HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3759
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3759)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Plan Bay Area City Response
Title: City of Palo Alto Response to Plan Bay Area Final Draft and
Environmental Impact Report
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends a Council MOTION to approve the attached letters (Attachments A and B) to
the regional agencies presenting the City of Palo Alto’s response and comments to the final
draft Plan Bay Area documents and the related Environmental Impact Report.
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.
In May of 2012, the agencies adopted a “Preferred Scenario” for the Sustainable Communities
Strategy for the region, and subsequently initiated environmental review for that scenario and
four alternative scenarios. The Final Draft Plan Bay Area is virtually identical to the Preferred
Scenario, emphasizing new housing and employment near Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and transit stations and corridors, accompanied by expected major improvements in transit
infrastructure. The Plan accommodates an estimated increase of 2.1 million residents, 1.1
million jobs, and 660,000 housing units in the Bay Area over the 2010-2040 timeframe.
Substantial additional background on the overall Plan Bay Area (also referred to as One Bay
Area) effort is available online on the ABAG/MTC project website at:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
http://www.onebayarea.org/.
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Review
Staff met with the Regional Housing Mandate Committee on April 11, 2013, to review the latest
plan and DEIR and a suggested approach to respond to the documents at the Committee
meeting. The Committee voted to support staff’s recommendation to reiterate the comments
made by the City in March of 2012, and to request that low, high and “most likely” forecasts be
included and studied. The Committee also agreed to focus DEIR comments at a high level on
the City’s preference for a particular alternative or alternatives, again related to a range of
demographic and economic forecasts. The Committee further suggested that the DEIR
comments should note that localized impacts are not addressed, and should request an
alternative that addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through other means. Committee
members also asked that, if possible, staff identify other cities with similar situations to
effectuate a concerted response. The changes suggested to the letters were incorporated.
The Committee is scheduled to review and recommend the letters to Council on May 9, 2013,
subsequent to the release of this report and Council packet. Staff will report to the Council the
Committee’s action and recommended changes to the letters, if any.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On May 1, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended (5-0, with two
commissioners absent) that the Council approve the two letters to be sent to the regional
agencies. The PTC discussed the Plan Bay Area process for two hours, generally in a study
session format as an update for the newest commissioners. There was no discussion, however,
of the letters, and no changes suggested. The draft PTC minutes have therefore not been
attached.
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 C to this report. The housing units and job
projections for Palo Alto and other cities were provided separately (Attachment D). The
projections are identical to the Preferred Scenario projections.
Staff is aware that some of the Commission 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,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
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 F).
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 G), though none of the alternatives directly follows from or
responds to the City’s suggestions.
Staff has developed draft responses to the Final Draft Plan Bay Area and to the Draft EIR, as
discussed below.
City of Palo Alto Response to Final Draft Plan Bay Area
A draft letter (Attachment A) is provided to respond to the Final Draft Plan Bay Area document.
The letter generally restates and updates the May 2012 letter to ABAG regarding the Preferred
Scenario. The key components of the letter include the following:
The Regional Forecast of jobs and housing overstate future growth in the Bay Area, and
are inconsistent with statewide forecasts of the Department of Finance.
Palo Alto’s allocation of jobs and housing units is highly unrealistic and excessive relative
to historical growth trends and development capacity.
The land use changes contemplated in the Final Draft Plan Bay Area have a
proportionately small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets.
The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and programs
that reduce GHG emissions.
The primary changes from the March 2012 letter are updating the forecast section to discuss
the Department of Finance’s most recent forecasts and suggesting that the forecasts include
high, low and “most likely” scenarios and evaluate the impacts of each.
City Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) comprises over 1,300 pages of materials. The
Executive Summary section of the EIR is attached (Attachment E) if Commission members
prefer not to peruse the entire document. Staff believes the key component of the EIR is the
Alternatives section, which outlines a “No Project” Alternative, the Proposed Plan, and three
City of Palo Alto Page 4
other alternatives. The impact analysis is conducted at a regional level, so that no local impacts
to Palo Alto or other jurisdictions are evaluated, though some (traffic congestion, land use
impacts) are acknowledged as “significant and unavoidable.” Also of critical importance is the
Key Assumptions section, particularly the assumption that the growth forecasts are based on
the documents prepared by the regional agencies, to which the City has consistently objected.
Staff does not believe that it is productive for the City to conduct an in-depth review of the
Environmental Impact Report. Instead, staff has prepared a letter response (Attachment B) that
focuses on: a) objecting to the Key Assumption regarding population growth, b) requesting an
alternative that is a hybrid of the current trends (No Project) alternative and the Proposed Plan,
c) requesting an alternative that addresses other means of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG),
and d) objecting to Alternatives Three, Four and Five, as one (Enhanced Network of
Communities) projects even higher population and housing growth regionally than the
Proposed Plan, and the other two (Transit Priority and Equity) focus greater housing growth and
burdens on suburban job centers such as Palo Alto.
Conclusion
Staff believes that the proposed letters reflect the City of Palo Alto’s continued objections to
the Plan Bay Area effort, particularly the singular and overstated population, housing and
economic projections. Staff expects that, at this point in the process, comments on the Plan
and DEIR are unlikely to result in modifications, but that it remains important to comment to: 1)
be “on the record” of concern and opposition to some of these issues, in the event litigation or
other challenges are subsequently raised, and 2) counter arguments by other stakeholders who
may argue for even increased allocations to cities like Palo Alto, such as the potential DEIR
alternatives.
Timeline
The deadline for comments to the agencies, for both the Plan and the DEIR, is May 16, 2013.
Upon Council approval, staff will forward the letters to the regional agencies. The boards of
ABAG and MTC are scheduled to consider the Plan and EIR for adoption in July.
Resource Impact
There are no expected resource impacts from the preparation of the letters to the agencies,
other than staff time devoted to preparing staff reports and attending Commission, Committee,
and Council meetings.
Policy Implications
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The City’s response represents Council policy regarding growth and development, as expressed
in previous comments on regional planning and housing efforts.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required to comment on the Plan and DEIR.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Response to Final Draft SCS (DOCX)
Exhibit 1: "Demographic Forecasting in California," prepared by Councilmember Greg
Schmid, November, 2011 (PDF)
Exhibit 2: "Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why Aren't They More Helpful,"
prepared by Councilmember Greg Schmid, May, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment B: Response to Final Draft SCS DEIR (DOCX)
Attachment C: Final Draft Plan Bay Area Overview (PDF)
Attachment D: Palo Alto Housing and Employment Projections 2010-2040 (PDF)
Attachment E: Executive Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report (PDF)
Attachment F: March 5, 2012 Palo Alto Response to Preferred Scenario (PDF)
Attachment G: July 11, 2012 Palo Alto Response to EIR Notice of Preparation (PDF)
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
ATTACHMENT A
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
May 13, 2013
Mr. Mark Luce, President
Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O, Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Re: City of Palo Alto Comments on Final Draft Plan Bay Area
Dear Mr, Luce:
The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the proposed Final Draft Plan Bay Area (Plan) and the
associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The City has previously reviewed and
commented on the Preferred Scenario tentatively adopted by the agencies in May of 2012,
and on prior alternative scenarios.
This letter provides the City of Palo Alto's (City) comments regarding the Plan, while a
separate letter will be provided outlining comments on the DEIR. In summary, the City's
concerns are as follows:
The regional forecasts of jobs and housing being considered as part of the Plan overstate
future growth in the Bay Area and are inconsistent with the most recent Department of
Finance projections. ABAG should recognize the distinct possibility that actual growth
rates in the Bay Area over the next 30 years may be lower and should evaluate a range of
growth potential and phase job and housing allocations and implementation accordingly.
Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and housing units under the Plan 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.
The land use changes contemplated in the SCS Alternative Scenarios have a
proportionately small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets and
there are very limited differences shown between the scenarios considered; the
substantial effort and investment needed to effect these land use changes should be re-
directed to more cost-effective regional and local GHG reduction measures.
Page 2 of 6
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 following items elaborate on the summary points listed above.
1. The Regional Forecast of jobs and housing overstate future growth in the Bay Area
and are inconsistent with the most recent Department of Finance forecasts.
The regional forecast of jobs and housing for the region substantially overstates growth for
the overall Plan period (through 2040), implying greater RHNA (Regional Housing Needs
Assessment) housing allocations for cities through that period. Significantly, the overall
regional allocation continues to ignore the updated demographic forecasts of the State’s
Department of Finance (DOF). Whereas the Plan Bay Area estimates an increase of 2.1
million population from 2010-2040, DOF projects only a 1.3 million increase, approximately
40% less. This creates an unrealistic scenario for long -term planning, potentially creating
unreasonable and unachievable housing mandates and infrastructure needs. Although the
SCS process does allow for adjustment of long-term growth projections on a periodic basis,
the City encourages ABAG to regain public confidence of its numbers by working with the
Department of Finance to reduce the 2010-2040 projections to reflect the adaptations
already made by the Department of Finance to the changing State of California
demographics. Furthermore, current and future projections should be adjusted so they are
more consistent with historical growth patterns and/or a range of projections should be
adopted that reflect meaningful planning scenarios in response to market changes over time.
The City suggests that the agencies should adopt “low,” “high,” and “most likely” forecasts for
planning. An analysis of the inadequacy of the current long-range projections, authored by
Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid, was submitted to ABAG during the Preferred
Scenario evaluation process and is attached to this letter. A more recent analysis prepared by
Councilmember Schmid, specifically focused on the Plan Bay Area Final Draft, is also
attached.
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 Plan assumes that the Region
will add an average of over 33,000 jobs annually from 2010 to 2040, 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 part 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.
Page 3 of 6
b. Housing. Regarding the ABAG housing forecast used for the Plan, an additional 660,000
households are shown added to the Bay Area between 2010 and 2040 - an annual average
growth of 22,000 households. Until very recently, the Bay Area, like much of the United
States, was mired 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 properties. These conditions
are improving, but it may be 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 “shift-share” model of a national employment forecast prepared by
the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. The forecast also presumes that international in-
migration (primarily of Asian and Hispanic peoples) would continue and comprise
approximately 80 percent of all population growth nationwide, well in excess of migration
trends documented by others.
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 (RAWG) 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.
Accordingly, given all of these concerns, the City strongly recommends that the jobs and
housing forecasts for the Preferred Scenario be reduced to more accurately reflect the most
recent Department of Finance projections and historical trends. 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.
2. Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and housing units under the proposed Plan is highly
unrealistic and excessive relative to historical growth trends and development
capacity.
Page 4 of 6
Santa Clara County dominates all other Bay Area counties in the allocation of ABAG's regional
forecast of jobs and housing, absorbing 33 percent of the regional job forecast and 36 percent
of the regional housing forecast. Palo Alto is allocated 29,650 new jobs and 7,870 new
households through 2040. 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 89,370 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 improving, there have been structural changes in technology
industries that have driven growth in the Silicon Valley over the past 50 years that portend
only modest growth. The proposed Plan, however, assumes that Palo Alto's job growth by
2040 will increase over the 2010 estimate by 33 percent.
b. Housing. The housing projections in the Alternative Scenarios represent a 30 percent
increase in housing units from 2010-2040, up to approximately 262 new units per year. The
City has in the past 40 years (1970-2010) produced an average of 148 units per year. To
increase that annual output by more than 50% 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
proposed Plan clearly does not appear to consider the many constraints to new
development in Palo Alto, including limited school capacity and funding for infrastructure.
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.
3. The land use changes contemplated in the proposed Plan contribute a
proportionately small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets.
The AB32/SB375 target for California is a reduction to 85 million equivalent metric tons per
year by 2050, an 80 percent reduction from current levels. To return 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 patterns.
Page 5 of 6
a. Regional Transportation Pricing and Policies: The MTC analysis of various transportation
pricing and policy changes (e.g., telecommuting, electric vehicle strategies, parking
pricing) may account for at least a 6.5% further reduction in GIG emissions, considerably
more significant than the differences between the land use patterns in the Plan
Alternatives in the EIR.
b. 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 proposed Plan.
Regarding cost-effectiveness, the comparable costs (mostly borne by local jurisdictions)
of implementing the Plan or the various alternatives may be far higher than other
alternatives for achieving comparable GHG 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 in land use policy) should
become the basis of the proposed Plan Bay Area.
4. The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and
programs that reduce GHG emissions.
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
multimodal 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. Examples of key City sustainability
programs include an aggressive Climate Action Plan, the provision of clean energy to Palo
Alto customers via the City owned and operated electric utility, various utility programs to
reduce emissions, leadership in Green Building and sustainable design, affordable housing
programs, higher density land uses near transit, and numerous “complete streets” oriented
policies and projects.
In particular, the City’s Climate Protection Plan, 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.
• GHG reductions for City operations have been reduced by 53% below 2005 levels, as
compared to a goal of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2012.
• GHG reductions for the City and the community have been reduced by 22% below
2005 levels, as compared to a goal of a 20% reduction by 2020.
Page 6 of 6
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto requests that ABAG consider the effectiveness of these local
GHG emission reduction efforts, incorporate them as a part of the Plan and related regional
GHG reduction targets, and provide "credits" to those jurisdictions that have demonstrated
implementation of meaningful GHG reduction measures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto suggests that the proposed Plan Bay Area for the
Sustainability Communities Strategy should include:
A range of forecasted growth, outlining “low,” “high”, and “most likely” scenarios and
transportation networks for each, to be updated every four years.
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;
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 on the Final Draft Plan Bay Area. 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,
H. Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: November 15, 2011 Memorandum: “California Demographic Forecasts: Why are
the Numbers Overestimated”, prepared by City of Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid
Exhibit 2: May 6, 2013 Memorandum: “Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why
aren’t they More Helpful”, prepared by City of Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid
cc: Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ezra Rapport, Association of Bay Area Governments
Miriam Chion, Association of Bay Area Governments
Ken Kirkey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Palo Alto City Council
1
California Demographic Forecasts: Why are the numbers over
estimated?
Prepared by City of Palo Alto
November 15, 2011
Actual California Population growth
Over the last decade, the state of California added 3.4 million people, to reach a total of 37.3 million.
This was an increase of 10% over the decade. This growth rate follows the gradual slowing that started
after 1990, down dramatically from the very high rates of the post‐World War II era. Note that the
Department of 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
scheduled to be revised until 2013.
Table 1. California’s population growth over the last five decades
(average growth from census to census)
Census Dept of Finance Projections (2007)
1960s 29.2
1970s 18.5
1980s 25.7
1990s 13.8
2000s 10.0 14.8
2010s 12.8
2020s 11.6
2030s 10.2
Source: US Census Bureau actual Census numbers; California Department of Finance 2007 Projections.
2
Recent State forecasts have been consistently overestimated
Even after the sharp decline in growth during the 1990s, forecasters consistently tended to be overly
optimistic about population growth rates through the 2000s. In 2005, the Public Policy Institute of
California issued a report (“California 2025: Taking on the Future”) that included the population
projections of all the key demographic forecasters. The consensus forecast from this group was some
40% higher than the actual outcome for the state:
Table 2. California Population Forecasts for 2010 made before 2005
(Percentage growth expected from 2000‐2010)
California Dept of Finance 15.2
USC Population Dynamics 11.6
UC Berkeley (Lee, Miller) 13.9*
Public Policy Institute of CA 15.2*
CCSCE 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.
The consensus forecast was some 50% above the actual numbers. The only forecaster who produced a
number below the actual 10% growth was the UC Berkeley group who stated that there was a 5%
chance that the growth rate would be lower than 7.1%. The 2005 PPIC Report stated that “Recent trends
make population projections for California especially 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.
3
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, 20002010
(millions of people)
Births +5.45
Deaths ‐2.35
Net Domestic migration ‐1.63
Foreign immigration +2.58
Foreign emigration ‐0.59
Military, etc ‐0.07
TOTAL +3.38
Source: USC, Population Dynamics Research Group, “What the Census would show”, February 2011.
The challenge for projecting change in the future is the dramatic shifts in some of these base categories.
With the aging population, we know that, even with slight increases in longevity, the aging population in
California will raise the annual number of deaths in California from 271K in 2011 to 462K in 2039, while
the number of births will rise slightly from 532K in 2011 to 551 in 2039. The natural increase will fall
from some 260K today to 90K in 2040.
Thus, over time any increase in 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
4
economic factors as much as from U.S. conditions. They identified five internal factors of change in
Mexico:
• Fertility rates are falling dramatically from 6.8 births per women in 1970 to 2.8 in 1995 to 2 in
2010 (replacement level).
• The number of young people entering the labor market has fallen from one million a year in the
1990s to 700K today and demographic factors will bring that down to about 300K in 2030, not
enough to meet local job needs.
• The rate of college attendance and college completion has doubled over the last decade, raising
the career path of an increasing share of young workers.
• The wage disparity between Mexico and the U.S. is narrowing sharply with average wage gaps
falling from 10:1 in the 1960s to some 3.7:1 in the early 2000s.
• The cost of migration has risen dramatically for illegal entrants, further narrowing the earnings
gap.
All of these factors point to the need, at the least, of looking at alternative scenarios of population
growth in California that are more sensitive to possible underlying changes in migration patterns.
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 report 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
difficult…In 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
1
Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why Aren’t They More Helpful?
May 6, 2013
ABAG Mission Statement:
ABAG is committed to enhancing the quality of life in the San Francisco Bay Area by leading
the region in advocacy, collaboration, and excellence in planning, research, and member
services.
As local officials, we need to be able to think and talk through options that deal with the very
real problems we face. California is in the midst of a sometimes troubling demographic transition
and we look to regional agencies like ABAG to help local communities explore the
consequences of these changes. As presented to us, Plan Bay Area does not allow us to discuss
the most important of these issues.
The stated goal of the Plan is to help local communities chart a course to accommodate change
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.” (Plan Bay Area, Page 1). But, the Plan presents and imposes on each
local community only a single long-term demographic projection. This severely limits our ability
to plan effectively for a changing future.
Plan Bay Area’s Demographic Forecast
Plan Bay Area asserts a single demographic view of the future, what it calls the “the best picture
we have of what the Bay Area may look like in 2040” (Draft Plan Bay Area, March 2013, Page
5). It projects a population growth of 2.1 million people in the Bay Area in the period 2010-2040
(Page 6). This demographic assertion is the starting point for each and every public discussion of
the Plan. But, this ‘best picture’ projection is some 60% higher than the forecast of the state’s
official demographer—the Department of Finance's Demographic Research Unit. That group
projects a Bay Area population increase of only 1.3 million by 2040. (Population Projection P-1,
Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, January 2013).
