joint MTC/ABAG Meeting
Summer 2013
136 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Schedule of Plan Bay Area Outreach Meetings
Date Location
Monday, April 8, 2013 Napa County: Elks Lodge, Napa
Monday, April 8, 2013 Sonoma County: Friedman Center, Santa Rosa
Thursday, April 11, 2013 San Francisco: Hotel Whitcomb, Civic Center
Monday, April 22, 2013 Solano County: Fairgrounds, Vallejo
Monday, April 22, 2013 Contra Costa County: Marriott, Walnut Creek
Monday, April 29, 2013 Marin County: Marin Center, San Rafael
Monday, April 29, 2013 San Mateo County: Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Foster City
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Alameda County: Mirage Ballroom, Fremont
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Santa Clara County: Downtown Hilton, San JoseFor more information see http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/meetings-events/Public-Workshops-Public-Hearings.html, or call 510.817.5700. Public input will be col-lected on this draft into mid-May before its presentation to the ABAG and MTC boards.
No
a
h
B
e
r
g
e
r
Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth
Campbell 27,230 35,050 7,820 29%
Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 7,880 10,220 2,340
Cupertino 25,990 33,350 7,360 28%
Gilroy 17,600 21,900 4,300 24%
Downtown Transit Town Center 2,370 3,600 1,230
Los Altos 14,700 18,160 3,460 24%
Los Altos Hills 3,580 4,440 860 24%
Los Gatos 23,580 28,980 5,390 23%
Milpitas 45,060 57,640 12,580 28%
Transit Area Suburban Center 5,240 9,560 4,320
Monte Sereno 450 570 120 27%
Morgan Hill 17,520 22,080 4,560 26%
Downtown Transit Town Center 1,660 3,000 1,340
Mountain View 47,800 63,380 15,570 33%
Downtown Transit Town Center 9,410 10,250 850
East Whisman Employment Center 8,710 12,380 3,670
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,770 6,630 850
North Bayshore Suburban Center 7,390 15,070 7,690
San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 3,150 4,330 1,180
Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 650 1,210 560
Palo Alto 89,370 119,030 29,650 33%
California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 3,370 5,030 1,660
San Jose 375,360 522,050 146,680 39%
Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 11,520 12,910 1,390
Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,700 2,660 960
Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 6,140 12,180 6,040
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 880 1,720 840
Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 5,600 7,630 2,030
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 2,340 5,580 3,250
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 4,070 7,060 2,990
Communications Hill Transit Town Center 3,940 5,650 1,710
Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 2,550 3,040 490
Downtown "Frame"City Center 26,760 31,090 4,330
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 9,950 13,380 3,430
Greater Downtown Regional Center 27,950 55,970 28,020
International Business Park Employment Center 11,650 19,730 8,080
North San Jose Regional Center 84,290 130,190 45,900
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Suburban Center 5,430 9,700 4,270
Old Edenvale Employment Center 6,900 14,690 7,790
Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,520 5,520 2,000
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,680 8,020 2,340
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Mixed-Use Corridor 8,940 15,600 6,660
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 3,440 5,230 1,790
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,040 6,820 2,780
Santa Clara 112,460 145,560 33,100 29%
El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 4,390 6,980 2,590
Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 10,020 12,750 2,740
Saratoga 11,870 14,500 2,630 22%
Sunnyvale 74,610 95,320 20,710 28%
Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 3,750 5,660 1,910
East Sunnyvale Urban Neighborhood 8,050 9,240 1,180
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 13,190 16,390 3,200
Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 4,160 5,380 1,220
Moffett Park Employment Center 11,420 18,890 7,470
Peery Park Employment Center 5,980 7,920 1,940
Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 3,050 3,720 680
Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,540 2,530 980
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 39,060 47,800 8,740 22%
Valley Transportation Authority
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Mixed-Use Corridor 90,770 118,380 27,610
JOBS
97
Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth
Campbell 16,950 19,990 3,040 18% 16,160 19,430 3,270 20%
Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 1,340 2,820 1,470 1,260 2,750 1,490
Cupertino 21,030 25,820 4,790 23% 20,180 25,050 4,870 24%
Gilroy 14,850 17,570 2,710 18% 14,180 17,040 2,860 20%
Downtown Transit Town Center 980 2,900 1,930 880 2,820 1,940
Los Altos 11,200 12,300 1,100 10% 10,750 11,840 1,100 10%
Los Altos Hills 3,000 3,100 100 3% 2,830 2,940 110 4%
Los Gatos 13,050 13,820 770 6% 12,360 13,220 860 7%
Milpitas 19,810 32,430 12,620 64% 19,180 31,680 12,500 65%
Transit Area Suburban Center 790 7,870 7,080 750 7,720 6,970
Monte Sereno 1,290 1,370 80 6% 1,210 1,290 80 7%
Morgan Hill 12,860 16,690 3,830 30% 12,330 16,150 3,820 31%
Downtown Transit Town Center 570 1,990 1,420 510 1,930 1,420
Mountain View 33,880 43,270 9,390 28% 31,960 41,790 9,830 31%
Downtown Transit Town Center 5,240 6,390 1,150 4,790 6,030 1,240
East Whisman Employment Center 720 720 0 690 690 0
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,190 11,150 1,960 8,740 10,830 2,090
North Bayshore Suburban Center 360 1,790 1,420 350 1,750 1,410
San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 3,590 6,350 2,760 3,420 6,180 2,770
Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 670 1,670 1,010 650 1,640 990
Palo Alto 28,220 35,620 7,410 26% 26,490 34,360 7,870 30%
California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 800 1,650 850 750 1,600 850
San Jose 314,040 443,210 129,170 41% 301,370 431,910 130,550 43%
Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 680 2,240 1,560 650 2,190 1,540
Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 2,590 810 1,670 2,520 850
Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 1,880 7,990 6,110 1,850 7,850 6,000
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 640 1,720 1,080 610 1,680 1,070
Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 490 1,480 1,000 480 1,460 980
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 860 7,100 6,240 820 6,960 6,140
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 1,090 3,340 2,250 1,060 3,270 2,210
Communications Hill Transit Town Center 6,810 10,140 3,340 6,540 9,910 3,360
Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 0 3,580 3,580 0 3,510 3,510
Downtown "Frame"City Center 18,120 28,210 10,090 16,980 27,410 10,440
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 7,180 13,370 6,200 6,750 12,980 6,230
Greater Downtown Regional Center 4,590 19,750 15,150 3,670 19,310 15,640
International Business Park Employment Center 200 200 0 190 190 0
North San Jose Regional Center 10,880 43,730 32,850 10,420 42,820 32,400
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Suburban Center 1,910 9,200 7,300 1,790 9,020 7,240
Old Edenvale Employment Center 150 150 0 140 140 0
Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 3,550 1,120 2,340 3,460 1,130
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,620 7,800 5,170 2,500 7,620 5,120
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Mixed-Use Corridor 11,150 20,960 9,810 10,320 20,410 10,100
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 850 3,340 2,490 800 3,270 2,480
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,850 6,850 2,000 4,630 6,690 2,050
Santa Clara 45,150 58,920 13,770 30% 43,020 57,240 14,220 33%
El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,840 5,400 3,560 1,650 5,220 3,580
Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 480 3,880 3,410 450 3,800 3,350
Saratoga 11,120 11,750 630 6% 10,730 11,350 620 6%
Sunnyvale 55,790 74,780 18,990 34% 53,380 72,760 19,380 36%
Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 1,840 3,810 1,980 1,730 3,710 1,980
East Sunnyvale Urban Neighborhood 1,020 4,270 3,260 950 4,170 3,220
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,990 15,400 4,410 10,350 14,940 4,590
Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 1,660 5,210 3,550 1,560 5,100 3,540
Moffett Park Employment Center 20 20 0 20 20 0
Peery Park Employment Center 130 130 0 110 120 10
Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,440 3,270 1,830 1,390 3,200 1,810
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 29,690 32,490 2,800 9% 28,080 31,060 2,980 11%
Valley Transportation Authority
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Mixed-Use Corridor 48,380 67,690 19,300 46,070 65,750 19,680
HOUSING UNITS HOUSEHOLDS
103
March 5, 2012
Mr. Mark Luee, President
Association of Bay Area Govemments
Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Ci!JgfPaloNto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: City of Palo Alto Comments on Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Alternative
Scenarios
Dear Mr. Luce:
Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) staff has requested local agency comments on
its proposed land use Altemative Scenarios developed as a part of the One Bay Area Sustainable
Community Strategy (SCS). We look forward to the fUlther discussion and refinement of the
Preferred Scenario before the final Regional SCS is completed early in 2013. However, at this
juncture we believe it is necessary for the City to express its concerns regarding the SCS
Altemati ve Scenarios and the related regional jobs and housing forecasts, and to suggest
altcl11ative approaches to the Preferred Scenario.
This letter provides the City of Palo Alto's (City) comments, which have been formulated
following the City'S considerable review and analysis of the Alternative Scenarios and related
regional job and housing forecasts. Tbe City acknowledges and appreciates the fact that the SCS
process will continue following release of ABAG's Preferred Scenario, scheduled for March 8,
2012. In summary, the City's concerns are as follows:
• The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and programs that
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the effectiveness of these efforts should be
considered as a part of the SCS and achieving regional GHG emission reduction targets.
• The regional forecast of jobs and housing being considered as part of the SCS likely
overstates future growth in the Bay Area and at a minimum is highly uncertain; ABAG
should recognize the distinct possibility that actual growth rates in the Bay Area over the
next 30 years may be lower and should phase job and housing allocations and
implementation accordingly.
• Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and housing units under all of the Alternative Scenarios is
excessive by reference to its historical growth trends and development capacity; these
allocations should more accurately consider policy constraints, market feasibility, and the
high infrastructure costs and local fiscal impacts of such intensive redevelopment.
Prh~h:J wHh mY-\)lIsed inks (In 11)0';1" recycled rarer pro(e~8ed without chlorine.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
1 650328.3631 fax
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
• The land use changes contemplated in the SCS Alternative Scenarios have a propottionately
small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets and there are very
limited differences shown between the Alternative Scenarios; the considerable effort and
investment needed to affect these land use changes should be re-directed to more cost
effective regional and local GHG reduction measures.
While the City retains serious concerns regarding the Regional Forecast of jobs and housing and
also the allocation of future development under the Alternative Scenarios, Palo Alto is firmly
committed to doing its share to achieve the State-mandated (AB32/SB375) GHG reduction
targets. The measures already adopted by the City provide ample evidence of this commitment.