Up until 2012, ABAG had relied on the Department of Finance’s population projections as the
basis of their own forecast. But it moved away from that when the 2010 Census showed a rather
dramatic slowdown in California’s, and the Bay Area’s, population growth. In early 2012, a
detailed analysis of California’s population slowdown during the 2000’s led the Department of
Finance to revise its longer term projections in the area of births, domestic migration and
international migration. Instead of leading a public discussion of the implications of these
important demographic shifts, ABAG turned to an entirely new model based on a US
Department of Labor forecast. The Labor Department forecast selected not only didn’t show a
decrease in projected population following the official Census Report, they rather posited a
substantial increase (US Department of Labor, Monthly Labor Review, November 2006 and
October 2012). This was not just a phenomenon of taking a national perspective rather than a
2
local one: the US Census Bureau (which carries the federal responsibility for population
estimates) made the same types of adjustments on birth rates and migration rates that California’s
Department of Finance did (reducing their national population projections for 2040 by some
34%). In fact, the Census Bureau actually published a short paper explaining why their longer
term projection had changed so dramatically between 2008 and 2012, “What a Difference Four
Years Make: US Population Projected to Grow at a Slower Pace” (US Census Bureau Blog,
December 12, 2012).
The Consequences of Demographic Shifts
In fact, most professional demographers are projecting a slower pace of population growth in
coming decades at both the national and state level as they re-examine birth rates, domestic
migration and international migration. Yet ABAG is ignoring the possibility of change. While
there is room for disagreement and alternate scenarios, it would certainly be helpful for ABAG in
their role of fostering excellence in local planning to help local communities explore some of the
reasoning behind those changed projections and the consequences for decisions local officials
make.
Let me mention a few of the most important of those shifting trends that might have significant
impact on the longer-term decisions local governments make:
--Over the last ten years, California has averaged a net domestic out-migration of over 150,000
people per year. That adds up to a loss of over a million and a half California residents over the
decade. Who are these migrants? According to the Department of Finance, the largest outflows
are those aged between 30 and 45; the next largest group is young kids under 10 years of age.
These are young families leaving the state. About two-thirds of the adults leaving have gone to
California colleges. These are middle class young families.
--Because of the dramatic loss of young families, California is the only state west of the
Mississippi that has a declining number of children under the age of 10.
--San Francisco is a special case with the share of children between the ages of 5 and 17 the
fastest declining age group.
--The high cost of property in California has not only contributed to the out-migration of young
families but it has sharply curtailed international immigration to the state over the last decade.
Most demographers agree that net immigration from Mexico is currently close to zero.
--The absolute number of California residents admitted to the UC system has been falling for the
last two years.
As elected officials, we are confronted with a state that faces a shrinking young middle class.
These are our children, our grandkids, that are leaving.
3
Demographics and Local Decision Making
Responding to demographic changes requires investments by local communities. We would like
to create affordable housing and jobs that keep our young middle class families in the
community. We need to invest in schools and day care centers and parks and recreation programs
and libraries that form an affordable and attractive community. At the same time we need to
maintain streets and sidewalks and our aging public buildings. Yet, you are asking us to invest
more of our funds in building homes in Priority Development Areas to meet a possible influx of
new residents. While it makes sense to assure that our communities remain diverse, each
‘affordable’ house carries a substantial subsidy in our high priced communities. As an example,
each new low income housing unit in Palo Alto carries a public subsidy of between $100,000
and $400,000. And this is without the additional public funds needed for infrastructure support
for things like schools and parks and roads and security.
As Council Members we are facing severe demands on our existing budgets. We are willing to
spend to build affordable housing and needed infrastructure. But, we are struggling to pay rising
benefits and pensions to our workers who provide basic services and it is difficult to find new
funds to invest in our existing schools and child care facilities. At the same time we are
confronted with a constrained tax system. Our main source of local revenue, property tax, grows
slower than the California economy under Prop 13. A key element of that slower growth is the
fact that each year businesses’ share of property tax payments declines because of a special Prop
13 exemption. The second main source of revenue is sales tax. But that tax excludes services
which are taking an increasing share of consumer spending each year.
How Can ABAG help?
When we draw the ‘best picture’ of our demographic future, it is imperative that we make sure
that we include the best thinking of the many professional demographers available to help us sort
through our options and choices. It doesn’t help us to be presented with only the most aggressive
growth scenario and to hear at the beginning of each public meeting “By statute, the Regional
Housing Needs Determination cannot be changed”.
If existing statutes stand in the way of exploring realistic demographic change, please help us
change the statutes. If Prop 13 constrains all the choices we have, identify it as a problem for us.
Help us explore the full range of demographic shifts we face and what options we have to use
our scarce resources so that we can truly excel in “planning, research and services” to our
constituents.
Greg Schmid
May 2013
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
ATTACHMENT B
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
May 13, 2013
Mr. Mark Luce, President
Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O, Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Re: City of Palo Alto Comments on Plan Bay Area Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Luce:
Thank you for providing an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Final Draft Plan Bay Area. The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the Draft and has
several concerns about the basic assumptions, the inadequacy of the alternatives, and the lack
of analysis of local impacts and associated mitigation measures.
1. The Key Assumptions include an overstated forecast of future population, jobs, and
housing.
One of the stated Key EIR Assumptions is that:
“The total amount of growth projected for the Bay Area through 2040 is based on ABAG’s
Plan Bay Area Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing…this amount of growth is
assumed in the proposed Plan, which identifies a land use pattern to accommodate the
projected growth.”
The City of Palo Alto believes that the regional forecast of jobs and housing for the region
substantially overstates growth for the overall Plan period (through 2040). Most significantly,
the overall regional allocation continues to ignore the updated demographic forecasts of the
State’s Department of Finance (DOF), with population estimates in excess of 40% more
(ABAG: 2.1 million v. DOF: 1.3 million) than the 2012 DOF projections. This creates an
unrealistic scenario for long-term planning, potentially creating unreasonable and
unachievable housing mandates and infrastructure needs and overstating impacts, including
greenhouse gas reduction. A range of projections should be evaluated that reflect meaningful
planning scenarios in response to market changes over time. The City suggests that the
agencies should adopt “low,” “high,” and “most likely” forecasts for planning and impact
Page 2 of 4
analysis. An analysis of the inadequacy of the current long-range projections, authored by
Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid, was submitted to ABAG during the Preferred Scenario
evaluation process and is attached to this letter. A more recent analysis by Councilmember
Schmid, specific to Plan Bay Area, is also attached.
2. Alternatives are inadequate in that no alternatives consider demographic forecasts
less than the overstated projections and no alternatives provide for alternative
approaches to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction.
The alternatives proposed include the No Project Alternative, and three alternatives that
result in either greater population, housing and jobs projections or a somewhat different
distribution of the future development. Again, no alternatives are proposed that would
evaluate lower and more realistic growth projections for the region. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of alternatives that would lessen
environmental impacts, but none of those evaluated would have that effect. Another means
of lessening impacts could include allowing flexibility or mandates for cities to take measures
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through local energy conservation, building design
or transportation measures. An alternative should be developed to provide for and evaluate
local GHG reduction measures. The City suggested these type of “hybrid” alternatives in our
July 11, 2012 response to the Notice of Preparation (attached).
3. The Alternatives proposed (other than the No Project Alternative) all would result in
greater environmental impacts on the City of Palo Alto, in that the allocation of new
housing and employment would increase above that proposed in the Final Draft Plan
.
The alternatives proposed include the No Project Alternative and three alternatives that result
in either greater population, housing and jobs projections or a somewhat different
distribution of the future development. Alternative 3 (Transit Priority Focus) would increase
impacts on the City and similar cities near transit, even though those areas are often already
heavily built out and congested already. Alternative 4 (Enhanced Network of Communities)
would assume increased population and housing forecasts and would further exacerbate
unrealistic demands and impacts on cities like Palo Alto. Alternative 5 (Environment, Equity
and Jobs) is not only more impactful on Palo Alto, but is a highly infeasible option, relying on
social engineering functions that will not be supported by the jobs and housing markets and
will likely be counterproductive to the regional effort.
4. Lack of analysis of local impacts and potential for mitigation.
The DEIR identifies many impacts at a regional level, and implies that there are significant
unavoidable impacts in some impact categories, such as traffic congestion and land use character
and compatibility. However, mitigation for many of these measures is assumed to be the
responsibility of the “implementing agency,” assumed to be the local jurisdiction. The City
questions the use of “Statements of Overriding Considerations” by a regional agency when the
Page 3 of 4
impacts are most heavily felt on local agencies. Mitigation should be offered by the regional and
state agencies for many such impacts, and again alternatives should be considered with a lesser
growth assumption to minimize those impacts on local agencies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto suggests that the Draft EIR be modified to:
Include alternatives that assume lesser growth projections than proposed, at least
midway between the Department of Finance projections and ABAG’s;
Include an alternative that provides for flexibility for cities to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions at a local level, reducing the reliance on the land use-transportation
connection;
Reject all proposed alternatives to the Plan as infeasible; and
Provide regional or state-funded mitigation for potential “significant unavoidable”
impacts to local agencies.
The City also takes exception to the EIR’s characterization of alternatives 4 and 5 as
“Enhanced Network of Communities” and “Environment, Equity and Jobs.” These terms are
clearly stylized to sound positive while they are actually alternatives developed by active
interest groups, including the building industry (Alternative 4) and social/environmental
advocacy groups (Alternative 5). The inclusion of these titles for the alternatives creates a
highly biased appearance to the Alternatives analysis, if not the document as a whole.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. 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,
H. Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: “Demographic Forecasting in California,” prepared by Councilmember Greg Schmid;
November 15, 2011
Exhibit 2: “Demographic Forecasts for Plan Bay Area: Why Aren’t They More Helpful?”
prepared by Councilmember Greg Schmid, May 6, 2013
Exhibit 3: July 11, 2012 City of Palo Alto Response to Notice of Preparation
Page 4 of 4
cc: Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ezra Rapport, Association of Bay Area Governments
Miriam Chion, Association of Bay Area Governments
Ken Kirkey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Palo Alto City Council
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
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
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
Draft Strategy for a
Sustainable
Region
Environmental Impact Report
Plan Bay Area
Draft
State Clearinghouse No. 2012062029
April 2013
Association of
Bay Area
Governments
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
PLAN BAY AREA
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012062029
Prepared for
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
Association of Bay Area Governments
by
In association with
Environmental Science Associates and AECOM
April 2013
Table of Contents
Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................. G-1
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-1
MTC, ABAG, and Plan Bay Area........................................................................................................ ES-1
Introduction to the EIR ....................................................................................................................... ES-2
EIR Organization ................................................................................................................................... ES-3
Plan Bay Area Regional Setting ....................................................................................................... ES-5
Plan Bay Area Overview ..................................................................................................................... ES-5
Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................ ES-7
Key EIR assumptions ........................................................................................................................... ES-8
Plan Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... ES-9
Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................................... ES-9
Areas of Known Controversy ........................................................................................................ ES-11
Issues to be Resolved ....................................................................................................................... ES-12
Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... ES-12
Part One: Introduction and Study Approach
1.1 Introduction and Study Approach ....................................................................... 1.1-1
MTC, ABAG, and Plan Bay Area....................................................................................................... 1.1-1
Purpose of the EIR ............................................................................................................................... 1.1-2
Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping ................................................................................. 1.1-2
EIR Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 1.1-4
EIR Organization .................................................................................................................................. 1.1-7
EIR Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 1.1-9
Future Environmental Review ..................................................................................................... 1.1-12
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ii
1.2 Overview of the Proposed Plan Bay Area ............................................................ 1.2-1
Regional Setting .................................................................................................................................. 1.2-1
Project Background ............................................................................................................................ 1.2-8
Plan Development Process ........................................................................................................... 1.2-15
Description of Plan Bay Area: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Community Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 1.2-21
Part Two: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
2.0 Introduction and Study Approach ....................................................................... 2.0-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2.0-1
General Methodology and Assumptions ................................................................................... 2.0-1
Types of Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 2.0-2
Impact Significance ............................................................................................................................ 2.0-3
Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................. 2.0-3
2.1 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 2.1-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.1-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.1-22
2.2 Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 2.2-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.2-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.2-17
2.3 Land Use and Physical Development .................................................................. 2.3-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.3-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.3-31
2.4 Energy .................................................................................................................... 2.4-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.4-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.4-16
2.5 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ............................................................. 2.5-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.5-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.5-41
Adaptation Strategies .................................................................................................................... 2.5-76
Table of Contents
iii
2.6 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 2.6-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.6-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.6-19
2.7 Geology and Seismicity ........................................................................................ 2.7-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.7-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.7-20
2.8 Water Resources ................................................................................................... 2.8-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.8-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.8-20
2.9 Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 2.9-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 2.9-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.9-52
2.10 Visual Resources ................................................................................................. 2.10-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.10-2
Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2.10-14
2.11 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 2.11-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.11-1
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 2.11-9
2.12 Public Utilities and Facilities .............................................................................. 2.12-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.12-1
Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2.12-46
2.13 Hazards ................................................................................................................ 2.13-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.13-1
Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2.13-26
2.14 Public Services and Recreation .......................................................................... 2.14-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 2.14-1
Impact Analysis .........................................................................................................................................11
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
iv
Part Three: Alternative and CEQA-Required Conclusions
3.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Plan ....................................................................... 3.1-1
Alternatives Screening ...................................................................................................................... 3.1-2
Approach to Assessing Alternatives............................................................................................. 3.1-3
Alternatives Analyzed in this EIR ................................................................................................... 3.1-4
Comparative Impact Analysis of Alternatives ........................................................................ 3.1-19
Summary of All Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 3.1-120
Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................................... 3.1-146
3.2 CEQA Required Conclusions ............................................................................... 3.2-21
4.1 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 EIR Preparers ....................................................................................................... 4.2-12
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Prepartion
Appendix B: Scoping Comments Received
Appendix C: Transportation Projects in Each EIR Alternative
Appendix D:Scoping Comments on Alternatives
Appendix E:Air Quality Analysis Methodolgy
Appendix F: Geology
Appendix G: Water Resources
Appendix H: Biological Resources Special Status Species Table H-1
Appendix I: Hazards
List of Figures
v
List of Figures
Figure 1.2-1: Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 1.2-3
Figure 1.2-2: Priority Development Areas and Priority Conservation Areas.............................................. 1.2-27
Figure 1.2-3: Urbanized Land in 2010 and 2040 ................................................................................................. 1.2-29
Figure 1.2-4: Regional Transit System Improvements ...................................................................................... 1.2-41
Figure 1.2-5: Local Transit Improvements............................................................................................................. 1.2-43
Figure 1.2-6: Road Pricing Improvements ............................................................................................................ 1.2-45
Figure 1.2-7: Highway System Improvements .................................................................................................... 1.2-47
Figure 1.2-8: Major Transportation Projects in Alameda County .................................................................. 1.2-57
Figure 1.2-9: Major Transportation Projects in Contra Costa County .......................................................... 1.2-61
Figure 1.2-10: Major Transportation Projects in Mario and Sonoma Counties ........................................... 1.2-65
Figure 1.2-11: Major Transportation Projects in Napa and Solano Counties ............................................... 1.2-67
Figure 1.2-12: Major Transportation Projects in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties ....................... 1.2-73
Figure 1.2-13: Major Transportation Projects in Santa Clara County ............................................................. 1.2-75
Figure 1.2-14: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Alameda and Contra Costa ...................... 1.2-79
Figure 1.2-15: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Marin and Sonoma ..................................... 1.2-81
Figure 1.2-16: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Solano and Napa ......................................... 1.2-83
Figure 1.2-17: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, San Francisco and San Mateo ................. 1.2-85
Figure 1.2-18: Change in PDA Housing Density, 2010-2040, Santa Clara ..................................................... 1.2-87
Figure 1.2-19: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Alameda and Contra Costa ................................ 1.2-89
Figure 1.2-20: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Marin and Sonoma ............................................... 1.2-91
Figure 1.2-21: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Solano and Napa ................................................... 1.2-93
Figure 1.2-22: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, San Francisco and San Mateo ........................... 1.2-95
Figure 1.2-23: Change in PDA Job Density, 2010-2040, Santa Clara .............................................................. 1.2-97
Figure 2.1-1: Major Road Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 2.1-3
Figure 2.1-2: Transit Lines & Areas Served by Transit .......................................................................................... 2.1-7
Figure 2.1-3: Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 2.1-11
Figure 2.2-1: Air Basin Boundaries ........................................................................................................................... 2.2-15
Figure 2.2-2: Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Projects Corridors .................................. 2.2-21
Figure 2.2-3: Communities of Concern and CARE .............................................................................................. 2.2-25
Figure 2.2-4: San Francisco Bay Area ...................................................................................................................... 2.2-43
Figure 2.2-5: Northern Alameda County ............................................................................................................... 2.2-45
Figure 2.2-6: Eastern Alameda County ................................................................................................................... 2.2-47
Figure 2.2-7: Southern Alameda County ............................................................................................................... 2.2-49
Figure 2.2-8: Western Contra Costa County ......................................................................................................... 2.2-51
Figure 2.2-9: Central Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................... 2.2-53