Going forward, the City expects to cooperate with ABAG and our other regional pattners in the
future efforts needed to achieve substantial reductions in GHG emissions through realistic and
achievable regional and local policies, programs, and investments.
The following items elaborate on the summary points listed above.
1. The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader ill implementillg policies and programs
that reduce GHG emissiolls. '
Over the past decade, the City of Palo Alto has adopted a range of policies, programs and
projects to reduce GHG emissions, focused upon improving energy efficiency, enhancing multi
modal transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and creating walkable, mixed
use districts. Implementing these policies, programs, and investments the City has become a
national leader in reducing GHG emissions. Some of the key programs include:
a. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan (CPP): The CPP, adopted by the City Council in
December 2007, includes goals for the reduction of CO2 from a 2005 baseline level as a result of
changes in City operations and from CO2 reduction efforts within the community.
• The City has surpassed its short term goal of a 5% reduction in emissions by 2009 for a
total reduction of 3,266 metric tons of CO2.
• By 2020, the City and community will reduce emissions by 15% from 2005 levels, equal
to 119,140 metric tons of CO2, consistent with State emission reduction goals.
b. Availability of Clean Energy: The City of Palo Alto is in a unique position as owner and
operator of its electric utility to make available and provide clean energy to City customers. In
this regard, the City Council adopted a goal to have 33% of the electricity supply to be provided
by renewable electricity suppliers by 2015, five years in advance of the State requirement.
• For FY2011, renewable electricity supplies account for 20% of the City's needs.
• Contracts are in place with suppliers to provide 26% of the City's electrical needs as
renewable by FY2014 with the potential to reach 30% from contracts that are still under
negotiations.
• CUiTently, 24% of the City's customers participate in the Palo Alto Green program,
paying a surcharge on electric service to support renewable electricity supplies.
• The City's Utilities Department is preparing a plan to be released later this year for the
electric portfolio to be carbon neutral.
2
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
c. Utility Programs to Reduce Emissions: In addition to providing clean energy options for its
customers, the Utilities Department offers programs such as rebates, assistance, information, and
workshops to help customers increase electricity efficiency and cost savings that reduce
emissions. These successes of these programs are measurable: In FY20 II, Palo Alto customers
reduced CO2 emissions by 12,557 tons through the use of electric and natural gas efficiency
programs, incentives for solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar hot water systems, and other program
efficiencies.
d. Leadership in Green Building and Sustainable Design: In FY 2009, the City Council adopted
the City's Green Building Ordinance to build a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto
that are environmentally responsible and healthy places in which to Jive and work. This program
was one of the first in the nation to mandate green building requirements and certifications for
virtually all public and private buildings.
• In FY 20 II , the City initiated the first LEED-ND pilot program (LEED for
Neighborhood Development) in the United States for assessing a development site's
ability to qualify as a sustainable neighborhood project, including features that reduce
dependence on automobile use, increase walkability, and encourage healthy li ving.
• The City also rolled out energy use disclosure requirements for existing buildings
undergoing small renovation work to better understand the existing buildings' current
performanee and areas where education, policy, and programs can be influential in
reducing energy usage.
• The amount of CO2 diverted from the environment has increased sinee the adoption of
the 2009 ordinance and programs. In 20 I 0, the first full year of the ordinance, CO2 was
reduced by approximately 1,013 tons. In 2011, C02 was reduced by approximately 2,818
tons, a 178% increase over the previous year.
• Prior to the City's ordinance, as few as six green building projects existed throughout the
City. By the end ofFY 2011, more than 240 green buildings have been completed or are
under construction.
'e. Affordable Housing: The City of Palo Alto has been a leader in providing for affordable
housing in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.
• In 1974, Palo Alto became one of the first cities in the United States to adopt an
inclusionary housing program that required the provision of below market rate (BMR)
residential units in new multiple-family dwelling projects.
• Today, the City oversees 239 ownership units and 198 rental BMR units that are
available to qualified applicants. As the cost for housing in Palo Alto continues to
increase, the value of these affordable units to provide hOUSing within the urbanized Bay
Area has also increased. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income
families to Jive closer to their jobs and utilize public transit.
• Recently, Palo Alto welcomed two new BMR housing projects, including the Tree House
Apartments, a 35-unit complex with a Green Point Rating of 193 (the highest score in
Palo Alto for multiple family housing) and Alta Tone, a 56-unit complex for very low
income seniors.
• Construction is underway at 801 Alma Street, a 50-unit family affordable project
immediately adjacent to CalTrain and within walking distance to shops and services on
University Avenue in downtown.
3
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
f. Higher Density Land Uses Near Transit: The City's Comprehensive Plan designates two
areas of the City (downtown and California A venue) as appropriate for 'Transit Oriented
Residential," in a 2,OOO-foot radius of the City's two Caltrain stations. These areas are identified
for higher intensity residential and mixed-use development focused around a walkable, bieyc\e
friendly environment.
• In 2006, two years before the adoption of SB375, the City Council adopted the Pedestrian
and Transit Oriented Development combining district (PTOD) for the area around the
California A venue CalTrain station. This district allows for residential densities at 40
units per acre, increased floor area ratios, increased building heights, reduced parking
requirements, and density bonuses for the provision of BMR housing in mixed-use and
multiple family projects.