Figure 2.2-10: Eastern Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................... 2.2-55
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
vi
Figure 2.2-11: Northern Marin County ..................................................................................................................... 2.2-57
Figure 2.2-12: Southern Marin County ..................................................................................................................... 2.2-59
Figure 2.2-13: Napa County .......................................................................................................................................... 2.2-61
Figure 2.2-14: Northern Santa Clara County ........................................................................................................... 2.2-63
Figure 2.2-15: Central Santa Clara County .............................................................................................................. 2.2-65
Figure 2.2-16: Southern Santa Clara County .......................................................................................................... 2.2-67
Figure 2.2-17: San Francisco County ......................................................................................................................... 2.2-69
Figure 2.2-18: Northern San Mateo County ............................................................................................................ 2.2-71
Figure 2.2-19: Southern San Mateo County ............................................................................................................ 2.2-73
Figure 2.2-20: Southern Solano County ................................................................................................................... 2.2-75
Figure 2.2-21: Sonoma County .................................................................................................................................... 2.2-77
Figure 2.3-1: Urbanized Land and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.3-3
Figure 2.3-2: Farmlands ................................................................................................................................................. 2.3-9
Figure 2.3-3: Williamson Act Lands ......................................................................................................................... 2.3-13
Figure 2.3-4: Regional Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.3-17
Figure 2.3-5: Priority Development Areas ............................................................................................................. 2.3-29
Figure 2.5-1: 2007 Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, as a Percent of
Total Emissions ....................................................................................................................................... 2.5-6
Figure 2.5-2: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends by Major Source ............................................... 2.5-6
Figure 2.5-3: 24-Inch Sea Level Rise at Mean Higher High Water ................................................................. 2.5-13
Figure 2.5-4: Levees and Non-Engineered Berms .............................................................................................. 2.5-17
Figure 2.5-5: Number of Days Exceeding the 8-Hour Ozone Standard and 99 Degree Weather....... 2.5-21
Figure 2.5-6: Comparative Inundation by Scenario ........................................................................................... 2.5-47
Figure 2.5-7: Per Capita Emissions Car and Light Duty Truck Emissions .................................................... 2.5-58
Figure 2.5-8: Total Emissions by Sector and Linear Trajectory, Annual MTCO2e ..................................... 2.5-59
Figure 2.6-1: Decibel Scale and Common Noise Sources .................................................................................. 2.6-3
Figure 2.6-2: Point Source Spreading with Distance ........................................................................................... 2.6-5
Figure 2.6-3: Line Source Spreading with Distance ............................................................................................. 2.6-6
Figure 2.6-4: Wind Effects on Noise Levels ............................................................................................................. 2.6-7
Figure 2.6-5: Effects of Temperature Gradients on Noise .................................................................................. 2.6-8
Figure 2.6-6: FTA Noise Impact Criteria .................................................................................................................. 2.6-14
Figure 2.6-7: Typical Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria .......................................................................... 2.6-18
Figure 2.7-1: Principal Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area ............................................................... 2.7-7
Figure 2.7-2: Liquefaction Hazards in San Francisco Bay Area ....................................................................... 2.7-11
Figure 2.7-3: Landslide Hazards in the San Francisco Bay Area ..................................................................... 2.7-15
Figure 2.8-1: Major Rivers, Creeks, and Other Water Bodies ............................................................................. 2.8-5
Figure 2.8-2: Current TMDL Projects in San Francisco Bay Area ..................................................................... 2.8-9
Figure 2.8-3: Flood Hazard Areas ............................................................................................................................. 2.8-11
Figure 2.9-1: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: North Bay ........................................ 2.9-17
Figure 2.9 -2: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: East Bay ........................................... 2.9-19
Figure 2.9-3: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: Peninsula ........................................ 2.9-21
Figure 2.9-4: CNDDB Documented Sensitive Biological Resources: South Bay ....................................... 2.9-23
Figure 2.9-5: Critical Habitat: North Bay................................................................................................................. 2.9-27
List of Figures
vii
Figure 2.9-6: Critical Habitat: East Bay .................................................................................................................... 2.9-29
Figure 2.9-7: Critical Habitat: South Bay ................................................................................................................ 2.9-31
Figure 2.9-8: Critical Habitat: Peninsula ................................................................................................................. 2.9-33
Figure 2.9-9: Essential Connectivity Areas ............................................................................................................ 2.9-37
Figure 2.10-1: Major Bay Area Scenic Resources ................................................................................................... 2.10-3
Figure 2.10-2: State Designated and Eligible Scenic Highways .................................................................... 2.10-11
Figure 2.10-3: Proposed Major Transportation Projects .................................................................................. 2.10-19
Figure 2.12-1: Major Local Watersheds in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region .............................. 2.10-3
Figure 2.12-2: Bay Area Water Use by Supply Source .......................................................................................... 2.12-9
Figure 2.12-3: Bay Area Groundwater Basins ...................................................................................................... 2.12-11
Figure 2.12-4: Major Water Infrastructure Serving the Bay Area .................................................................. 2.12-17
Figure 2.12-5: Population and Water Demand Trends .................................................................................... 2.12-21
Figure 2.12-6: Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Bay Area........................................................................ 2.12-31
Figure 2.13-1: Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Ultramafic Rocks ............................................................... 2.13-7
Figure 2.13-2: Airports ................................................................................................................................................. 2.13-11
Figure 2.13-3: Fire Hazards ........................................................................................................................................ 2.13-15
Figure 3.1-1: Change in Per Capita Car and Light Duty Truck CO2 Emissions, by Alternative ............. 3.1-63
Figure 3.1-2: Total Annual Regional GHG Emissions (MTCO2e), by Alternative ........................................ 3.1-64
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
List of Tables
ix
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Total Projected Growth for the Bay Area, 2010-2040 ................................................................. ES-6
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................................................. ES-13
Table 1.1-1: Requirements for CEQA Streamlining Related to an SCS ....................................................... 1.1-14
Table 1.2-1: Projected Regional Growth by 2040 ............................................................................................... 1.2-6
Table 1.2-2: Year 2040 Performance Targets for Plan Bay Area ................................................................... 1.2-22
Table 1.2-3: Housing Growth by County ............................................................................................................. 1.2-32
Table 1.2-4: County Proportion of Regional Housing ..................................................................................... 1.2-32
Table 1.2-5: Job Growth by County ....................................................................................................................... 1.2-33
Table 1.2-6: Jobs-Household Ratios by County ................................................................................................. 1.2-34
Table 1.2-7: Household Growth in PDAs .............................................................................................................. 1.2-34
Table 1.2-8: Job Growth in PDAs ........................................................................................................................... 1.2-36
Table 1.2-9: Major Transportation Investments in the Bay Area .................................................................. 1.2-38
Table 1.2-10: Transportation Investments of Plan Bay Area vs. RTP 2035 .................................................. 1.2-50
Table 1.2-11: Major Transportation Investments for Alameda County ....................................................... 1.2-54
Table 1.2-12: Major Transportation Investments for Contra Costa County ................................................ 1.2-59
Table 1.2-13: Major Transportation Investments for Marin and Sonoma Counties ................................ 1.2-63
Table 1.2-14: Major Transportation Investments for Napa and Solano Counties .................................... 1.2-64
Table 1.2-15: Major Transportation Investments for San Francisco and San mateo Counties ............ 1.2-69
Table 1.2-16: Major Transportation Investments for Santa Clara County ................................................... 1.2-70
Table 2.1-1: Major Limited-Access Highways in the Bay Area ........................................................................ 2.1-2
Table 2.1-2: Major Public Transit Operators in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 2.1-5
Table 2.1-3: Bay Area Travel Behavior, 2010 ....................................................................................................... 2.1-10
Table 2.1-4: Typical Weekday Daily Person Trips by Purpose, 2010 ........................................................... 2.1-14
Table 2.1-5: Average One-Way Commute Distance (in Miles) by County, 2010 ..................................... 2.1-14
Table 2.1-6: Bay Area Resident Workers Categorized by Means of Transportation to Work,
1990-2010.............................................................................................................................................. 2.1-15
Table 2.1-7: Bay Area Resident Commute Mode Shares by County, 2010 ............................................... 2.1-16
Table 2.1-8: Average Travel Time to Work, 1990 - 2010 ................................................................................. 2.1-16
Table 2.1-9: Bay Area Resident Workers Commute Patterns by County, 1990 - 2007 .......................... 2.1-18
Table 2.1-10: Bay area Demographic Forecasts (2010-2040) .......................................................................... 2.1-25
Table 2.1-11: Transportation System Capacity (2010-2040) ............................................................................ 2.1-27
Table 2.1-12: Bay Area Travel Behavior, 2010-2040 ............................................................................................ 2.1-28
Table 2.1-13: Typical Weekday Daily Person Trips, by Mode ........................................................................... 2.1-29
Table 2.1-14: Per-Trip Commute Travel Time, by Mode .................................................................................... 2.1-31
Table 2.1-15: Per-Trip Non-Commute Travel Time, by Mode .......................................................................... 2.1-32
Table 2.1-16: Per-Capita Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel by Level of Service (2010-2040) ......................... 2.1-33
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
x
Table 2.1-17: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita (2010-2040) ............................................................... 2.1-35
Table 2.1-18: Utilization of Public Transit Systems, by Mode (2010-2040) ................................................. 2.1-37
Table 2.2-1: Bay Area Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status as of 2012 .................... 2.2-4
Table 2.2-2: Ten-Year Bay Area Air Quality Summary (2002-2011) ............................................................... 2.2-6
Table 2.2-3: Days Exceeding the California 1-Hour Ozone Standard (1998-2010) .................................. 2.2-7
Table 2.2-4: Days Exceeding the National 8-Hour Ozone Standard (1998-2010) .................................... 2.2-8
Table 2.2-5: Travel Data ............................................................................................................................................. 2.2-18
Table 2.2-6: Proposed Plan Investments and Policies that Support Implementation
of 2010 CAP Control Measures ........................................................................................................ 2.2-29
Table 2.2-7: Emission Estimates for Criteria Pollutants using EMFAC2011 Emission
Rates (tons per day) ............................................................................................................................ 2.2-36
Table 2.2-8: Emission Estimates for Criteria Pollutants using EMFAC2011 Emission Rates
(tons per day) ........................................................................................................................................ 2.2-37
Table 2.2-9: Emission Estimates for Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants (kilograms per day) ............ 2.2-38
Table 2.2-10: Distance Recommendation from Sensitive Receptors ............................................................ 2.2-80
Table 2.2-11: Percent Change in On-Road Mobile Source Exhaust Emissions, Years 2010 - 2040 ..... 2.2-84
Table 2.2-12: Percent Change in On-Road Mobile Source Total PM Emissions, Years 2010–2040 ..... 2.2-85
Table 2.3-1: 2010 Employment, Housing, and Population, by County ........................................................ 2.3-2
Table 2.3-2: Net Housing Supply and Demand by Building Type, 2010 – 2040 ....................................... 2.3-5
Table 2.3-3: Bay Area Agricultural Lands, 2010 ................................................................................................... 2.3-7
Table 2.3-4: Bay Area Agricultural Lands, 1954 and 2007 ................................................................................ 2.3-8
Table 2-3.5: Williamson Act Contracts in the Bay Area, 2006........................................................................ 2.3-12
Table 2.3-6: Bay Area Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.3-15
Table 2.3-7: Household Density by Priority Development ARea ................................................................. 2.3-36
Table 2.3-8: Employment Density by Priority Development Area .............................................................. 2.3-37
Table 2.3-9: Types of Projects Potentially Disrupting Existing Land Use .................................................. 2.3-38
Table 2.3-10: Priority Development Area and BCDC Priority Use Area Acres of Overlap ...................... 2.3-43
Table 2.3-11: Farmland Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development, by
County and Type ................................................................................................................................. 2.3-45
Table 2.3-12: Williamson Act Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-46
Table 2.3-13: Protected Open SPace Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-47
Table 2.3-14: Bay Area Urban Growth Boundaries and County-wide Land Use Measures ................... 2.3-48
Table 2.3-15: Farmland Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Transportation Projects,
by County and Type ............................................................................................................................ 2.3-49
Table 2.3-16: Williamson Act Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Transportation Projects,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-50
Table 2.3-17: Protected Open SPace Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Transportation
Projects, by County ............................................................................................................................. 2.3-51
Table 2.3-18: Forest and Timberland Acres Potentially Affected by Proposed Development,
by County ............................................................................................................................................... 2.3-54
Table 2.4-1: Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2010 ............... 2.4-5
List of Tables
xi
Table 2.4-2: Gasoline and Diesel Consumption in the San Francisco Bay Area, 2010 and
2011 (1,000 gallons) .............................................................................................................................. 2.4-7
Table 2.4-3: Energy Factors of Transit Service ...................................................................................................... 2.4-8
Table 2.4-4: Direct Land Use Energy Consumption Factors .......................................................................... 2.4-17
Table 2.4-5: InDirect Land Use Energy Consumption Factors ...................................................................... 2.4-18
Table 2.4-6: InDirect Transportation Project Energy Consumption Factors ............................................ 2.4-18
Table 2.4-7: Annual Direct Land use Energy Use in the Bay Area ................................................................ 2.4-20
Table 2.4-8: Estimated Indirect Land Use Energy Consumption (in BnBTUs) .......................................... 2.4-21
Table 2.4-9: Daily Direct Transportation Energy Use in the Bay Area ........................................................ 2.4-22
Table 2.4-10: Estimated Daily Indirect Transportation Energy Consumption (In Billion Btus)........... 2.4-23
Table 2.4-11: Daily Per Capita Energy Use (BTUS per PERSON) ...................................................................... 2.4-23
Table 2.5-1: 2007 Bay Area CO2e Emissions by Pollutant ................................................................................. 2.5-5
Table 2.5-2: CO-CAT (2010) Sea Level Rise Projections using 2000 as the Baseline .............................. 2.5-10
Table 2.5-3: NRC (2012) Regional Sea Level Rise Projections near San Francisco, CA .......................... 2.5-10
Table 2.5-4: Bay Area Cities with Completed GHG Emissions Inventories or CLimate
Action Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 2.5-38
Table 2.5-5: Plan Bay Area Climate Policy Initiatives and Reductions ........................................................ 2.5-43
Table 2.5-6: ARB Scoping Plan Reductions for Electricity and Natural Gas Sectors .............................. 2.5-45
Table 2.5-7: Total and Per Capita Passenger Vehicle and Light Duty Truck CO2 Emissions................ 2.5-50
Table 2.5-8: Existng and forecasted Annual Land Use GHG Emissions (MTCO2e).................................. 2.5-53
Table 2.5-9: Exisitng and forecasted Annual TransPortation GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) ..................... 2.5-55
Table 2.5-10: Total Regional Annual GHG Emissions ......................................................................................... 2.5-56
Table 2.5-11: Proposed Transportation Projects Within Midcentury Sea Level Rise
Inundation Zone .................................................................................................................................. 2.5-62
Table 2.5-12: Proposed Transportation Projects Within Midcentury Low-Lying Hydraulically
Disconnected Zone ............................................................................................................................. 2.5-65
Table 2.5-13: Total Population Within PDA and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ............ 2.5-69
Table 2.5-14: Total Population Within TPP and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ............. 2.5-70
Table 2.5-15: Total Population Within County and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ...... 2.5-70
Table 2.5-16: Total Employment Within PDA and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ........ 2.5-73
Table 2.5-17: Total Employment Within TPP and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ......... 2.5-73
Table 2.5-18: Total Employment Within County and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .. 2.5-74
Table 2.5-19: Total Households Within PDA and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .......... 2.5-74
Table 2.5-20: Total Households Within TPP and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone ........... 2.5-75
Table 2.5-21: Total Households Within County and Midcentury Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .... 2.5-75
Table 2.5-22: Asset Types and Shoreline Types of Proposed Transportation Projects Within Sea
Level Rise Inundation Zone .............................................................................................................. 2.5-83
Table 2.5-23: Asset Types and Shoreline Types of Proposed Transportation Projects Within
Low-Lying Hydraulically Disconnected Zone ............................................................................ 2.5-84
Table 2.6-1: Approximate Relationship Between Increases in Environmental Noise Level
and Human Perception ........................................................................................................................ 2.6-4
Table 2.6-2: Typical Noise Levels From Demolition/ Construction Equipment Operations ............... 2.6-11
Table 2.6-3: Summary of FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................................... 2.6-13
Table 2.6-4: FTA Ground-Borne Vibration (GVB) Impact Criteria for General Assessment ................. 2.6-15
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
xii
Table 2.6-5: Summary of FTA Construction Noise Criteria (Guidelines) .................................................... 2.6-16
Table 2.6-6: Noise Levels By Roadway Type (Roadway Miles) ..................................................................... 2.6-29
Table 2.7-1: Active Faults in The Bay Area ............................................................................................................. 2.7-5
Table 2.7-2: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ...................................................................................................... 2.7-9
Table 2.7-3: Priority Development Areas (PDAs) Located in Fault Rupture Zones ................................ 2.7-23
Table 2.8-1: Average Monthly Precipitation, Selected Bay Area Sites ......................................................... 2.8-2
Table 2.8-2: Flood Hazard Zone Classification ................................................................................................... 2.8-13
Table 2.9-1: Critical Habitat in the Bay Area ....................................................................................................... 2.9-25
Table 2.10-1: California State Scenic Highway System Officially Designated (OD) and
Eligible (E) Routes in the Bay Area .................................................................................................. 2.10-9
Table 2.10-3: Urbanized Land By County ............................................................................................................ 2.10-17
Table 2.10-4: Types of Projects Potentially Disrupting Visual Resources ................................................. 2.10-21
Table 2.10-5: Household Density by Priority Development Area ............................................................... 2.10-26
Table 2.11-1: Recorded Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Bay Area ............................................. 2.11-4
Table 2.11-2: Urbanized Land By County ............................................................................................................ 2.11-14
Table 2.12-1: Watersheds of the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region ...................................................... 2.12-2
Table 2.12-2: Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AF/Year) ....................................................... 2.12-20
Table 2.12-3: Projected Service Area Population of Major Bay Area Water Agencies.......................... 2.12-22
Table 2.12-4: Year of Projected Water Shortages (Single Dry Year) ........................................................... 2.12-23
Table 2.12-5: Flow and Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Region ........................... 2.12-24
Table 2.12-6: Active Bay Area Landfills ................................................................................................................ 2.12-35
Table 2.12-7: Active Bay Area Transfer/Processing Facilities ........................................................................ 2.12-37
Table 2.12-8: Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater Treatment at a County
Level (dry weather, mgD) ............................................................................................................... 2.12-51
Table 2.13-1: Description of regulatory agency Databases ............................................................................. 2.13-4
Table 2.13-2: List of Public Use Airports and Military Airfields in the San Francisco Bay Area .......... 2.13-10
Table 2.14-1: Bay Area Public Schools and Enrollment by County, 2010-2011 ......................................... 2.14-2
Table 2.14-2: Bay Area Parks and Open Space ..................................................................................................... 2.14-5
Table 2.14-3: Bay Area Parks and Open Space and Acreage Per 1,000 Residents, by County .......... 2.14-15
Table 3.1-1: Policy Measure Comparison ............................................................................................................... 3.1-8
Table 3.1-2: Bay area Demographic Forecasts (2010-2040) .......................................................................... 3.1-11
Table 3.1-3: Year 2040 Households by County .................................................................................................. 3.1-14
Table 3.1-4: Year 2040 Jobs by County................................................................................................................. 3.1-14
Table 3.1-5: Total Households and Household Growth By Share in PDAs ............................................... 3.1-15
Table 3.1-6: Total Jobs And Job Growth By Share in PDAs ............................................................................ 3.1-16
Table 3.1-7: Transportation System Capacity (2010-2040) ............................................................................ 3.1-18
Table 3.1-8: Bay Area Travel Behavior, 2010-2040 ............................................................................................ 3.1-24
Table 3.1-9: Per-Trip Commute Travel Time, by Mode .................................................................................... 3.1-26
Table 3.1-10: Per-Trip Non-Commute Travel Time, by Mode .......................................................................... 3.1-27
Table 3.1-11: Per-Capita Daily Vehicle Miles Of Travel by Level Of Service (2010-2040) ....................... 3.1-28
Table 3.1-12: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita (2010-2040) ............................................................... 3.1-29
Table 3.1-13: Percent Utilization of Public Transit Systems, by Technology (2010-2040) ..................... 3.1-30
Table 3.1-14: Travel Data ............................................................................................................................................. 3.1-38
List of Tables
xiii
Table 3.1-15: Emission Estimates for Criteria Pollutants using EMFAC2011
Emission Rates (tons per day) .......................................................................................................... 3.1-39
Table 3.1-16: Emission Estimates for Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants (kilograms per day) ............ 3.1-40
Table 3.1-17: Exhaust Only PM2.5 with Road-Dust Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ...................................... 3.1-41
Table 3.1-18: Total PM2.5 with Road Dust Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ....................................................... 3.1-42
Table 3.1-19: Exhaust Diesel PM Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ....................................................................... 3.1-43
Table 3.1-20: Exhaust Benzene Percent Change 2010 - 2040 ......................................................................... 3.1-44
Table 3.1-21: Exhaust 1, 3 Butadiene Percent Change 2010 - 2040 .............................................................. 3.1-45
Table 3.1-22: VMT Percent Change 2010 - 2040 .................................................................................................. 3.1-46
Table 3.1-23: Potential Farmland Conversion in acres, by type and Alternative ...................................... 3.1-50
Table 3.1-24: Williamson Act Acres Potentially Affected in acres, by Alternative .................................... 3.1-51
Table 3.1-25: Potential Open Space Conversion in acres, by Alternative ................................................... 3.1-52
Table 3.1-26: Potential Forest and Timberland Conversion in Acres, by Alternative .............................. 3.1-53
Table 3.1-27: Total Energy Use Per Capita in the Bay Area by Alternative .................................................. 3.1-56
Table 3.1-28: Total and Per Capita Passenger Vehicle and Light Duty Truck CO2
Emissions, by Alternative .................................................................................................................. 3.1-59
Table 3.1-29: Comparative Annual Land Use GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) ..................................................... 3.1-61
Table 3.1-30: Proposed Transportation Projects within Mid-Century Sea level Rise
Inundation Zone .................................................................................................................................. 3.1-65
Table 3.1-31: Proposed Transportation Projects within Mid-Century Low-Lying zone ......................... 3.1-66
Table 3.1-33: Residents Within TPPs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ........................ 3.1-69
Table 3.1-34: Residents Within Counties and Mid-Century Sea Level Rise Inundation Zone .............. 3.1-70
Table 3.1-35: Residents Within PDAs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ................................................... 3.1-71
Table 3.1-36: Residents Within TPPs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone .................................................... 3.1-71
Table 3.1-37: Residents Within Counties and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ............................................ 3.1-72
Table 3.1-38: Employment Within PDAs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ................ 3.1-73
Table 3.1-39: Employment Within TPPs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ................. 3.1-74
Table 3.1-40: Employment Within Counties and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ......... 3.1-75
Table 3.1-42: Employment Within TPPs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone .............................................. 3.1-76
Table 3.1-43: Employment Within Counties and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ...................................... 3.1-77
Table 3.1-44: Households Within PDAs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone .................. 3.1-78
Table 3.1-45: Households Within TPPs and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ................... 3.1-78
Table 3.1-46: Households Within counties and Mid-Century Sea level Rise Inundation Zone ............ 3.1-79
Table 3.1-47: Households Within PDAs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ............................................... 3.1-80
Table 3.1-48: Households Within TPPs and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ................................................ 3.1-80
Table 3.1-49: Households Within Counties and Mid-Century Low-Lying Zone ........................................ 3.1-81
Table 3.1-50: Roadway Directional Miles > 66 dBA NAC Level, and Total Directional Miles,
by Roadway Type and County ......................................................................................................... 3.1-88
Table 3.1-51: Transportation Projects, by Alternative .................................................................................... 3.1-101
Table 3.1-52: Alternative 1 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-108
Table 3.1-53: Alternative 3 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-110
Plan Bay Area 2040
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
xiv
Table 3.1-54: Alternative 4 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-112
Table 3.1-55: Alternative 5 Aggregate Projected Flow vs. Existing Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment (dry weather, mgD) .................................................................................................... 3.1-114
Table 3.1-56: Summary of Alternatives Comparison to the Proposed Plan ............................................ 3.1-121
Table 3.2-1: Total Projected Growth for the Bay Area, 1990-2040 ................................................................ 3.2-5
Table 3.2-2: Forecasted Growth by Age Group as a Percent of the Total (2010-2040) .......................... 3.2-6
Table 3.2-3: 2010 Median Income in the Bay Area By County ........................................................................ 3.2-6
Table 3.2-4: Auto Ownership Per Household in the Bay Area, 2000 and 2010 ......................................... 3.2-7
Table 3.2-5: 2010 Employment by County – Net Importers/Exporters of Workers
and Jobs/Housing Balance ................................................................................................................. 3.2-8
Table 3.2-6: 2010 & 2040 Employed Residents and Jobs by County and Net
Importers/Exporters of Workers ..................................................................................................... 3.2-12
Table 3.2-7: Urbanized Land By County .............................................................................................................. 3.2-13
Table 3.2-8: 2010 & 2040 Job Growth in Counties and PDA’s ...................................................................... 3.2-15
Table 3.2-9: 2010 & 2040 Employed Resident Growth in Counties and PDA’s ....................................... 3.2-16
Glossary of Terms
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 – Law that requires that the State’s global warming emissions be reduced to
1990 levels by 2020
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments – The regional agency responsible for assigning hous-
ing allocations and performing demographic analysis
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area The nine-county region adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and the area covered by Plan Bay
Area and this EIR
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BMP Best Management Practice
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board – State agency responsible for attaining and maintaining
healthy air quality through setting and enforcing emissions standards, conducting research,
monitoring air quality, providing education and outreach, and overseeing/assisting local air
quality districts
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act – State law requiring review of physical environmental
impacts potentially caused by plans and projects
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMAs Congestion Management Agencies - County-level transportation agencies tasked with man-
aging and reducing traffic congestion on major regional roadways
GHG Greenhouse Gases – Components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse ef-
fect. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities
are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases
GIS Geographic Information System – Mapping software that links spatial information to quanti-
tative and qualitative attributes
HOT High Occupancy Toll – An HOV lane that single-occupant drivers can pay to drive in
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle – A lane restricted to vehicles with a certain number of occupants to
encourage carpooling
JHCS Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy - The land use development strategy developed by ABAG
that is the preferred approach employed in the proposed Plan
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the transportation agency for the Bay Area
NOP Notice of Preparation
Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Public Review Draft Environmental Report
G-2
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - A federal program that regulates the
amount and quality of discharge into bodies of water
OBAG OneBayArea Grant – Program of grants distributed to local jurisdictions by MTC and ABAG to
pay for planning and infrastructure investments in accordance with Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area The name given to the SCS developed by MTC and ABAG. It also serves as the Bay Area’s Re-
gional Transportation Plan through the year 2040.
PM Particulate Matter – A mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air
Proposed Plan The preferred alternative (#2) of Plan Bay Area evaluated in this EIR
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation – Quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdic-
tion of a region based on population growth projections. ABAG assigns these targets within
the Bay Area. Communities then address this need through the process of completing the
housing elements of their general plans
PCA Priority Conservation Area - Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists broad
consensus for long-term protection
PDA Priority Development Area - Existing neighborhood served by transit and nominated by its
local jurisdiction as a location to focus future development
RTP Regional Transportation Plan – Federally required 20-year plan prepared by metropolitan
planning organizations and updated every four or five years. Includes projections of popula-
tion growth and travel demand, along with a specific list of proposed projects to be funded.
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant – Air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortali-
ty or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health
TIS Transportation Investment Strategy – The transportation strategy developed by MTC that is
the preferred approach employed in the proposed Plan
TPP Transit Priority Project – A land use development that, based on its type and location, may be
eligible for CEQA streamlining under SB 375
SB 375 Law that requires CARB to set regional targets for per-capita GHG emission reduction targets
and mandates the SCS
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy - An integrated regional transportation and land use plan
that must hit State mandated GHG emissions reductions targets while also accommodating
anticipated population growth
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled – A measurement of the total miles traveled by all vehicles in the area
for a specified time period
Executive Summary
This program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared on behalf of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This EIR analyzes the potential
significant impacts of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area (proposed Plan),
which is the update to the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the new Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) for the San Francisco Bay Area.
MTC, ABAG, and Plan Bay Area
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area (which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties). Created by the State Legislature in 1970, MTC functions as
both the regional transportation planning agency (RTPA)—a state designation—and for federal
purposes, as the region’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
As required by State legislation (Government Code Section 65080 et seq.) and by federal regulation (Title
23 USC Section 134), MTC is responsible for preparing the RTP for the San Francisco Bay Area Region.
An RTP is a long-range plan that identifies the strategies and investments to maintain, manage, and
improve the region’s ground transportation network. In 2009, MTC adopted its most recent RTP, known
as the Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Development and environmental
analysis of regional airport and seaport plans occur in separate processes.
ABAG is a joint powers agency formed in 1961 pursuant to California Government Code §§ 6500, et
seq., and is the council of governments (COG) for the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG conducts regional
population and employment projections and the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) processes
(Government Code Section 65584 et seq.). Plan Bay Area is a joint effort led by MTC and ABAG and
completed in partnership with the Bay Area’s other two regional government agencies, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC). It meets the requirements of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375; Steinberg, 2008), which requires California’s 18 metropolitan planning
organizations to develop an SCS as a new element of their federally mandated RTP. The SCS
demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets established by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning,
a planning effort requiring the authority and powers vested in both MTC and ABAG.
Plan Bay Area, which covers the period through 2040, is the first Bay Area RTP that is subject to the
requirements of SB 375. SB 375 requires that the SCS be integrated into the MPO’s RTP and once
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-2
adopted will be reviewed by ARB to determine whether it would, if implemented, achieve the GHG
emission reduction target for its region. If the combination of measures in the SCS will not meet the
region’s target, the MPO must then prepare an alternative planning strategy (APS) that will do so.
Plan Bay Area is the region’s first integrated long-range land use and transportation plan. Plan Bay Area
calls for focused housing and job growth around high-quality transit corridors, particularly within areas
identified by local jurisdictions as Priority Development Areas (PDAs). This land use strategy is intended
to enhance mobility and economic growth by linking housing/jobs with transit, thus offering a more
efficient land use pattern around transit and a greater return on existing and planned transit investments.
The proposed Plan specifies the strategies and investments to maintain, manage, and improve the
region’s transportation network – which includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities, local streets and roads,
public transit systems, and highways. The Plan proposes a set of transportation projects and programs
that will be implemented with reasonably anticipated revenue available for the planning period. The
proposed Plan must be updated every four years, ensuring a constantly evolving plan through regular
updates throughout the planning period.
Introduction to the EIR
PURPOSE
This environmental assessment of the proposed Plan Bay Area—which may also be referred to as the
“proposed Plan” throughout this document—has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines. It is designed to:
Analyze the potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Plan;
Inform decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies, and members of the public as to the
range of the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan;
Recommend a set of feasible measures to mitigate any significant adverse impacts; and
Analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Plan.
The EIR process also provides an opportunity to identify environmental benefits of the proposed Plan
that might balance some potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The final EIR will include
a Mitigation Monitoring Program that identifies who will be responsible for implementing the measures.
As the joint lead agencies for preparing this EIR, MTC and ABAG will rely on the EIR analysis of
potential environmental effects in their review of the proposed Plan prior to taking action on Plan Bay
Area.
SCOPE
This is a program EIR, defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines as: “[An EIR addressing a]
series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically;
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) In connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) As
Executive Summary
ES-3
individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having
generally similar environmental impacts which can be mitigated in similar ways.”
Program EIRs can be used as the basic, general environmental assessment for an overall program of
projects developed over a multi- year planning horizon. A program EIR has several advantages. For
example, it provides a basic reference document to avoid unnecessary repetition of facts or analysis in
subsequent project-specific assessments. It also allows the lead agency to consider the broad, regional
impacts of a program of actions before its adoption and eliminates redundant or contradictory
approaches to the consideration of regional and cumulative impacts.
As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a region-wide assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed Plan Bay Area. It focuses on the entire set of projects and programs contained in the proposed
Plan. Individual transportation and development project impacts are not addressed in detail, although the
impacts of some possible projects are discussed as appropriate; rather the focus of this EIR is to address
the impacts of a program of projects, which, individually or in the aggregate, may be regionally
significant. However, it does not evaluate subcomponents of the proposed Plan nor does it assess
project-specific impacts of individual projects. For example, the general physical impacts of major
regional transportation expansion projects are addressed, while potential impacts on specific wetlands or
a specific species habitat by an individual interchange reconstruction project is not discussed, unless
information currently exists or it can be surmised that the effect would be large or otherwise regionally
significant. This approach does not relieve local jurisdictions of the responsibility for evaluating project-
specific, locally significant impacts. All impacts of individual projects will be evaluated in future
environmental review, as relevant, by the appropriate implementing agency as required under CEQA
and/or NEPA prior to each project being considered for approval, as applicable.
This EIR evaluates potentially significant environmental impacts, and cumulative impacts, and includes
mitigation measures to offset potentially significant effects. This EIR provides the basis for subsequent
tiered CEQA documents for project-specific or site-specific environmental reviews that will be
conducted by implementing agencies as land use and transportation projects in the proposed Plan are
more clearly defined and more detailed studies prepared. Specific analysis of localized impacts in the
vicinity of individual projects is not included in this program level EIR.
EIR Organization
The EIR is organized into four parts, outlined below. This Executive Summary outlines the proposed
Plan and alternatives and includes a review of the potentially significant adverse regional environmental
impacts of the proposed Plan Bay Area and the measures recommended to mitigate those impacts. The
executive summary also indicates whether or not those measures mitigate the significant impacts to a less
than significant level. The executive summary also identifies the environmentally superior alternative
among the alternatives analyzed.
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Part One includes two chapters. Chapter 1.1 describes the relationship between the proposed Plan Bay
Area and the EIR, the organization of the EIR, and the basic legal requirements of a program level EIR.
It discusses the level of analysis and the alternatives considered as well as how this EIR is related to other
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-4
environmental documents and the EIR’s intended uses. Chapter 1.2 introduces the purpose and
objectives of the proposed Plan Bay Area and summarizes specific information to describe the proposed
Plan and complete the EIR analysis. This includes a description of the existing regional setting, an outline
of the Bay Area’s projected population and employment growth rates and proposed development
patterns through the 2040 planning horizon year, and all proposed transportation projects and programs.
State and federal planning regulations guiding the development of the RTP and SCS are also described.
PART TWO: SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Part Two describes the existing physical and regulatory settings for each of the environmental issue areas
analyzed in the EIR, the potential impacts of the proposed Plan on these environmental issue areas, and
measures to mitigate the potential impacts identified. Each issue area is analyzed in a separate chapter.
Each chapter is organized as follows:
Physical Setting;
Regulatory Setting;
Impact Significance Criteria;
Method of Analysis;
Summary of Impacts; and
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
PART THREE: ALTERNATIVES AND CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS
Part Three includes a description of the alternatives to the proposed Plan and an assessment of their
potential to achieve the objectives of the proposed Plan while reducing potentially significant adverse
regional environmental impacts. Part Three also includes a comparison summary table of regional
environmental impacts associated with the alternatives. As required by CEQA, an environmentally
superior alternative is identified. Finally, Part Three includes an assessment of the impacts of the
proposed Plan and alternatives in several subject areas required by CEQA, including:
Significant irreversible environmental changes;
Significant unavoidable impacts;
Growth-inducing impacts;
Cumulative impacts; and
Impacts found to be not significant.
PART FOUR: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND APPENDICES
Part Four includes a bibliography and the EIR appendices. Appendix A includes the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of this EIR and Appendix B provides reference to the comments received on the
NOP and at the scoping meetings (a full set of comments can be found on the project website,
www.onebayarea.org). Appendix C includes detailed lists of the transportation projects included in the
proposed Plan and the alternatives studied in the EIR. Appendix D summarizes scoping comments
received on the alternatives. Appendix E outlines the Air Quality analysis methodology and mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-5
measure effectiveness. Appendices F through I include detailed supporting data on impact analyses for
geology, water, biology and hazards, respectively.
Plan Bay Area Regional Setting
The Bay Area region consists of nine counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. In a ranking of Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs), the San
José-San Francisco-Oakland CSA population was the sixth largest in the nation in 2010, behind New
York-Newark-Bridgeport, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City,
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, and Boston-Worcester-Manchester CSAs.1 In 2010, the San
Francisco Bay Area population was nearly 7.2 million according to the 2010 Census. According MTC, as
of 2010 only about 18 percent of the region's approximately 4.4 million acres of land has been developed.
The Bay Area transportation network includes interstate and state freeways, county expressways, local
streets and roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and a wide assortment of transit technologies (heavy rail, light
rail, intercity rail, buses, trolleys and ferries).
Plan Bay Area Overview
The proposed Plan Bay Area meets the requirements of SB 375 by developing an integrated
transportation and land use plan and attains the per-capita GHG emission reduction targets of -7 percent
by year 2020 and -15 percent by year 2035 from 2005 levels. Under the proposed Plan, emission
reductions continue on a downward trajectory through 2050. The proposed Plan reinforces land use and
transportation integration per SB 375 and presents a vision of what the Bay Area’s land use patterns and
transportation networks might look like in 2040. The adopted goals of the proposed Plan are:
Climate Protection
Adequate Housing
Healthy and Safe Communities
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation
Equitable Access
Economic Vitality
Transportation System Effectiveness
The Plan objectives are reflected in the following performance targets that measure the region’s progress
towards meeting these goals and are consistent with the requirements of SB 375:
Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent.