• In 2007, Council supported the designation of this area as a PriOlity Development Arca
(PDA) as part of ABAG's FOCUS program that would eventually evolve into Plan Bay
Area. This land use planning effort is one example of a pattern of early-adoption
decisions made by the City Council to address growth, transit and greenhouse gas
emissions within our community.
• The Council has directed that housing sites proposed in the City's Housing Element
should be focused in transit-proximate areas, and that increased height and intensity may
be considered in those locations.
g. Transportation Policies and Projects: The City of Palo Alto has developed transpOltation
policies, programs and projects to implement a transit-oriented, walkable and bicycle-friendly
vision that demonstrate leadership of the "Complete Streets" concept promoted by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Some of these key recent measures include:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan: The City is completing its updatcd plan to
accommodate enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and to elcvate the
City's Bicycle-Friendly Community status from Gold to Platinum Icvel.
• Stanford AvenuefEl Camino Real Intersection Improvements: The City has recently
completed improvements at this intersection to enhance safety for pedestrians and
cyclists, including children who use the intersection as a route to school, and to upgrade
the aesthetic qualities of the intersection and of El Camino Real. Wc expect thc project
will serve as a template for improving intersections throughout the Grand Boulevard
corridor.
• Safe Routes to School: The City's Safe Routes to School program has resulted in a
phenomenal increase in school children bicycling and walking to school over thc past
decade. In the 2011 fiscal year, City staff coordinated 140 in-class bike and pedestrian
safety education programs in 12 elementary schools, reaching 4,250 students. Recent
surveys of how children usually get to elementary school showed an average of 42%
choosing to walk, bike or skate to school, compared to a national average of only 13%
(figures for middle schools and high schools are even greater). A reccnt grant will allow
the City to prepare Safe Routes maps for every elemcntary school in the city as well as to
expand our education cuniculum into middle schools and to adults.
• Traffic Calming on Residential Arterials: The City has an ambitious traffic calming
program along "residential arterials" in efforts to support our Safe Routes to School
program and to enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety. In parricular, the ongoing
4
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor project has provided substantial safety
improvements and selective lane reductions to enhance bicycling and walking while
maintaining efficient levels of vehicle throughput similar to those prior to the traffic
calming improvements.
• Bicycle Parking Corrals: The City has recently installed six green "bicycle parking
corrals" in the Bay Area, with each corral providing for up to 10 bicycle parking spaces
in highly visible, signed on-street areas in downtown. Up to a dozen more such
installations are planned in the downtown and Califoll1ia Avenue areas.
• Califoll1ia A venue Streetscape Improvements: A pending grant would support the
substantial upgrade of Califoll1ia Avenue to a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
roadway, incorporating "complete street" principles, and also enhancing access to the
Califoll1ia Avenue Cal train station.
• Local Shuttles: The City, with support from the Caltrain JPB, offers local shuttle services
for commuters, school children, seniors and others between points of interest within the
city. These shuttles futther reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle trips and reduce
traffic congestion and parking needs.
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto requests that ABAG consider the effectiveness of these local
GHG emission reduction effOlts, incorporate them as a part of the SCS and related regional GHG
reduction targets, and provide "credits" to those jurisdictions that have demonstrated
implementation of meaningful GHG reduction measures.
2. The Regional Forecast of jobs alld hOl/sillg being considered as part of the SCS appears to
overstate future growth in the Bay Area.
The regional jobs and housing forecast used for the Altell1ative Scenarios is lower than the
forecast for the Initial Vision Scenario and the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario,
reflecting comments received from the local agencies following review of the Initial Vision
Scenario. However, in the City of Palo Alto's view, the most recent jobs and housing forecasts
for the three "constrained" Altell1ative Scenarios remain at the high end of plausible Bay Area
jobs and housing growth over the next 30 years. The City is disappointed and dismayed at the
minimal public discourse around the development of these projections, though we do appreciate
Dr. Steven Levy's recent presentation of the analysis behind the projections. At this point,
however, ABAG has provided insufficient justification for the methods and results of the
regional job and housing forecasts used in the Altell1ative Scenarios. An evaluation of the
Regional Forecast prepared late last year by Councilmember Greg Schmid provides an
assessment of Califoll1ia growth forecasts (see Attachment A), indicating the tendency for
forecasts to overstate growth as compared to actual figures from the Census, and discussing
some of the key factors that will influence Califoll1ia's future growth.
a. Jobs. Regarding the ABAG jobs forecast, a comparison with the last 20 years is noteworthy.
Average job increases between 1990 and 2010 approximated 10,000 net new jobs annually.
Excluding the three years that included the Great Recession where substantial jobs losses
occurred (i.e. 2008-2010), the Bay Region added jobs at an average annual rate of 25,200
between 1990 and 2007. The ABAG jobs forecast used for the Altell1ative Scenmios
assumes that the Region will add an average of over 33,000 jobs annually from 2010 to 2040,
5
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March S, 2012
a 32% increase over the pre-recession trend line. The method used to arrive at the jobs
forecast assumes a "shift-share" of a national jobs growth forecast that itself is subject to
question. As a palt of revisions to the regional jobs forecast, ABAG should consider a more
fundamental economic assessment that identifies the key industries in the Bay Area that will
drive job growth and also the distinct possibility that future jobs and housing may be closer
to recent historical growth trends.
b. Housing. Regarding the ABAG housing forecast used for the Alternative Scenarios, an
additional 770,800 households are shown added to the Bay Area between 2010 and 2040 -an
annual average growth of 25,700 households. The average annual housing growth rate
between 1990 and 2010 was 21,000. At the present time, two years into ABAG's forecast
period, the Bay Area, like much of the United States, remains in a weak housing market
characterized by very limited new development, low pricing, slow sales of existing homes,
tight credit, and an oversupply of homes resulting from a historically high number of
foreclosed and distressed propelties. These conditions are expected to continue for several
more years until the existing inventory is reduced and substantial improvement in the job
market and related increases in household income occurs. In any event, the Bay Area will
need to be in "catch-up" mode, meaning even higher additional households per year must be
realized to meet the SCS forecast growth rates, once more normal housing market conditions
emerge. Moreover, ABAG's regional housing forecast is based on a fixed share of a national
population forecast prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau that presumed international in
migration (primarily of Asian and Hispanic peoples) would continue and comprise
approximately 80 percent of all population growth nationwide.
c. Housing Affordability. In addition to questions regarding job growth (the ultimate cause of
housing demand) there are a number of other questions regarding ABAG's housing forecast
including those related to affordability. A presentation made by Karen Chapple of UC
Berkeley at the ABAG's January Regional Advisory Working Group (RA WG) suggested
that given likely wages paid by the new jobs expected, over 70 percent of all new households
formed in the 2010 to 2040 period will be "moderate" income or below. In many Bay Area
locations, especially the inner Bay Area urbanized areas that are the focus of growth under
the SCS Alternative Scenarios, such "affordable" housing units must be subsidized in one
fashion or another, either as "inclusionary" units burdened upon the market rate units
constructed or by public subsidies such as (now eliminated) redevelopment agency funding
and federal tax credits. Given the loss of redevelopment powers and funding and recent court
cases affecting inclusionary programs (Palmer, Patterson) there is no assurance that adequate
housing subsidy funding will be available.
d. RHNA. Then there is the matter of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). As
presently proposed, the regional forecast and related Preferred Scenario allocations to be
released as a draft on March 8th will apparently serve as the basis of the future RHNA for
each city and county, which will require a one-third of the overall Preferred Scenario housing
allocation to cities in each 8-year "planning period" regardless of any assessment of realistic
development capacity (note: recent information from ABAG indicates that less than one-third
of the 2010-2040 forecast is likely for the 2015-2022 period, however, due to the economic
6
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
housing downturn). This approach seems highly arbitrary, insensitive to local conditions and
constraints, and far beyond what can realistically be expected from an economic perspective.
Accordingly, given all of these concerns, the City strongly recommends that the jobs and housing
forecasts for the Preferred Scenario be reduced to reflect mOrc accurately current conditions,
historical trends, and more fundamental assessment of economic (job) growth potential in the
Bay Area. Developing a more realistic jobs and housing forecast would reduce the implied need
to intensify land uses, reduce projected GHG emissions by lowering energy consumption,
congestion and single occupancy vehicle trips, and require less costly transit and highway
infrastructure investments. The SCS effort is to be revisited and updated every four years, so that
there would be future opportunities to re-evaluate whether a higher forecast is appropriate and
adjustments would be needed.
3. Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and 1I0using UlIitS rmder tile Altemative Scellarios is higilly
unrealistic and excessive relative to lIistorical growth trends and develapment capacity.
Santa Clara County dominates all other Bay Area counties in the allocation of ABAG's regional
forecast of jobs and housing, absorbing 30 percent of the regional job forecast and 26 percent of
the regional housing forecast. Palo Alto is allocated new jobs ranging from 18,040 Outward
Growth) to 26,070 (Focused Growth). Palo Alto households allocated range from 6,107
(Outward Growth) to 12,250 (Constrained Core Concentration and Focused Growth). These
allocations have been made without regard to existing development capacity in Palo Alto (use of
remaining vacant land and redevelopment of existing developed areas), the likely match between
new household affordability and local housing prices, or a range of other potential local costs for
achieving the required high density development.
a. Jobs. The City presently contains approximately 62,300 jobs, according to ABAG. During
the past decade (2000 to 2010), Palo Alto experienced a 14 percent decline in employment
reflecting the combined effect of the "dot-com" bust and the Great Recession. While
economic conditions are expected to improve, there have been stluctura\ changes in
technology industries that have driven growth in the Silicon Valley over the past 50 years
that portend only modest growth. The Alternative Scenarios assume that Palo Alto's job
growth by 2040 will increase over the 20 I 0 estimate by between 27 percent and 40 percent.
b. Housing. The housing projections in the Alternative Scenarios represent a 25-50 percent
increase in housing units from 2010-2040, up to approximately 400 new units per year. The
City has in the past 40 years (1970-2010) produced an average of 148 units per year. To more
than double that output in a relatively built-out city is again entirely unrealistic and using
such an assumption as the basis for growth scenarios and transportation investments will
likely result in failure of the planning effort.
c. Constraints. The City of Palo Alto is highly built out, and the existing limited number of
vacant sites and redevelopment opportunity sites severely limit how the households and jobs
allocated to Palo Alto in the SCS Alternative Scenarios could be accommodated. The
"constrained" scenarios clearly do not appear to consider the many constraints to new
development in Palo Alto, including limited school capacity and funding for infrastructure.