1 Census 2010. A Combined Statistical Area is a census defined metropolitan region that consists of two or more adjacent Core
Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) that have substantial employment interchange. The CBSAs that combine to create a CSA
retain separate identities within the larger CSA.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-6
House 100 percent of the region’s projected 25-year growth by income level without displacing
current low-income residents.
These goals and performance targets are more fully explored in Chapter 1.2. An alternative that performs
substantially worse than the proposed Plan with respect to meeting the plan goals and these performance
targets would not achieve even the basic objectives of the proposed Plan.
FORECASTED GROWTH
Looking ahead to 2040, the horizon year for the proposed Plan, it is forecast by ABAG that the Bay
Area’s population will grow another 30 percent from the 2010 level (over 2.1 million more residents) and
employment will increase by 33 percent (over 1.1 million additional jobs). To house the future
population, it is estimated that 660,000 new housing units would be built in the same timeframe.
Forecasted growth from 2010 through 2040 is shown in Table ES-1.
TABLE ES-1: TOTAL PROJECTED GROWTH FOR THE BAY AREA, 2010-2040
2010 2040
Growth
2010 - 2040 % Change
Annual Growth
Rate
Population 7,151,000 9,299,000 2,148,000 30% 0.9%
Households 2,608,000 3,308,000 700,000 27% 0.8%
Housing Units 2,786,000 3,446,000 660,000 24% 0.7%
Jobs 3,385,000 4,505,000 1,120,000 33% 1.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, revised May 16,
2012.
LAND USE STRATEGY
To plan for this future growth, the proposed Plan calls for focused housing and job growth around high-
quality transit corridors, particularly within areas identified by local jurisdictions as Priority Development
Areas (PDAs). Opportunities for focused growth development in Transit Priority Project (TPP)-eligible
areas, as defined by SB 375 in Public Resources Code section 21155, which often overlap with PDAs, are
also encouraged and facilitated by the proposed Plan. This land use strategy enhances mobility and
economic growth by linking housing/jobs with transit and existing transportation infrastructure, thus
offering a more efficient land use pattern around transit and a greater return on existing and planned
transit investments. Beyond the emphasis on transit-oriented development, the proposed Plan’s land use
strategy broadly calls for new housing and jobs in locations that expand existing communities and build
off of all existing transportation investments.
TRANSPORTATION
The proposed Plan includes a financially constrained transportation investment plan as required by State
and federal planning regulations. It includes transportation projects and programs that would be funded
through existing and future revenues that are projected to be reasonably available to the region over the
timeframe covered by the proposed Plan. A total of $289 billion in revenues is available for the financially
constrained Plan Bay Area. That is, the proposed Plan and alternatives evaluated in the EIR are
financially constrained to be within the $289 billion envelope.
Executive Summary
ES-7
A more detailed description of the proposed Plan is included in Chapter 1.2: Overview of the Proposed Plan
Bay Area.
Alternatives
A full description of the alternatives analyzed in this EIR and the alternative selection process is provided
in Part 3. The alternatives are as follows:
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT
The No Project alternative consists of two elements: (a) the existing 2010 land uses plus continuation of
existing land use policy as defined in adopted general plans, zoning ordinances, etc. from all jurisdictions
in the region and (b) the existing 2010 transportation network plus highway, transit, local roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian projects that have either already received full funding or are scheduled for full
funding and received environmental clearance by May 1, 2011.
ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED PLAN
Alternative 2 is the proposed Plan analyzed in this EIR. This alternative assumes a land use development
pattern that concentrates future household and job growth into Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
identified by local jurisdictions. It pairs this land development pattern with MTC’s Preferred
Transportation Investment Strategy, which dedicates nearly 90 percent of future revenues to operating
and maintaining the existing road and transit system. A more detailed overview of the proposed Plan is in
Chapter 1.2.
ALTERNATIVE 3: TRANSIT PRIORITY FOCUS
This alternative includes the potential for more efficient land uses in Transit Priority Project (TPP) areas,
as defined by Senate Bill 375 (PRC section 21155), and would be developed at higher densities than
existing conditions to support high quality transit. The transportation investment strategy in this
alternative tests a slightly reduced express lane network that focuses on HOV lane conversions and gap
closures, as well as increased funding for the implementation of recommendations from the
Comprehensive Operations Analysis of BART and AC Transit above what is included in the Preferred
Transportation Investment Strategy. This alternative also includes a Regional Development Fee based on
development in areas that generate high levels of vehicle miles travelled, and a higher peak period toll on
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
ALTERNATIVE 4: ENHANCED NETWORK OF COMMUNITIES
This alternative seeks to provide sufficient housing for all people employed in the Bay Area with no in-
commuters from other regions and allows for more dispersed growth patterns than the proposed Plan,
although development is still generally focused around PDAs. The transportation investment strategy is
consistent with the Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy, also used in the proposed Plan, and
includes a higher peak period toll on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-8
ALTERNATIVE 5: ENVIRONMENT, EQUITY AND JOBS
This alternative seeks to maximize affordable housing in opportunity areas in both urban and suburban
areas through incentives and housing subsidies. The suburban growth is supported by increased transit
service to historically disadvantaged communities and a reduced roadway network. This alternative
includes imposing a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax and a higher peak period toll on the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to fund transit operations.
Key EIR assumptions
The following key assumptions were used in the impact analysis:
The base year or existing conditions for the land use and transportation impact analysis is 2010,
as this year provides the most recent best data available for land use, transportation, and
demographics. The only exception appears in Chapter 2.5: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change,
which uses a 2005 baseline per the CARB target setting process to determine impacts under
Criterion 1 related to achieving the requirements of SB 375.
The total amount of growth projected for the Bay Area through 2040 is based on ABAG’s Plan
Bay Area Forecast of Jobs, Population and Housing (the forecasts used to develop the Jobs-
Housing Connection) that is available for review on the project website
(http://www.onebayarea.org); this amount of growth is assumed in the proposed Plan, which
identifies a land use pattern to accommodate the projected growth.
This analysis does not consider phasing of improvements or interim stages of the proposed Plan
Bay Area between 2010 and 2040, as the purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the Plan as a
whole. The one exception to this approach appears in Chapter 2.5: Greenhouse Gases and Climate
Change, which includes an examination of impacts in 2020 and 2035 as compared to a 2005
baseline per the ARB target setting process to determine impacts relating to achieving the
statutory requirements of Senate Bill 375.
As a program-level EIR, individual project impacts are not addressed; rather, this analysis focuses
on the aggregate impacts of the proposed Plan that may be regionally significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts
that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or
more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). “‘Cumulatively considerable’ means
that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects”
(CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3)). This means that cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
Plan Bay Area, which includes region-wide transportation improvements and land use development
patterns in the Bay Area to accommodate projected regional growth through 2040, is a cumulative plan
by definition. As such, the environmental analysis included in this EIR throughout Part Two is a
Executive Summary
ES-9
cumulative analysis compliant with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore,
this EIR contains analysis of cumulative regional impacts, as differentiated from more generalized
localized impacts for every identified impact area.
Plan Impacts
The analysis emphasizes the impacts of the proposed Plan Bay Area as a complete program, rather than
as detailed analysis of the individual transportation improvements and land use strategy included in the
proposed Plan. Individual improvements and development projects must still independently comply with
the requirements of CEQA. As required by CEQA, this EIR identifies three types of impacts:
Short-term impacts;
Long-term impacts; and
Cumulative impacts.
The EIR addresses regional impacts as well as generalized localized impacts. It also, to the extent feasible,
distinguishes between impacts caused by transportation improvements and impacts related to proposed
land use patterns.
Table ES-2 summarizes the impact conclusions and recommended mitigation measures identified in this
EIR. The impacts are organized by environmental impact issue area in the order in which they appear in
Part Two.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines require each EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative among the
alternatives analyzed. If the No Project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior
alternative, then the EIR must identify another alternative from among the alternatives analyzed.
According to the analysis in Chapter 3.1, Alternative 5 would result in the lowest level of environmental
impacts, but only marginally lower, as compared to all alternatives (including the proposed Plan), and
therefore is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3 results in similar impacts
to the proposed Plan, and Alternative 4 and the No Project alternative have mixed environmental
outcomes. Overall, variations in environmental impacts among alternatives are minor. This determination
does not factor in other benefits of the proposed Plan outside of environmental effects. More
specifically:
In Transportation, Alternative 3 has the least environmental impact as it features shorter
commute travel times (three percent shorter than the proposed Plan) and a lesser amount of
congested VMT (14 percent fewer VMT at LOS F as compared to the proposed Plan) and the
least potential for transit vehicle crowding (30 percent utilization of public transit systems, the
same as the No Project alternative, and three percent less than the proposed Plan). These results
are due to shifting regional growth to the Transit Priority Project eligible areas, with the greatest
emphasis on growth in the urban core close to high-frequency transit.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-10
In Air Quality, Alternative 5 has the least environmental impact as it results in the lowest criteria
pollutant emissions (1.7 percent fewer criteria pollutant emissions as compared to the proposed
Plan) as well as lowest TAC emissions of all of the alternatives (1.9 percent fewer TAC emissions
as compared to the proposed Plan). This is a result of placing a greater emphasis than the other
alternatives on aligning compact land use development with transit service and increasing transit
capacity.
In Energy, Alternative 4 would result in the lowest per capita energy use (3.3 percent less than
the proposed Plan and 2.7 percent less than Alternative 5), and would therefore have the least
environmental impact.
In Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Plan and Alternative 5 perform equally in regard
to meeting SB 375 emission reduction targets in 2035 (both achieving a 16.4 percent reduction,
one percent better than Alternative 3, 1.6 percent better than Alternative 4, and 9.6 percent
better than the No Project alternative). Alternative 5 performs slightly better in terms of total
emissions reductions (achieving a 17 percent reduction from 2010 to 2040, one percent better
than Alternative 3 and two percent better than the proposed Plan).
In Sea Level Rise, the No Project alternative includes the fewest transportation projects
exposed to midcentury sea level rise inundation (the No Project alternative includes 15 projects,
Alternative 5 includes 21 projects, and the proposed Plan, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4
include 32 projects exposed to midcentury sea level rise inundation). Alternative 5 includes the
fewest residents (12 percent less than the proposed Plan), and new residential development (10
percent less than under the proposed Plan) exposed to midcentury sea level rise inundation
because it distributes growth to areas farther from the Bay.
In Land Use (conversion of agricultural and forest land), Alternative 4 results in the fewest
acres of important agricultural and open space land converted to urbanized use, as well as the
fewest acres of forest and timberland converted to urbanized use.
In Noise the No Project alternative has the fewest environmental impacts since it results in the
lowest number of roadway miles exposed to noise levels at or above 66 dBA. It also includes the
fewest transit extension projects, resulting in the smallest increase in transit noise and vibration
compared to other alternatives.
In Biological Resources, Water Resources, Cultural Resources, and Visual Resources,
Alternative 5 combines compact development with low transportation infrastructure
development, resulting in fewer physical impacts tied to these resources. It is noted that in terms
of land use development-related impacts alone (excluding transportation projects), the proposed
Plan is the most compact and would have the least impact on these resources.
In Geology, Public Utilities, Public Services, and Hazardous Materials, Alternatives 1, 2
(proposed Plan), 3 and 5 are comparable and have fewer impacts than Alternative 4. Alternative
4 includes the most growth, thereby inherently exposing the most people to geologic and hazards
risks, and resulting in the greatest impacts on existing public service, recreation, and utility
systems. One exception to this is in regard to wastewater treatment, where Alternative 4 has the
least impact because of limited growth in San Francisco, which has likely inadequate wastewater
treatment capacity under all other alternatives.
For Historic Resources and Land Use (community disruption or displacement, alteration
and separation), all alternatives perform similarly. Since all alternatives include growth in
Executive Summary
ES-11
urbanized areas where historic resources are likely to exist, impacts on historic resources would
be similar. For land use, impacts related to community disruption or displacement and alteration
and separation would be highly localized and similar across the alternatives.
While Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferred alternative due to its overall GHG emissions
reductions and estimated reduction in criteria and TAC emissions, the proposed Plan does include some
benefits over Alternative 5. For instance, the proposed Plan results in the lowest VMT per capita (the
same as Alternative 4), with one percent fewer daily VMT per capita than Alternative 5. Alternative 5 also
exhibits congested VMT levels 18 percent higher in the AM peak, seven percent higher in the PM peak,
and 11 percent higher over the course of a typical weekday as compared to the proposed Plan. Finally,
the proposed Plan results in fewer acres of agricultural and open space conversion as compared to
Alternative 5 (though more than Alternative 4), and the fewest acres of important farmland (excluding
grazing land) of all alternatives.
Another important consideration is that the proposed Plan was developed through extensive
coordination with local jurisdictions. Alternative 5 assumes residential growth at levels that some local
jurisdictions may be unlikely to implement, since it includes growth in areas that local jurisdictions have
not planned for or do not currently anticipate.
In addition, there are some important unanswered questions about the feasibility of Alternative 5 that the
ABAG Board and the MTC Commissioners will address during deliberations on this EIR. Specifically,
implementation of the VMT tax, which is a key component of Alternative 5, may prove to be infeasible
because it would require legislative approval and, in light of Proposition 26 (the “Stop Hidden Taxes”
initiative), may require approval by a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Legislature. While there is
currently a large majority of Democrats in the Legislature, and authorizing legislation may therefore be
easier to achieve at this time, the difficulty of predicting whether new legislation will actually be enacted
may make Alternative 5 infeasible.
Policy makers will be required to judge the relative importance of the various issue areas in making their
final decision.
Areas of Known Controversy
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify areas of controversy which are
known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Areas of controversy
associated with the proposed Plan are made known through comments received during the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) process, as well as input solicited during public scoping meetings and an
understanding of the community issues in the study area. Some areas of known controversy, including
issues raised by some members of the community, related to the proposed Plan Bay Area and EIR
include:
Whether the proposed Plan’s assumptions of future land use development patterns are feasible
given that MTC and ABAG cannot regulate land uses at a regional or local level.
Concerns about whether the degree and scale of growth proposed within existing communities
would alter their appearance, quality of life, and affordability, and whether it would conflict with
the existing plans and regulations of the local jurisdiction.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-12
Determining whether the proposed Plan’s emphasis on maintaining and sustaining the existing
regional transportation system will be adequate to serve the Bay Area’s anticipated population
and employment growth.
Assessing whether the proposed transportation investment strategy can reduce GHG emissions
and exposure to air pollutants even as the region’s population and economic base continue to
grow.
Determining whether and where sea level rise impacts will occur and how best to minimize those
impacts.
Concerns that increased concentrations of population in focused areas would overwhelm
existing public services and utilities, such as parks, police and fire services, water supply, etc.
This EIR acknowledges these known controversies as reported during the NOP scoping period and
ongoing agency consultation. To the extent these areas of controversy relate to environmental impacts,
they are analyzed at the regional level in Part Two of this EIR.
Issues to be Resolved
CEQA Guidelines section 15123(b)(3) requires that an EIR contain a discussion of issues to be resolved
and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. Issues to be resolved include:
How to address potential impacts from the proposed land development pattern that must be
mitigated by the local land use authority, since neither MTC nor ABAG have jurisdiction over
land use regulations.
The degree to which MTC and ABAG can provide adequate incentives for implementation of
changes to land use policy.
How best to require mitigations that can be enacted by project sponsors and/or implementing
agencies in a manner to ensure CEQA streamlining for qualifying projects, per SB 375, can
occur.
When adopting the proposed Plan Bay Area, the MTC Commission and ABAG Board must decide
whether specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially reduced
through implementation of feasible mitigation or alternatives. If so, they would adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 summarizes impacts, mitigation measures, and significance conclusions after mitigation (far
right column), by issue area. Note that implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall consider
implementation of mitigations measures including but not limited to those identified in the table below.
For more details, please see Part Two: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Executive Summary
ES-13
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Transportation
2.1-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per-trip travel
time for commute travel by any mode over
existing conditions. A substantial increase in per-
trip travel time is defined as greater than 5
percent.
None required.Less than Significant
2.1-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per-trip travel
time for non-commute travel by any mode over
existing conditions. A substantial increase in per-
trip travel time is defined as greater than 5
percent.
None required.
Less than Significant
2.1-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per capita VMT
on facilities experiencing level of service (LOS) F
compared to existing conditions during AM peak
periods, PM peak periods, or during the day as a
whole (LOS F defines a condition on roads where
traffic substantially exceeds capacity, resulting in
stop-and-go conditions for extended periods of
time). A substantial increase in LOS F-impacted
per capita VMT is defined as greater than 5
percent.
2.1(a) MTC, in its role as the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), shall
pursue an additional peak period bridge toll on the San Francisco
Oakland Bay Bridge to discourage vehicle travel during weekday
peak periods, shifting travelers to other times of day or other modes.
2.1(b) MTC and the BAAQMD shall proceed with implementation of
the region’s commute benefit ordinance authorized by Senate Bill
1339, which affects all major employers (with more than 50
employees), and discourages auto-based commute travel.
2.1(c) MTC shall pursue a policy that requires the implementation of
ramp metering throughout the region's highway network as a
condition of discretionary funding.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2.1-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial increase in per capita VMT
compared to existing conditions. A substantial
increase in per capita VMT is defined as greater
than 5 percent.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-14
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.1-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased percent utilization of regional
transit supply resulting in an exceedance of
transit capacity at AM peak hours, at PM peak
hours, or for the day. An exceedance is defined
as passenger seat-mile demand for any transit
technology being greater than 80 percent of
passenger seat-miles supplied by transit
operators.
None required.No Adverse Impact
Air Quality
2.2-
1(a)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
primary goals of an applicable air quality plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-
1(b)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with or obstruct implementation of
applicable control measures of an applicable air
quality plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-1(c) Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with or obstruct implementation of any
control measures in an applicable air quality
plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a substantial net increase in
construction-related emissions.
2.2(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to best management practices (BMPs), such as the
following:2
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
2 Adapted from BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (May 2011)
Executive Summary
ES-15
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Construction Best Practices for Exhaust
The applicant/general contractor for the project shall submit a
list of all off-road equipment greater than 25 hp that will be
operating for more than 20 hours over the entire duration of the
construction activities at the site, including equipment from
subcontractors, to BAAQMD for review and certification. The list
shall include all of the information necessary to ensure the
equipment meets the following requirement:
All off-road equipment shall have: 1) engines that meet or
exceed either USEPA or ARB Tier 2 off-road emission
standards; and 2) engines are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3
Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS), if one is
available for the equipment being used.3
Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment and trucks
shall be limited to no more than two minutes. Clear signage shall
be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
tuned in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.