7
ABAG; SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
Accordingly, the City requests that the allocations of jobs and housing units in Palo Alto should
be lowered substantially to more accurately consider policy constraints, market feasibility, and
infrastructure and local fiscal impacts of such intensive redevelopment,
4. The land use changes contemplated ill tlte SCS Altemaiive Scenarios have a
proportionaiely small contributioll to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets.
The AB32/SB375 target for Califomia is a reduction to 85 million equivalent metric tons per
year by 2050, an 80 percent reduction from current levels, To retum to 1990 levels of 427
million tons, an 80 million ton reduction of projected 2020 levels is required, Of this 80 million
ton reduction, approximately 96 percent is proposed to be achieved from improved fuel standards,
energy efficiency, industrial measures, and other methods needed to curb emissions from the
construction, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. Only four percent, however, or 3.2 million
tons, would be achieved by altering land use pattems, This is shown effectively on the graph
(Attachment B) prepared by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) in their
letter dated February 15,2012.
a, Negligible Difference Between Alternatives: The potential contributions of the land use
changes contemplated in the SCS Alternative Scenarios show reductions in GHG emissions
through 2040 range from 7.9 percent (Outward Growth) to 9.4 percent (Constrained Core
Concentration), Compared to the initial Current Regional Plan Scenario, the Altemative
Scenarios reduce GHG emissions by 0.9 percent to 2.4 percent of the remaining 4 percent
affected by land use and transportation patterns. This is a negligible difference between the
land use scenarios and argues for a more flexible approach that combines other GHG
emission reduction strategies with a more realistic land use scenario.
b, Regional Transportation Pricing and Policies: The MTC analysis of various transportation
plicing and policy changes (e.g" telecommuting, electric vehicle strategies, parking pricing)
may account for at least a 6,5% further reduction in GlIG emissions, considerably more
significant than the differences between the land use pattems in the Alternative Scenarios.
c, Cost Effectiveness. Given the numerous challenges associated with fundamental changes in
the way that Bay Area land use patterns would otherwise evolve, including wholesale
changes to land use regulations, presuming changes in market characteristics and preferences
of homebuyers, and the need for substantial public investments and subsidies, we question
the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the Altemative Scenarios. Regarding market
feasibility, there is no evidence that the resulting housing capacity and prototypes would
match buyer preferences and affordability, Regarding cost-effectiveness, the comparable
costs (mostly borne by local jurisdictions) of implementing the Alternative Scenarios may be
far higher than other altematives for achieving comparable GlIG emission reductions,
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto recommends that a performance-based approach, involving
establishing GHG reduction targets for the local jurisdictions along with a menu of options for
achieving these targets (including feasible and realistic alterations inland use policy) should
become the basis of the proposed SCS,
B
Conclusion
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto suggests that the Preferred Scenario for the Sustainability
Communities Strategy should include:
• A focus on GHG emission reductions, with the flexibility for each city and county to
provide for a reasonable minimum amount of housing plus options for other
commitments to GHG emission reductions;
• Grant funding for transportation and planning oriented to Priority Development Areas
(PDAs);
• Realistic housing forecasts limited to each upcoming 8-year RHNA cycle, with review
every four years to update projections; and
• Longer range projections that are not allocated to cities and counties, but are used to
provide context for regional transportation investments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment in advance of your proposal for a Draft
Preferred Scenario. If you have questions Or need additional information, please contact Curtis
Williams, the City's Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or
curtis. williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
/),0
-f Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Attachment A: November IS, 2011 Memorandum: "California Demographic Forecasts: Why
are the Numbers Overestimated," prepared by City of Palo Alto Councilmember
Greg Schmid
Attachment B: "Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS: Achieving Statewide GHG
Reduction Rates," prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority
cc: Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Steve Heminger, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ezra Rapport, Association of Bay Area Governments
John Ristow, Valley Transportation Authority
Palo Alto City Council
9
California Demographic Forecasts: Why are the numbers over
estimated?
Prepared by City of Palo Alto
November 15, 2011
Actual Califomia Population growth
IAttachment A •
1
Over the last decade, the state of California added 3.4 million people, to reach a total of 37.3 million,
This was an increase of 10% over the decade. This growth rate follows the gradual slowing that started
after 1990, down dramatically from the very high rates of the post-World War II era. Note that the
Department of Finance's (DOF) 2007 projections reflect a very high growth perspective. The DOF
numbers are currently used as the population forecasts for all state and local projects-they are not
schedu led to be revised until 2013.
Table 1, California's population growth over tbe last five decades
(average growth from census to census)
1960s
19705
19805
19905
20005
2010s
2020s
20305
~
29.2
18.5
25.7
13.8
10.0
Dept of Finance Projections (2007)
14.8
12.8
11.6
10.2
Source: US Census Bureau actual Census numbers; California Department of Finance 2007 Projections.
Recent State forecasts have been consistently over-estimated
Even after the sharp decline in growth during the 19905, forecasters consistently tended to be overly
optimistic about population growth rates through the 20005. In 2005, the Public Policy Institute of
California issued a report ("California 2025: Taking on the Future") that included the population
projections of all the key demographic forecasters. The consensus forecast from this group was some
40% higher than the actual outcome for the state:
Table 2. California Population Forecasts for 2010 made before 2005
(Percentage growth expected from 2000-2010)
California Dept of Finance 15.2
U5C Population Dynamics 11.6
UC Berkeley (Lee, Miller) 13.9'
Public Polley Institute of CA 15.2'
CCSeE 17.2
UCLA Anderson Forecasting 16.6
Average of six 2005 forecasts 15.0
'''center point of band
Source: Public Policy Institute of California, "California 2025: Taking on the Future", 2005, Page 29.
2
The consensus forecast was some 50% above the actual numbers. The only forecaster who produced a
number below the actual 10% growth was the UC Berkeley group who stated that there was a 5%
chance thatthe growth rate would be lower than 7,1%. The 2005 PPIC Report stated that "Recenttrends
make population projections for California especially difficult...For these reasons, planners should
consider alternative population scenarios ... as useful alternatives for planners." (PPIC, 2005, pages 27-
28)
Even as late as the end of 2009, on the eve of the decennial census, estimates by the California Dept. of
Finance (the organization responsible for the numbers that are used for all state allocation formulas)
remained strikingly high at 14.1% which was 1.5 million or 44.7% above the above the
contemporaneous and more accurate Census Bureau's Current Population Estimates.
Critical Components of Change and the Future
The Census data provide a nice detailed perspective on the actual components of change during the
decade. While the 3.1 million people added through natural increase (births minus deaths) were the
largest single growth factor, the 2 million net gain from foreign immigration was important In
overcoming a net outflow of 1.6 million from native born emigration, primarily to other states.
Table 3. Components of Population Change in California. 2000·2010
(millions of people)
Births
Deaths
+5.45
-2.35
Net Domestic migration -1.63
Foreign Immigration +2.58
Foreign emigration -0.59
Military, etc -0.07
TOTAL +3.38
Source: USC. Population Dynamics Research Group, "What the Census would show", February 2011.
3
The challenge for projecting change In the future is the dramatic shifts in some of these base categories.
With the aging population, we know that, even with slight increases in longevity, the aging population in
California will raise the annual number of deaths in California from 271K in 2011 to 462K in 2039, while
the number of births will rise slightly from 532K in 2011 to 5511n 2039. The natural Increase will fall
from some 260K today to 90K in 2040.
Thus, over time any increase in California's population will Increasingly rely on migration. Since net
domestic migration has averaged a net outflow of some 160K per year since the early 1990s, any growth
in population will be increasingly dependent on foreign migration, (Source: USC, Population Dynamics
Groups, April 2011).
There is little reason to see a major shift in domestic migration with California's high cost and high
unemployment rate. That leaves foreign migration as the critical component source of long-term
population growth. The most dynamic source for California's growth has been immigration from Mexico,
both legal and illegal. All observers (The Dept of Homeland Security, the Pew Charitable Trust Hispanic
Center, and the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton) agree that net immigration from Mexico has
been down dramatically in recent years with the stricter enforcement of border crossing and the
prolonged recession in the US. Pew estimates that the illegal immigrant population In the US fell by
some 7% between 2007 and 2010. The important debate about the future is whether this is a business
cycle phenomenon or part of a longer term trend.
The group that has the best data source and takes the longer term look is the Mexican Migration Project
at Princeton. For decades they have been tracking migration patterns from Mexico and doing annual
surveys of thousands of families from migration centers in Mexico. They found that the percent of first
time immigrants from the Mexican communities of highest immigration fell from 1.2% of adults in 2000
to 0.6% in 2005 to zero in 2010. They identify that the changes are due to Mexican demographic and
economic factors as much as from U.S. conditions. They identified five internal factors of change in
Mexico:
4
• Fertility rates are falling dramatically from 6.8 births per women in 1970 to 2.8 in 1995 to 2 in
2010 (replacement level).
• The number of young people entering the labor market has fallen from one million a year in the
1990s to 700K today and demographic factors will bring that down to about 300K in 2030, not
enough to meet local job needs.
• The rate of college attendance and college completion has doubled over the last decade, raising
the career path of an increasing share of young workers.
• The wage disparity between Mexico and the U.S. is narrowing sharply with average wage gaps
falling from 10:1 in the 1960s to some 3.7:1 in the early 20005.
• The cost of migration has risen dramatically for illegal entrants, further narrowing the earnings
gap.
All of these factors point to the need, at the least, of looking at alternative scenarios of population
growth in California that are more sensitive to possible underlying changes in migration patterns.
5
Sources of Demographic projections about California
US Bureau of the Census (responsible for the decennial census and does updated estimates each year of
state populations-has been much closer to actual numbers than the Cal Dept. of Finance)
California Department of Finance (responsible for state population estimates between the Census
years-forecasts used as key source for state government planning). Statewide estimates for 2010
(made in 2009) were 41% higher than the 2010 Census numbers for the state, 83% over for the nine Bay
Area counties and 137% higher for the three West Bay counties.