Portable diesel generators shall be prohibited. Grid power
electricity should be used to provide power at construction sites;
or propane and natural gas generators may be used when grid
power electricity is not feasible.
Construction Best Practices for Dust
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day. For projects over 5 acres of size, soil moisture
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
3 Equipment with engines meeting Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final emission standards automatically meet this requirement, therefore a VDECS would not be required.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-16
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
should be maintained at 12 percent. Moisture content can be
verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-
site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least
once per day. The use of dry power sweeping should be done in
conjunction with thorough watering of the subject roads.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading.
All construction sites shall provide a posted sign visible to the
public with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. The recommended
response time for corrective action shall be within 48 hours.
BAAQMD’s Complaint Line (1-800 334- 6367) shall also be
included on posted signs to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be
suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the
windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.
Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass
seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and
watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
Executive Summary
ES-17
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and
ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at
any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce
the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed
off prior to leaving the site.
Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall
be treated with a six- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips,
mulch, or gravel.
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope
greater than 1 percent.
2.2-
3(a)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a net increase in emissions of criteria
pollutants ROG, NOx, CO, and PM2.5 from on-road
mobile sources compared to existing conditions.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.2-
3(b)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a net increase in emissions of PM10 from
on-road mobile sources compared to existing
conditions.
2.2(b) MTC and ABAG, in partnership with BAAQMD, and other
partners who would like to participate, shall work to leverage
existing air quality and transportation funds and seek additional
funds to continue to implement BAAQMD and ARB programs aimed
at retrofits and replacements of trucks and locomotives.
2.2(c) MTC and ABAG, in partnership with BAAQMD and the Port of
Oakland, and other partners who would like to participate, shall
work together to secure incentive funding that may be available
through the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment
Program to reduce port-related emissions.
Mitigation Measures 2.1 (a), 2.1(b), and 2.1 (c) (included in Chapter
2.1, Transportation) as well as 2.2 (d) and 2.2 (e) (included below
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-18
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
under Impacts 2.2-5(b) and 2.2-6) could help reduce the increase in
PM10.
2.2-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a cumulative net increase in emissions of
diesel PM, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene (toxic air
contaminants) from on-road mobile sources
compared to existing conditions.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.2-
5(a)
Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a localized net increase in sensitive
receptors located in Transit Priority Project (TPP)
corridors where TACs or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) concentrations result in a cancer risk
greater than 100/million or a concentration of
PM2.5 greater than 0.8 μg/m.3
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.2(d) under Impact 2.2-5(b).Significant and
Unavoidable
2.2.5(b) Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a localized net increase in sensitive
receptors located in Transit Priority Project (TPP)
corridors within set distances (Table 2.2-10) to
mobile or stationary sources of TAC or PM2.5
emissions.
2.2(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to best management practices (BMPs), such as the
following:
Installation of air filtration to reduce cancer risks and PM
exposure for residents, and other sensitive populations, in
buildings that are in close proximity to freeways, major
roadways, diesel generators, distribution centers, railyards,
railroads or rail stations, and ferry terminals. Air filter devices shall
be rated MERV-13 or higher. As part of implementing this
measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC
air filtration system shall be required.
Phasing of residential developments when proposed within 500
feet of freeways such that homes nearest the freeway are built
last, if feasible.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-19
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as
possible from any freeways, roadways, diesel generators,
distribution centers, and railyards. Operable windows, balconies,
and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these
sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall
not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where
trucks concentrate to deliver goods.
Limiting ground floor uses in residential or mixed-use buildings
that are located within the set distance of 500 feet to a non-
elevated highway or roadway. Sensitive land uses, such as
residential units or day cares, shall be prohibited on the ground
floor.
Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors
and pollution source, if feasible. Trees that are best suited to
trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the
following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X
Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens).
Within developments, sensitive receptors shall be separated as
far away from truck activity areas, such as loading docks and
delivery areas, as feasible. Loading dock shall be required
electrification and all idling of heavy duty diesel trucks at these
locations shall be prohibited.
If within the project site, diesel generators that are not equipped
to meet ARB’s Tier 4 emission standards shall be replaced or
retrofitted.
If within the project site, emissions from diesel trucks shall be
reduced through the following measures:
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-20
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Installing electrical hook-ups for diesel trucks at loading
docks.
Requiring trucks to use Transportation Refrigeration Units
(TRU) that meet Tier 4 emission standards.
Requiring truck-intensive projects to use advanced exhaust
technology (e.g. hybrid) or alternative fuels.
Prohibiting trucks from idling for more than two minutes as
feasible.
Establishing truck routes to avoid residential neighborhoods or
other land uses serving sensitive populations. A truck route
program, along with truck calming, parking and delivery
restrictions, shall be implemented to direct traffic activity at non
permitted sources and large construction projects.
2.2-5(c) Implementation of the proposed Plan could
cause a localized net increase in sensitive
receptors located in Transit Priority Project (TPP)
corridors where TACs or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) concentrations result in noncompliance
with an adopted Community Risk Reduction
Plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.2-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a localized larger increase or smaller
decrease of TACs and or PM2.5 emissions in
disproportionally impacted communities
compared to the remainder of the Bay Area
communities.
2.2(e) MTC/ABAG shall partner with BAAQMD to develop a program
to install air filtration devices in existing residential buildings, and
other buildings with sensitive receptors, located near freeways or
sources of TACs and PM2.5.
2.2(f) MTC/ABAG shall partner with BAAQMD to develop a program
to provide incentives to replace older locomotives and trucks in the
region to reduce TACs and PM2.5.
In addition, Mitigation Measures 2.1 (a), 2.1(b), and 2.1 (c) (included
in Chapter 2.1, Transportation) and 2.2 (d) (included under Impact
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-21
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.2-5(b)) could help reduce TAC and PM2.5 emissions.
Land Use and Physical Development
2.3-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in residential or business disruption or
displacement of substantial numbers of existing
population and housing.
2.3(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Regulating construction operations on existing facilities to
minimize traffic disruptions and detours, and to maintain safe
traffic operations.
Ensuring construction operations are limited to regular business
hours where feasible.
Controlling construction dust and noise. See “Construction Best
Practices for Dust” under Mitigation Measure 2.2(a) in Chapter 2.2:
Air Quality.
Controlling erosion and sediment transport in stormwater runoff
from construction sites. See “Construction Best Practices for
Dust” under Mitigation Measure 2.2(a) in Chapter 2.2: Air Quality.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce short-term disruption and displacement.
Mitigation Measure 2.2(a) in Chapter 2.2: Air Quality includes
additional applicable measures related to this impact, and is
included here by reference.
2.3(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-22
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Developing pedestrian and bike connectors across widened
sections of roadway;
Using sidewalk, signal, and signage treatments to improve the
pedestrian connectivity across widened sections of roadway;
Using site redesign or corridor realignment, where feasible, to
avoid land use disruption; and
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce long-term disruption and displacement.
2.3(c) Through regional programs, such as MTC/ABAG’s Priority
Development Area (PDA) Planning Program, MTC/ABAG shall
continue to support the adoption of local zoning and design
guidelines that encourage pedestrian and transit access, infill
development, and vibrant neighborhoods.
2.3-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in permanent alterations to an existing
neighborhood or community by separating
residences from community facilities and
services, restricting access to commercial or
residential areas, or eliminating community
amenities.
2.3(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. All new transportation projects shall be
required to incorporate design features such as sidewalks, bike
lanes, and bike/pedestrian bridges or tunnels that maintain or
improve access and connections within existing communities and to
public transit. Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors
to comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace measures that reduce community separation.
2.3(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. New development projects shall be
required to provide connectivity for all modes such that new
development does not separate existing uses, and improves access
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-23
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
where needed and/or feasible, by incorporating ‘complete streets’
design features such as pedestrian-oriented streets and sidewalks,
improved access to transit, and bike routes where appropriate.
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace measures that reduce community separation.
2.3(f) Through regional programs such as the OneBayArea Grants
(OBAG), MTC/ABAG shall continue to support planning efforts for
locally sponsored traffic calming and alternative transportation
initiatives, such as paths, trails, overcrossings, bicycle plans, and the
like that foster improved neighborhoods and community
connections.
Mitigation Measures 2.3(a), 2.3(b), and 2.3(c) outlined for Impact 2.3-
1 would also reduce community separation impacts.
2.3-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict substantially with the land use portion of
adopted local general plans or other applicable
land use plans, including specific plans, existing
zoning, or regional plans such as coastal plans or
the Bay Plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.3-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
convert substantial amounts of important
agricultural lands and open space or lands under
Williamson Act contract to non-agricultural use.
2.3(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Requiring project relocation or corridor realignment, where
feasible, to avoid farmland, especially Prime Farmland;
Acquiring conservation easements on land at least equal in
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of
agricultural land;
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-24
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Maintain and expand agricultural land protections such as urban
growth boundaries;
If a Williamson Act contract is terminated, a ratio greater than 1:1
of land equal in quality shall be set aside in a conservation
easement, as recommended by the Department of Conservation;
Instituting new protection of farmland in the project area or
elsewhere in the County through the use of less than permanent
long-term restrictions on use, such as 20-year Farmland Security
Zone contracts (Government Code Section 51296 et seq.) or 10-
year Williamson Act contracts (Government Code Section 51200
et seq.);
Assessing mitigation fees that support the commercial viability
of the remaining agricultural land in the project area, County, or
region through a mitigation bank that invests in agricultural
infrastructure, water supplies, marketing, etc.;
Minimizing severance and fragmentation of agricultural land by
constructing underpasses and overpasses at reasonable intervals
to provide property access;
Requiring agricultural enhancement investments such as
supporting farmer education on organic and sustainable
practices, assisting with organic soil amendments for improved
production, and upgrading irrigation systems for water
conservation;
Requiring berms, buffer zones, setbacks, and fencing to reduce
use conflicts between new development and farming uses and
to protect the functions of farmland; and
Requiring other conservation tools available from the California
Department of Conservation’s Division of Land Resource
Protection.
Executive Summary
ES-25
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Requiring compliance with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures
that reduce farmland conversion.
2.3(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Requiring project relocation or corridor realignment, where
feasible, to avoid protected open space.
Requiring conservation easements on land at least equal in
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of
protected open space.
Maintain and expand open space protections such as urban
growth boundaries.
Requiring compliance with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures
that reduce open space conversion.
2.3-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in the loss of forest land, conversion of
forest land to non-forest use, or conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production.
2.3(i) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to:
Requiring project relocation or corridor realignment, where
feasible, to avoid timberland or forest land.
Requiring conservation easements on land at least equal in
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of
timberland or forest land.
Requiring compliance with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures
that reduce forest land conversion.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-26
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Energy
2.4-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in an increase in per-capita direct and
indirect energy consumption compared to
existing conditions.
None required.Less than Significant
2.4-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could be
inconsistent with adopted plans or policies
related to energy conservation.
None required.No Adverse Impact
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
2.5-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could fail
to reduce per capita passenger vehicle and light
duty truck CO2 emissions by 7 percent by 2020
and by 15 percent by 2035 as compared to 2005
baseline, per SB 375.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.5-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a net increase in direct and indirect GHG
emissions in 2040 when compared to existing
conditions.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.5-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
substantially impede attainment of goals set
forth in Executive Order S-3-05 and Executive
Order B-16-2012.
None required.Less than Significant
Executive Summary
ES-27
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.5-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
substantially conflict with any other applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
None required.No Adverse Impact
2.5-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in a net increase in transportation investments
within areas regularly inundated by sea level rise
by midcentury.
2.5(a) MTC and ABAG shall continue coordinating with BCDC, in
partnership with the Joint Policy Committee and regional agencies
and other partners who would like to participate, to conduct
vulnerability and risk assessments for the region’s transportation
infrastructure. These assessments will build upon MTC and BCDC’s
Adapting to Rising Tides Transportation Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment Pilot Project focused in Alameda County. Evaluation of
regional and project-level vulnerability and risk assessments will
assist in the identification of the appropriate adaptation strategies to
protect transportation infrastructure and resources, as well as land
use development projects, that are likely to be impacted and that
are a priority for the region to protect. The Adaptation Strategy sub-
section found at the end of this section includes a list of potential
adaptation strategies that can mitigate the impacts of sea level rise.
In most cases, more than one adaptation strategy will be required to
protect a given transportation project or land use development
project, and the implementation of the adaptation strategy will
require coordination with other agencies and stakeholders. As MTC
and ABAG conduct vulnerability and risk assessments for the
region's transportation infrastructure, the Adaptation Strategy sub-
section should serve as a guide for selecting adaptation strategies,
but the list should not be considered all inclusive of all potential
adaptation strategies as additional strategies not included in this list
may also have the potential to reduce significant impacts.
2.5(b) MTC and ABAG shall work with the Joint Policy Committee to
create a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy for the Bay Area.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-28
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall consider
implementation of mitigations measures including but not limited
to those identified below.
2.5(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. The project sponsors and implementing
agencies shall coordinate with BCDC, Caltrans, local jurisdictions
(cities and counties), and other transportation agencies to develop
Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs) that consider the
potential impacts of sea level rise over the asset’s life cycle.
2.5(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Executive Order S-13-08 requires all
state agencies, including Caltrans, to incorporate sea level rise into
planning for all new construction and routine maintenance projects;
however, no such requirement exists for local transportation assets
and development projects. Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to incorporate the appropriate adaptation strategy
or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea level rise on specific
transportation and land use development projects where feasible
based on project- and site-specific considerations. Potential
adaptation strategies are included in the Adaptation Strategy sub-
section found at the end of this section.
Executive Summary
ES-29
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.5-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in a net increase in the number of people
residing within areas regularly inundated by sea
level rise by midcentury.
Implement Mitigation Measures 2.5(b) and 2.5(d).Significant and
Unavoidable
2.5-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in an increase in land use development within
areas regularly inundated by sea level rise by
midcentury.
Implement Mitigation Measures 2.5(b) and 2.5(d).Significant and
Unavoidable
Noise
2.6-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in exposure of persons to or generation of
temporary construction noise levels and/or
groundborne vibration levels in excess of
standards established by local jurisdictions or
transportation agencies.
2.6(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies shall require
one or more of the following set of noise attenuation measures
under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant:
Restricting construction activities to permitted hours as defined
under local jurisdiction regulations;(e.g.; Alameda County Code
restricts construction noise to between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on
weekdays and between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekends)
Properly maintaining construction equipment and outfitting
construction equipment with the best available noise
suppression devices (e.g. mufflers, silencers, wraps);
Prohibiting idling of construction equipment for extended
periods of time in the vicinity of sensitive receptors;
Locating stationary equipment such as generators, compressors,
rock crushers, and cement mixers as far from sensitive receptors
as possible;
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-30
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Erecting temporary plywood noise barriers around the
construction site when adjacent occupied sensitive land uses are
present within 75 feet;
Implementing “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as pre-
drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to
shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in
consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and
conditions;
Using noise control blankets on building structures as buildings
are erected to reduce noise emission from the site; and
Using cushion blocks to dampen impact noise from pile driving.
2.6(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following vibration attenuation measures under
the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant if pile-driving
and/or other potential vibration-generating construction activities
are to occur within 60 feet of a historic structure.
The project sponsors shall engage a qualified geotechnical
engineer and qualified historic preservation professional and/or
structural engineer to conduct a pre-construction assessment of
existing subsurface conditions and the structural integrity of
nearby (within 60 feet) historic structures subject to pile-driving
activity. If recommended by the pre-construction assessment, for
structures or facilities within 60 feet of pile-driving activities, the
project sponsors shall require groundborne vibration monitoring
of nearby historic structures. Such methods and technologies
shall be based on the specific conditions at the construction site
such as, but not limited to, the pre-construction surveying of
Executive Summary
ES-31
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
potentially affected historic structures and underpinning of
foundations of potentially affected structures, as necessary.
The pre-construction assessment shall include a monitoring
program to detect ground settlement or lateral movement of
structures in the vicinity of pile-driving activities and identify
corrective measures to be taken should monitored vibration
levels indicate the potential for building damage. In the event of
unacceptable ground movement with the potential to cause
structural damage, all impact work shall cease and corrective
measures shall be implemented to minimize the risk to the
subject, or adjacent, historic structure.
2.6(c) To mitigate pile-driving vibration impacts related to human
annoyance, the implementing agency shall require project sponsors
to implement Mitigation Measure 2.6(a) above where feasible based
on project- and site-specific considerations.
2.6-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased traffic volumes that could
result in roadside noise levels that approach or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.
2.6(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Adjustments to proposed roadway or transit alignments to
reduce noise levels in noise sensitive areas. For example, below-
grade roadway alignments can effectively reduce noise levels in
nearby areas.
Techniques such as landscaped berms, dense plantings,
reduced-noise paving materials, and traffic calming measures in
the design of their transportation improvements.
Contributing to the insulation of buildings or construction of
noise barriers around sensitive receptor properties adjacent to
the transportation improvement;
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-32
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on
development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future
development is noise compatible with adjacent transportation
facilities and land uses;
Construct roadways so that they are depressed below-grade of
the existing sensitive land uses to create an effective barrier
between new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers,
park-n-ride lots, and other new noise generating facilities; and
Maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and
new noise-generating facilities and transportation systems.
2.6-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased noise exposure from transit
sources that exceed FTA exposure thresholds.
2.6(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. When finalizing a development
project’s site plan, the implementing agency shall require that
project sponsors locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from
adjacent noise sources and shield noise-sensitive spaces with
buildings or noise barriers whenever possible to reduce the
potential significant impacts with regard to exterior noise exposure
for new sensitive receptors.
2.6(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. When finalizing a land use
development’s site plan or a transportation project’s design, the
implementing agency shall ensure that sufficient setback between
occupied structures and the railroad tracks is provided.
2.6(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-33
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
not limited to the following. Prior to project approval, the
implementing agency for a transportation project shall ensure that
the transportation project sponsor applies the following mitigation
measures to achieve a site-specific exterior noise performance
standard as indicated in Figure 2.6-6 at sensitive land uses, as
applicable for rail extension projects:
Using sound reduction barriers such as landscaped berms and
dense plantings;
Locating rail extension below grade;
Using methods to resilient damped wheels;
Using vehicle skirts;
Using under car acoustically absorptive material; and
Installing sound insulation treatments for impacted structures.