Ronald lee, UC Berkeley, Center for Economics and Demographics of Aging, "Special Report: The
Growth & Aging of California's Population", 2003 (an important repolt that identified the detailed
assumptions that went into the Department of Finance's long-term projections).
Hans Johnson, Public Policy Institute of California, "California 2025: Taking on the Future", Chapter 2
'California's Population in 2025' (a report that gathered projections from eight academic and
government sources). Johnson concluded that "population projections for California are especially
difficulL.ln addition to overweighting contemporary trends, forecasters are notoriously bad at
predicting fundamental demographic shifts ... For these reasons, planners should consider alternative
population scenarios." Pages 27-28.
John Pitkin & Dowell Myers, USC Population Dynamics Research Group, "The 2010 Census Benchmark
for California's Growing and Changing Population", February 2011; "Projections of the Population of
California by Nativity and Year of Entry to the U.S.", April 2, 2011. (Pitkin and Myers had the lowest of
the forecasts in the 2005 study-though still overestimating growth by 16%. They are working with the
California Department of Finance on components for a new longer-term forecast; they are still assuming
a net immigration number of 160,000 holding steady in the future.)
Steve Levy, Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy
UCLA Anderson Forecasting Project
Greg Schmid
October 2011
Required Reductions:
Year Tons·
By 2020 ........... 80
By 2050 ......... 715"
850
800
750
700
650
600 -550 c
Q)
.~ 500
.H-450 427
0" 400
u 350 '" c ~ 300
.!::! 250 I 8O"k
l: ~ 200
c 150 .2
Tons'
CD 2020 Emissions ................................. 507
® Target 2020 Emissions 11990) ............ · .. ·427
@ Forecast 2050 Emissions ...................... 800" o Target 2050 Emissions (20"10 of 1990) ...... · 85
® Target 2035 Emissions fonlefpalatedJ ...... 275
'Million Metric Tons C02 Equivalent
"E>timcte based on Colifomia Council on
Science end T e<hnclcgy Report, 2011
5{)7 CD
~
; 427 : '2'
~\6J
Bay Area Regional Contribution
Scenarios
7.0'Yo CUfTent Regional Plans ------:
7.9"., Outward Growth ~
8.2'% Initial VISion/Core ConcenfTation
9.1% Focused Growth ------~
9.4% Constrained Core Concentrotion
~75i®
I .. ~ I .. , , 0%
15%
~ 100 5 . r.-. t r "\!t
50
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Land Use & Transportation Emissions Reductions
REGIONAL LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION (SCS)
LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS
IMPROVED FUEL EFFICIENCY (PAVLEY I & II)
; NON-TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS REDUCTION
ACTUAL/PROJECTED EMISSIONS
2050 ;e
iii
C'l ::r 3 (J)
::l ~
III
July 11,2012
Ms. Ashley Nguyen, EIR Project Manager
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
i 0 1 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
G~ of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: Response to the Notice of Preparation for Plan Bay Area Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Nguyen:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the
Plan Bay Area Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As you consider the proposed
alternatives to be studied in the EIR on the Preferred Scenario, we strongly urge you to:
Include a less aggressive and more realistic growth projection scenario.
A growth projection scenario that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) more effectively
An economic feasibility study of all growth projection alternatives.
The City believes that the Preferred Scenario relies on questionable assumptions, with
unrealistic and very aggressive housing and jobs projections. A less aggressive
alternative growth scenario considering realities of the present and future, including
economic trends and limiting constraints such as land cost and availability and
infrastructure capacity, should be considered.
As the City has stated in previous comments, the Preferred Scenario should be based on a
concept of identifying transit commute sheds in a way that establishes comnlute
thresholds for locating housing nodes and employment centers. This would help to move
the concept away from a city-by-city scenario to a more sub-regional 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 employment centers.
The Preferred Scenario is not based upon a sub-regional approach for reductions of
commute sheds and greenhouse gas reductions, and therefore places an inordinate burden
on individual cities.
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
250 Hamilton Avenue p.o. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
Ms. Ashley Nguyen, EIR Project Manager
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
July 11, 2012
Page 2 0/2
The City believes that an additional, hybrid-type alternative should be analyzed in the
EIRthat would achieve similar GRG reductions based upon a more realistic employment
and housing growth scenario. This alternative could be based on Alternative 3-Lower
Concentrations of P DA Growth which focuses growth on the Priority Development Areas
(PDA) as well as other transit-rich areas not identified in the PDA process and
Alternative 1-No Project, 'which is focused on what can reasonably be expected based on
current plans and consistent with existing infrastructure. Growth in the PDAs would be of
lower concentration than in Alternative 2-Jobs-Housing Connection and would
acknowledge adopted local and regional plans, including more realistic growth
projections based on historic patterns similar to what is described in the Outward Growth
Scenario. This proposed hybrid alternative would, in our opinion, result in a nlore
realistic and sub-regional focused plan that could achieve similar GRG reductions.
Thank you for your consideration of the above comments and suggestions. The City
looks forward to our c<?ntinued participation in the EIR process.
Sincerely,
~~
Curtis Williams
Director
Department of Planning and Community Environment
cc: Ezra Rapport, Executive Director, Association of Bay Area Governments
Ken Kirkey, Planning Director, Association of Bay Area Governments
Palo Alto City Council
Planning and Transportation Commission
J ames Keene, City Manager