2.6-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased vibration exposure from
transit sources that exceed FTA exposure
thresholds.
2.6(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. When finalizing a development or
transportation project’s site plan, the implementing agency shall
ensure that sufficient setback between occupied structures and the
railroad tracks is provided. To meet the 72 VdB limit for the
maximum measured train vibration level, residential buildings
should be setback a minimum of 65 feet from the center of the
nearest track. Alternatively, a reduced setback may be attainable if
the project sponsor can demonstrate a project-specific vibration
exposure meeting a performance standard of 72 VdB. Depending on
specific project conditions, this standard may be attainable without
additional mitigation measures or may require applied mitigation
such as use of elastomeric pads in the building foundation.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-34
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.6(i) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to the
following. Prior to project approval the implementing shall ensure
that project sponsors apply the following mitigation measures to
achieve a vibration performance standard of 72 VdB at residential
land uses, as feasible, for rail extension projects:
Using high resilience (soft) direct fixation fasteners for
embedded track;
Installing Ballast mat for ballast and tie track.
2.6-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased noise exposure from aircraft
or airports.
None required.Less than Significant
Geology and Seismicity
2.7-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk of
property loss, injury or death related to fault
rupture.
2.7(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce impacts related to fault
rupture, implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
comply with provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act (Act) for project
sites located within or across an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone. Project
sponsors shall prepare site-specific fault identification investigations
conducted by licensed geotechnical professionals in accordance
with the requirements of the Act as well as any existing local or
Caltrans regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace
any of the Act requirements. Structures intended for human
occupancy (defined as a structure that might be occupied a
minimum of 2,000 hours per year) shall be located a minimum
distance of 50 feet from any identified active fault traces. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-35
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to
development in an Alquist-Priolo Hazard Zone.
2.7-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk
related to ground shaking.
2.7(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce impacts related to ground
shaking, implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
comply with the most recent version of the California Building Code
(CBC). Proposed improvements shall comply with Chapter 16,
Section 1613 of the CBC which provides earthquake loading
specifications for every structure and associated attachments that
must also meet the seismic criteria of Associated Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Standard 07-05. In order to determine seismic
criteria for proposed improvements, geotechnical investigations
shall be prepared by state licensed engineers and engineering
geologists to provide recommendations for site preparation and
foundation design as required by Chapter 18, Section 1803 of the
CBC. Geotechnical investigations shall also evaluate hazards such as
liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, and expansive soils in
accordance with CBC requirements and Special Publication 117A,
where applicable. Recommended corrective measures, such as
structural reinforcement and replacing native soils with engineered
fill, shall be incorporated into project designs. For the purposes of
this mitigation, less than significant means consistent with federal,
state, and local regulations and laws related to building
construction.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.7-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk
from seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.7(b). Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-36
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.7-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people or structures to substantial risk
related to landslides.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.7(b). Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.7-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan may result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
2.7(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the risk of soil erosion,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Construction Permit requirements. Implementing agencies
shall require project sponsors, as part of contract specifications with
contractors, to prepare and implement best management practices
(BMPs) as part of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that
include erosion control BMPs consistent with California Stormwater
Quality Association Handbook for Construction. For the purposes of
this mitigation, less than significant means consistent with federal,
state, and local regulations and laws related to construction
practices.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.7-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
locate a subsequent development project on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, contains
expansive properties, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.7(b). Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-37
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Water Resources
2.8-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
violate water quality standards or waste or
stormwater discharge requirements.
2.8(a) To reduce the impact associated with potential water quality
standards violations or waste or stormwater discharge requirement
violations, implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
comply with the State, and federal water quality regulations for all
projects that would alter existing drainage patterns in accordance
with the relevant regulatory criteria including but not limited to the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program,
Provision C.3, and any applicable Stormwater Management Plans.
Erosion control measures shall be consistent with NPDES General
Construction Permit requirements including preparation and
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and final
drainage plans shall be consistent with the San Francisco Regional
MS4 NPDES permit or any applicable local drainage control
requirements that exceed or reasonably replace any of these
measures to project receiving waters from pollutants.
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to commit to
best management practices (BMPs) that would minimize or
eliminate existing sources of polluted runoff during both
construction and operational phases of the project. Implementing
agencies shall require projects to comply with design guidelines
established in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association’s Using Start at the Source to Comply with Design
Development Standards and the California Stormwater Quality
Association’s California Stormwater Best Management Practice
Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment to minimize
both increases in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff, and the
amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to water
quality or stormwater management.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-38
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to:
Construction
Limiting excavation and grading activities to the dry season
(April 15 to October 15) to the extent possible in order to reduce
the chance of severe erosion from intense rainfall and surface
runoff, as well as the potential for soil saturation in swale areas.
Regulating stormwater runoff from the construction area
through a stormwater management/erosion control plan that
may include temporary on-site silt traps and/or basins with
multiple discharge points to natural drainages and energy
dissipaters if excavation occurs during the rainy season. This
control plan should include requirements to cover stockpiles of
loose material, divert runoff away from exposed soil material,
locate and operate sediment basin/traps to minimize the amount
of offsite sediment transport, and removing any trapped
sediment from the basin/ trap for placement at a suitable
location on-site, away from concentrated flows, or removal to an
approved disposal site.
Providing temporary erosion control measures until perennial
revegetation or landscaping is established and can minimize
discharge of sediment into receiving waterways.
Providing erosion protection on all exposed soils either by
revegetation or placement of impervious surfaces after
completion of grading. Revegetation shall be facilitated by
mulching, hydroseeding, or other methods and initiated as soon
as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of
the rainy season (by October 15).
Executive Summary
ES-39
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Using permanent revegetation/landscaping, emphasizing
drought-tolerant perennial ground coverings, shrubs, and trees.
Ensuring BMPs are in place and operational prior to the onset of
major earthwork on the site. The construction phase facilities
shall be maintained regularly and cleared of accumulated
sediment as necessary.
Storing hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on
the construction sites in covered containers and protected from
rainfall, runoff, and vandalism. A stockpile of spill cleanup
materials shall be readily available at all construction sites.
Employees shall be trained in spill prevention and cleanup, and
individuals should be designated as responsible for prevention
and cleanup activities.
Operation
Designing drainage of roadway and parking lot runoff, wherever
possible to run through grass median strips which are contoured
to provide adequate storage capacity and to provide overland
flow, detention, and infiltration before runoff reaches culverts, or
into detention basins. Facilities such as oil and sediment
separators or absorbent filter systems should be designed and
installed within the storm drainage system to provide filtration of
stormwater prior to discharge and reduce water quality impacts
whenever feasible.
Implementing an erosion control and revegetation program
designed to allow re-establishment of native vegetation on
slopes in undeveloped areas as part of the long-term sediment
control plan.
Using alternate discharge options to protect sensitive fish and
wildlife populations in areas where habitat for fish and other
wildlife would be threatened by transportation facility discharge.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-40
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Maintenance activities over the life of the project shall include
use of heavy-duty sweepers, with disposal of collected debris in
sanitary landfills to effectively reduce annual pollutant loads
where appropriate. Catch basins and storm drains shall be
cleaned and maintained on a regular basis.
Using Integrated Pest Management techniques (methods that
minimize the use of potentially hazardous chemicals for
landscape pest control and vineyard operations) in landscaped
areas. The handling, storage, and application of potentially
hazardous chemicals shall take place in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations.
2.8-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
substantially interfere with or reduce rates of
groundwater recharge due to the increased
amount of impervious surfaces, such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the groundwater table.
None required.Less than Significant
2.8-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase erosion by altering the existing
drainage patterns of a site, contributing to
sediment loads of streams and drainage
facilities, and thereby affecting water quality.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.8-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase non-point pollution of stormwater
runoff due to litter, fallout from airborne
particulate emissions, or discharges of vehicle
residues, including petroleum hydrocarbons and
metals that would impact the quality of
receiving waters.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-41
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.8-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase non-point-source pollution of
stormwater runoff from construction sites due to
discharges of sediment, chemicals, and wastes to
nearby storm drains and creeks.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.8-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
increase rates and amounts of runoff due to
additional impervious surfaces, higher runoff
values for cut-and-fill slopes, or alterations to
drainage systems that could cause potential
flood hazards and effects on water quality.
Implement Mitigation Measure 2.8(a) Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.8-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan may place
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flows.
2.8(b) To reduce the impact of flood hazards, implementing
agencies shall conduct or require project-specific hydrology studies
for projects proposed to be constructed within floodplains to
demonstrate compliance with Executive Order 11988, the National
Flood Insurance Program, National Flood Insurance Act, Caltrans
Highway Design Manual, Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management
Act, as well as any further Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or State requirements that are adopted at the local level.
These studies shall identify project design features or mitigation
measures that reduce impacts to either floodplains or flood flows to
a less than significant level such as requiring minimum elevations for
finished first floors, typically at least one foot above the 100-year
base flood elevation, where feasible based on project- and site-
specific considerations. For the purposes of this mitigation, less than
significant means consistent with these federal, State, and local
regulations and laws related to development in the floodplain. Local
jurisdictions shall, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent
with local policies, prevent development in flood hazard areas that
do not have demonstrable protections.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-42
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.8-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving flooding (including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam),
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
None required.Less than Significant
Biological Resources
2.9-1a Implementation of the proposed Plan could
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on species
identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-
status in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2.9(a) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects
proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat for special-
status plants and wildlife. The assessment shall be conducted by
qualified professionals pursuant to adopted protocols and agency
guidelines. Where the biological resources assessment establishes
that mitigation is required to avoid direct and indirect adverse
effects on special-status plant and wildlife species, mitigation shall
be developed consistent with the requirements of CEQA, USFWS,
and CDFW regulations and guidelines, in addition to requirements
of any applicable and adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans
developed to protect species or habitat. Mitigation measures that
shall be considered by implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors where feasible based on project-and site-specific
considerations include, but are not limited to:
In support of CEQA, NEPA, CDFW and USFWS permitting
processes for individual Plan Bay Area projects, biological surveys
shall be conducted as part of the environmental review process
to determine the presence and extent of sensitive habitats
and/or species in the project vicinity. Surveys shall follow
established methods and shall be undertaken at times when the
subject species is most likely to be identified. In cases where
impacts to State- or federal-listed plant or wildlife species are
possible, formal protocol-level surveys may be required on a
species-by-species basis to determine the local distribution of
these species. Consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW shall
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-43
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
be conducted early in the planning process at an informal level
for projects that could adversely affect federal or State candidate,
threatened, or endangered species to determine the need for
further consultation or permitting actions. Projects shall obtain
incidental take authorization from the permitting agencies as
required prior to project implementation.
Project designs shall be reconfigured, whenever practicable, to
avoid special-status species and sensitive habitats. Projects shall
minimize ground disturbances and construction footprints near
sensitive areas to the extent practicable.
Where habitat avoidance is infeasible, compensatory mitigation
shall be implemented through preservation, restoration, or
creation of special-status wildlife habitat. Loss of habitat shall be
mitigated at an agency approved mitigation bank or through
individual mitigation sites as approved by USFWS and/or CDFW.
Compensatory mitigation ratios shall be negotiated with the
permitting agencies. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for a
minimum of five consecutive years after mitigation
implementation or until the mitigation is considered to be
successful. All mitigation areas shall be preserved in perpetuity
through either fee ownership or a conservation easement held
by a qualified conservation organization or agency,
establishment of a preserve management plan, and guaranteed
long-term funding for site preservation through the
establishment of a management endowment.
Project activities in the vicinity of sensitive resources shall be
completed during the period that best avoids disturbance to
plant and wildlife species present (e.g., May 15 to October 15
near salmonid habitat and vernal pools) to the extent feasible.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-44
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Individual projects shall minimize the use of in-water
construction methods in areas that support sensitive aquatic
species, especially when listed species could be present.
In the event that equipment needs to operate in any watercourse
with flowing or standing water, a qualified biological resource
monitor shall be present at all times to alert construction crews
to the possible presence of California red-legged frog, nesting
birds, salmonids, or other aquatic species at risk during
construction operations.
If project activities involve pile driving or vibratory hammering in
or near water, interim hydroacoustic threshold criteria for fish
shall be adopted as set forth by the Interagency Fisheries
Hydroacoustic Working Group, as well as other avoidance
methods to reduce the adverse effects of construction to
sensitive fish, piscivorous birds, and marine mammal species.
Construction shall not occur during the breeding season near
riparian habitat, freshwater marshlands, and salt marsh habitats
that support nesting bird species protected under the
Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or California
Fish and Game Code (e.g., yellow warbler, tricolored blackbird,
California clapper rail, etc.).
A qualified biologist shall locate and fence off sensitive resources
before construction activities begin and, where required, shall
inspect areas to ensure that barrier fencing, stakes, and setback
buffers are maintained during construction.
For work sites located adjacent to special-status plant or wildlife
populations, a biological resource education program shall be
provided for construction crews and contractors (primarily crew
and construction foremen) before construction activities begin.
Executive Summary
ES-45
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Biological monitoring shall be particularly targeted for areas near
identified habitat for federal- and state-listed species, and a “no
take” approach shall be taken whenever feasible during
construction near special-status plant and wildlife species.
Efforts shall be made to minimize the negative effects of light
and noise on listed and sensitive wildlife.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs, that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of special-status
species.
2.9-1b Implementation of the proposed Plan could
have substantial adverse impacts on designated
critical habitat for federally listed plant and
wildlife species.
2.9(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Informal consultation with the USFWS and/or NMFS shall be
conducted early in the environmental review process to
determine the need for further mitigation, consultation, or
permitting actions. Formal consultation is required for any
project with a federal nexus.
Project designs shall be reconfigured to avoid or minimize
adverse effects on the primary constituent elements of
designated critical habitats when they are present in a project
vicinity.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs. that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of critical habitat.
Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.9(a), above,
which includes an initial biological resource assessment and, if
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-46
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
necessary, compensatory mitigation for loss of habitat, is expected
to reduce impacts on critical habitat.
2.9-1c Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in construction activities that could
adversely affect non-listed nesting raptor species
considered special-status by CDFW under CDFW
Code 3503.5 and non-listed nesting bird species
considered special-status by the USFWS under
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and by
CDFW under CDFW Code 3503 and 3513.
2.9(c) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
conduct a pre-construction breeding bird surveys for specific
projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat
for nesting birds. The survey shall be conducted by appropriately
trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols agency
guidelines. Where a breeding bird survey establishes that mitigation
is required to avoid direct and indirect adverse effects on nesting
raptors and other protected birds, mitigation will be developed
consistent with the requirements of CEQA, USFWS, and CDFW
regulations and guidelines, in addition to requirements of any
applicable and adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans
developed to protect species or habitat. Mitigation measures that
shall be considered by implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors where feasible based on project-and site-specific
considerations include, but are not limited to:
Perform preconstruction surveys not more than two weeks prior
to initiating vegetation removal and/or construction activities
during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through August 31).
Establish a no-disturbance buffer zone around active nests
during the breeding season until the young have fledged and are
self-sufficient, when no further mitigation would be required.
Typically, the size of individual buffers ranges from a minimum of
250 feet for raptors to a minimum of 50 feet for other birds but
can be adjusted based on an evaluation of the site by a qualified
biologist in cooperation with the USFWS and/or CDFW.
Provide buffers around nests that are established by birds after
construction starts. These birds are assumed to be habituated to
and tolerant of construction disturbance. However, direct take of
nests, eggs, and nestlings is still prohibited and a buffer must be
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-47
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
established to avoid nest destruction. If construction ceases for a
period of more than two weeks, or vegetation removal is
required after a period of more than two weeks has elapsed from
the preconstruction surveys, then new nesting bird surveys must
be conducted.
Comply with existing local regulations and policies, including
applicable HCP/NCCPs, that exceed or reasonably replace any of
the above measures protective of nesting birds.
2.9-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
have a substantial adverse effect on riparian
habitat, federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including
but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.), or other sensitive natural communities
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
2.9(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to prepare
biological resource assessments for specific projects proposed in
areas containing, or likely to contain, jurisdictional waters and/or
other sensitive or special-status communities. The assessment
shall be conducted by qualified professionals in accordance with
agency guidelines and standards. The assessment shall identify
specific mitigation measures for any impact that exceeds
significant impact thresholds and said measures shall be
implemented. Mitigation measures shall be consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and wetland permitting agencies, and/or
follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans
promulgated to protect jurisdictional waters or other sensitive
habitats.
In keeping with the “no net loss” policy for wetlands and other
waters, project designs shall be configured, whenever possible,
to avoid wetlands and other waters and avoid disturbances to
wetlands and riparian corridors in order to preserve both the
habitat and the overall ecological functions of these areas.
Significant and
Unavoidable
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-48
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Projects shall minimize ground disturbances and construction
footprints near such areas to the extent practicable.
Where avoidance of jurisdictional waters is not feasible, project
sponsors shall minimize fill and the use of in-water construction
methods, and only place fill with express permit approval from
the appropriate resources agencies (e.g., Corps, RWQCB, CDFW,
BCDC, and CCC) and in accordance with applicable existing
regulations, such as the Clean Water Act or local stream
protection ordinances.
Project sponsors shall arrange for compensatory mitigation in
the form of mitigation bank credits, on-site or off-site
enhancement of existing waters or wetland creation in
accordance with applicable existing regulations and subject to
approval by the Corps, RWQCB, CDFW, BCDC, and CCC. If
compensatory mitigation is required by the implementing
agency, the project sponsor shall develop a restoration and
monitoring plan that describes how compensatory mitigation
will be achieved, implemented, maintained, and monitored. At a
minimum, the restoration and monitoring plan shall include clear
goals and objectives, success criteria, specifics on
restoration/creation/enhancement (plant palette, soils, irrigation,
etc.), specific monitoring periods and reporting guidelines, and a
maintenance plan. The following minimum performance
standards (or other standards as required by the permitting
agencies) shall apply to any wetland compensatory mitigation:
Compensation shall be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio for
restoration and preservation, but shall in all cases be
consistent with mitigation ratios set forth in locally applicable
plans (e.g., general plans, HCP/NCCPs, etc.), or in project-
specific permitting documentation. Compensatory mitigation
may be a combination of onsite
restoration/creation/enhancement, offsite restoration,
Executive Summary
ES-49
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
preservation and/or enhancement, or purchase of mitigation
credits. Compensatory mitigation may also be achieved
through Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
banking, as deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies.
In general, any compensatory mitigation shall be monitored
for a minimum of five years and will be considered successful
when at least 75 percent cover (or other percent cover
considered appropriate for the vegetation type) of installed
vegetation has become successfully established.
In accordance with CDFW guidelines and other instruments
protective of sensitive or special-status natural communities,
project sponsors shall avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive
natural communities when designing and permitting projects.
Where applicable, projects shall conform to the provisions of
special area management or restoration plans, such as the Suisun
Marsh Protection Plan or the East Contra Costa County HCP,
which outline specific measures to protect sensitive vegetation
communities.
If any portion of a special-status natural community is
permanently removed or temporarily disturbed, the project
sponsor shall compensate for the loss. If such mitigation is
required by the implementing agency, the project sponsor shall
develop a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how
compensatory mitigation will be achieved, implemented,
maintained, and monitored. At a minimum, the restoration and
monitoring plan shall include clear goals and objectives, success
criteria, specifics on restoration/creation/enhancement (plant
palette, soils, irrigation, etc.), specific monitoring periods and
reporting guidelines, and a maintenance plan. The following
minimum performance standards (or other standards as required
by the permitting agencies) shall apply to any compensatory
mitigation for special-status natural communities:
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-50
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Compensation shall be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio for
restoration and preservation, but shall in all cases be
consistent with mitigation ratios set forth in locally applicable
plans (e.g., general plans, HCP/NCCPs, etc.) or in project-
specific permitting documentation. Compensatory mitigation
may be a combination of onsite
restoration/creation/enhancement, offsite restoration,
preservation and/or enhancement, or purchase of mitigation
credits. Compensatory mitigation may also be achieved
through Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
banking, as deemed appropriate by the permitting agencies.
In general, any compensatory mitigation shall be monitored
for a minimum of five years and will be considered successful
when at least 75 percent cover (or other percent cover
considered appropriate for the vegetation type) of installed
vegetation has become successfully established.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs. that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of jurisdictional
wetlands or special-status natural communities.
2.9-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridor, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
2.9(e) Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on wildlife corridors
that shall be required by implementing agencies where feasible
based on project- and site- specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to prepare detailed analyses for specific projects
affecting ECA lands within their sphere of influence to determine
what wildlife species may use these areas and what habitats those
species require. Projects that would not affect ECA lands but that are
located within or adjacent to open lands, including wildlands and
agricultural lands, shall also assess whether or not significant wildlife
corridors are present, what wildlife species may use them, and what
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-51
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
habitat those species require. The assessment shall be conducted by
qualified professionals and according to any applicable agency
standards. Mitigation shall be consistent with the requirements of
CEQA and/or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other relevant plans
developed to protect species and their habitat, including migratory
linkages.
Mitigation measures that shall be considered by implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to:
Constructing wildlife friendly overpasses and culverts;
Fencing major transportation corridors in the vicinity of
identified wildlife corridors;
Using wildlife friendly fences that allow larger wildlife such as
deer to get over, and smaller wildlife to go under;
Limiting wildland conversions in identified wildlife corridors; and
Retaining wildlife friendly vegetation in and around
developments.
Compliance with existing local regulations and policies,
including applicable HCP/NCCPs. that exceed or reasonably
replace any of the above measures protective of jurisdictional
wetlands or special-status natural communities.
2.9-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
conflict with adopted local conservation policies,
such as a tree protection ordinance, or resource
protection and conservation plans, such as a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other
adopted local, regional, or state habitat
2.9(f) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to
prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects
proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, protected trees or
other locally protected biological resources. The assessment shall be
conducted by qualified professionals in accordance with adopted
protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation shall be
consistent with the requirements of CEQA and/or follow applicable
ordinances or plans developed to protect trees or other locally
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-52
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
conservation plan. significant biological resources. Mitigation measures that shall be
considered by implementing agencies and/or project sponsors
where feasible based on project-and site-specific considerations
include, but are not limited to:
Mitigation shall be implemented when significance thresholds
are exceeded. Mitigation shall be consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and/or follow applicable ordinances orb
plans developed to protect trees or other locally significant
biological resources.
Implementing agencies shall design projects such that they
avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to protected
trees and other locally protected resources where feasible.
At a minimum, qualifying protected trees (or other resources)
shall be replaced at 1:1, or as otherwise required by the local
ordinance or plan, in locally approved mitigation sites.
As part of project-level environmental review, implementing
agencies shall ensure that projects comply with the most recent
general plans, policies, and ordinances, and conservation plans.
Review of these documents and compliance with their
requirements shall be demonstrated in project-level
environmental documentation.
2.9(g) During the design and CEQA review of individual projects
under Plan Bay Area, implementing agencies and project sponsors
shall modify project designs to ensure the maximum feasible level of
consistency with the policies in adopted HCPs, NCCPs, or other
approved local, regional, or state conservation plans, in areas where
such plans are applicable. These measures apply to projects covered
by the plans in question (i.e., projects assessed during plan
environmental review), as well as non-covered projects within the
Plan area. Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
Executive Summary
ES-53
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
If the project results in impacts on covered species habitat, or
other habitat protected under the plan, the project sponsor shall
coordinate with USFWS, CDFW, and the appropriate local agency
to provide full compensation of acreage and preserve function.
Projects shall follow adopted procedures to process an
amendment to the conservation plan(s) if necessary. In addition,
all habitat based mitigation required by the conservation plans
shall be provided at ratios or quantities specified in the plans.
Project design and implementation shall minimize impacts on
covered species through implementation of Mitigation Measures
2.9(a), 2.9(b), 2.9(c), 2.9(d), and 2.9(e).
Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for covered
species, consistent with adopted HCP and/or NCCPs, shall also be
implemented as specified during project-specific environmental
review and permitting. Avoidance and minimization measures to
covered species and their habitats shall include adherence to
land use adjacency guidelines as outlined in adopted HCP and/or
NCCPs.
2.9(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies and project
sponsors whose projects are located within the Coastal Zone or
within BCDC jurisdiction shall carefully review the applicable local
coastal program or San Francisco Bay Plan for potential conflicts, and
involve the California Coastal Commission or BCDC as early as
possible in the project-level EIR process.
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-54
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Visual Resources
2.10-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by blocking panoramic
views or views of significant landscape features
or landforms (mountains, oceans, rivers, or
significant man-made structures) as seen from a
transportation facility or from public viewing
areas.
2.10(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Reduce the visibility of construction staging areas by fencing and
screening these areas with low contrast materials consistent with
the surrounding environment, and by revegetating graded
slopes and exposed earth surfaces at the earliest opportunity.
Site or design projects to minimize their intrusion into important
viewsheds.
Use see-through safety barrier designs (e.g. railings rather than
walls) when feasible.
Develop interchanges and transit lines at the grade of the
surrounding land to limit view blockage wherever possible.
Design landscaping along highway corridors in rural and open
space areas to add significant natural elements and visual
interest to soften the hard edged, linear travel experience that
would otherwise occur.
Identify, preserve, and enhance scenic vistas to and from hillside
areas and other visual resources.
Comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed
or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect
visual resources.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2.10-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by substantially damaging
scenic resources (such as trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings) that would
2.10(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Significant and
Unavoidable
Executive Summary
ES-55
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
alter the appearance of or from state- or county-
designated or eligible scenic highways.
Project sponsors and implementing agencies shall complete
design studies for projects in designated or eligible State Scenic
Highway corridors. Implementing agencies shall consider the
“complete” highway system and design projects to minimize
impacts on the quality of the views or visual experience that
originally qualified the highway for scenic designation.
Contouring the edges of major cut and fill slopes to provide a
more natural looking finished profile that is appropriate to the
surrounding context, using natural shapes, textures, colors, and
scale to minimize contrasts between the project and surrounding
areas.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace measures that protect visual
resources where feasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.10(a) shall also be
considered to reduce impacts on scenic highways.
2.10-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by creating significant
contrasts with the scale, form, line, color, and/or
overall visual character of the existing
community.
2.10(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Designing projects to minimize contrasts in scale and massing
between the project and surrounding natural forms and
development.
Requiring that the scale, massing, and design of new
development provide appropriate transitions in building height,
bulk, and architectural style that are sensitive to the physical and
visual character of surrounding areas.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-56
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Contouring the edges of major cut and fill slopes to provide a
finished profile that is appropriate to the surrounding context,
using shapes, textures, colors, and scale to minimize contrasts
between the project and surrounding areas.
Ensuring that new development in or adjacent to existing
communities is compatible in scale and character with the
surrounding area by:
Promoting a transition in scale and architecture character
between new buildings and established neighborhoods; and
Requiring pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes to be
well integrated.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce visual contrasts.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.10(a) shall also be
considered to reduce impacts on visual resources created by
significant contrasts in community visual character.
2.10-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
affect visual resources by adding a visual
element of urban character to an existing rural or
open space area or adding a modern element to
a historic area.
2.10(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Ensuring that new development in or adjacent to rural or historic
areas is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding
area by:
Promoting a transition in scale and architecture character
between new buildings and established neighborhoods; and
Requiring pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes to be
well integrated.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-57
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Using soundwall construction and design methods that account
for visual impacts as follows:
Use transparent panels to preserve views where soundwalls
would block views from residences.
Use landscaped earth berm or a combination wall and berm
to minimize the apparent soundwall height.
Construct soundwalls of materials whose color and texture
complements the surrounding landscape and development.
Design soundwalls to increase visual interest, reduce
apparent height, and be visually compatible with the
surrounding area.
Landscape the soundwalls with plants that screen the
soundwall, preferably with either native vegetation or
landscaping that complements the dominant landscaping of
surrounding areas.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce visual impacts on rural and historic areas.
2.10-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
adversely affect visual resources by creating new
substantial sources of light and glare.
2.10(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Designing projects to minimize light and glare from lights,
buildings, and roadways facilities.
Minimizing and controlling glare from transportation projects
through the adoption of project design features that reduce
glare. These features include:
Planting trees along transportation corridors to reduce glare
from the sun;
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-58
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Landscaping off-street parking areas, loading areas, and
service areas; and
Shielding transportation lighting fixtures to minimize off-site
light trespass.
Minimizing and controlling glare from land use and
transportation projects through the adoption of project design
features that reduce glare. These features include:
Limiting the use of reflective materials, such as metal;
Using non-reflective material, such as paint, vegetative
screening, matte finish coatings, and masonry;
Screening parking areas by using vegetation or trees; and
Using low-reflective glass.
Imposing lighting standards that ensure that minimum safety
and security needs are addressed and minimize light trespass
and glare associated with land use development. These
standards include the following:
Minimizing incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private
properties and undeveloped open space;
Directing luminaries away from habitat and open space areas
adjacent to the project site;
Installing luminaries that provide good color rendering and
natural light qualities; and
Minimizing the potential for back scatter into the nighttime
sky and for incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private
properties and undeveloped open space.
Executive Summary
ES-59
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce light and glare impacts.
2.10-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan could cast
a substantial shadow in such a way as to cause a
public hazard or substantially degrade the
existing visual/aesthetic character or quality of a
public place for a sustained period of time.
2.10(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to conduct shadow studies for buildings and
roadway facilities to identify and implement development strategies
for reducing the impact of shadows on public open space. Study
considerations shall include, but are not limited to, the placement,
massing, and height of structures, surrounding land uses, time of
day and seasonal variation, and reflectivity of materials. Study
recommendations for reducing shadow impacts shall be
incorporated into the project design as feasible based on project-
and site-specific considerations. Further, implementing agencies
shall require project sponsors to comply with existing local
regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace the above
measure that reduces shadow impacts where feasible based on
project- and site-specific considerations.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Cultural Resources
2.11-1 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historic resource such that the
significance of the resource would be materially
impaired.
2.11(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Realign or redesign projects to avoid impacts on known historic
resources where possible.
Requiring an assessment by a qualified professional of structures
greater than 45 years in age within the area of potential effect to
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-60
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
determine their eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or
local historic preservation criteria.
When a project has been identified as potentially affecting a
historic resource, a historical resources inventory should be
conducted by a qualified architectural historian. The study
should comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b), and, if
federal funding or permits are required, with section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470
et seq.). Study recommendations shall be implemented.
If avoidance of a significant architectural/built environment
resource is not feasible, additional mitigation options include,
but are not limited to, specific design plans for historic districts,
or plans for alteration or adaptive re-use of a historical resource
that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
protect historic resources.
2.11-2 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource.
2.11(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65351 and 65352, in-
person consultation shall be conducted with Native American
tribes and individuals with cultural affiliations where the project
is proposed to determine the potential for, or existence of,
cultural resources, including cemeteries and sacred places, prior
to project design and implementation stages.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-61
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Prior to construction activities, project sponsors shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to conduct a record search at the
appropriate Information Center of the California Archaeological
Inventory to determine whether the project area has been
previously surveyed and whether resources were identified.
When recommended by the Information Center, project
sponsors shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct
archaeological surveys prior to construction activities.
Preparation of a research design and testing plan should be
developed in advance of implementation of the construction
project, in order to efficiently facilitate the avoidance of cultural
sites throughout the development process.
If record searches and field surveys indicate that the project is
located in an area rich with archaeological resources, project
sponsors should retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor any
subsurface operations, including but not limited to grading,
excavation, trenching, or removal of existing features of the
subject property.
Written assessments should be prepared by a qualified tribal
representative of sites or corridors with no identified cultural
resources but which still have a moderate to high potential for
containing tribal cultural resources.
Upon “late discovery” of prehistoric archaeological resources
during construction, project sponsors shall consult with the
Native American tribe as well as with the “Most-Likely-
Descendant” as designated by the Native American Heritage
Commission pursuant to PRC 5097.
Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating
impacts on archeological sites because it maintains the
relationship between artifacts and the archeological context, and
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-62
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
it may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of
groups associated with the site. This may be achieved through
incorporation within parks, green-space, or other open space by
re-designing project using open space or undeveloped lands.
This may also be achieved by following procedures for capping
the site underneath a paved area. When avoiding and preserving
in place are infeasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations, a data recovery plan may be prepared according
to CEQA Section 15126.4. A data recovery plan consists of: the
documentation and removal of the archeological deposit from a
project site in a manner consistent with professional (and
regulatory) standards; the subsequent inventorying, cataloguing,
analysis, identification, dating, and interpretation of the artifacts;
and the production of a report of findings.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
protect archaeological resources.
2.11-3 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
destroy, directly or indirectly, a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.
2.11(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Prior to construction activities, project sponsors should retain a
qualified paleontologist to conduct a record search using an
appropriate database, such as the UC Berkeley Museum of
Paleontology to determine whether the project area has been
previously surveyed and whether resources were identified. As
warranted, project sponsors should retain a qualified
paleontologist to conduct paleontological surveys prior to
construction activities.
Preparation of a research design and testing plan should be
developed in advance of implementation of the construction
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-63
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
project, in order to efficiently facilitate the avoidance of cultural
sites throughout the development process.
If record searches and field surveys indicate that the project is
located in an area rich with paleontological, and/or geological
resources, project sponsors should retain a qualified
paleontologist to monitor any subsurface operations, including
but not limited to grading, excavation, trenching, or removal of
existing features of the subject property.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
protect paleontological or geologic resources.
2.11-4 The proposed Plan could have the potential to
disturb human remains, including those interred
outside formal cemeteries.
2.11(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Under Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as
part of project oversight of individual projects, project sponsors
can and should, in the event of discovery or recognition of any
human remains during construction or excavation activities
associated with the project, in any location other than a
dedicated cemetery, cease further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains until the coroner of the county in which
the remains are discovered has been informed and has
determined that no investigation of the cause of death is
required.
Under California Public Resources Code 5097.98, if any
discovered remains are of Native American origin:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-64
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
from the deceased individual. The coroner should make a
recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible
for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of,
with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods. This may include obtaining a
qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly
excavate the human remains; or
If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to
identify a descendant, or thedescendant failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by
thecommission, the landowner or their authorized
representative shall obtain aNative American monitor, and
an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American
monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and
any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the
property and in a location that is not subject to further
subsurface disturbance where the following conditions occur:
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to
identify a descendent;
The descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation; or
The landowner or their authorized representative rejects
the recommendation of the descendant, and the
mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission
fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
For the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to human remains.
Executive Summary
ES-65
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Public Utilities and Facilities
2.12-1 The proposed Plan could result in insufficient
water supplies from existing entitlements and
resources to serve expected development.
2.12(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Implementing water conservation measures which result in
reduced demand for potable water. This could include reducing
the use of potable water for landscape irrigation (such as
through drought-tolerant plantings, water-efficient irrigation
systems, the capture and use of rainwater) and the use of water-
conserving fixtures (such as dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals,
reduced flow faucets).
Coordinating with the water provider to identify an appropriate
water consumption budget for the size and type of project, and
designing and operating the project accordingly.
Using reclaimed water for non-potable uses, especially landscape
irrigation. This strategy may require a project to be located in an
area with existing reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure
and excess reclaimed water capacity. If a location is planned for
future reclaimed water service, projects should install dual
plumbing systems in anticipation of future use. Large
developments could treat wastewater onsite to tertiary
standards and use it for non-potable uses onsite.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that
reduce demand for potable water.
2.12(b) MTC shall require the construction phase of transportation
projects to connect to reclaimed water distribution systems for
non-potable water needs, when feasible based on project- and site-
specific considerations.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-66
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.12(c) MTC shall require transportation projects with landscaping
to use drought-resistant plantings or connect to reclaimed water
distribution systems for irrigation and other non-potable water
needs when available and feasible based on project- and site-
specific considerations.
2.12-2 The proposed Plan could result in inadequate
wastewater treatment capacity to serve new
development.
2.12(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Undertaking environmental assessments of land use plans and
developments to determine whether sufficient wastewater
treatment capacity exists for a proposed project. These
environmental assessments must ensure that the proposed
development can be served by its existing or planned treatment
capacity, and that the applicable NPDES permit does not include
a Cease and Desist Order or any limitations on existing or future
treatment capacity. If adequate capacity does not exist, the
implementing agency must either adopt mitigation measures or
consider not proceeding with the project as proposed.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace the above measure in a manner
that reduces impacts on wastewater treatment capacity.
Implementing agencies shall also require compliance with
Mitigation Measure 2.12(a), and MTC shall require implementation of
Mitigation Measures 2.12(b), and/or 2.12(c) listed under Impact 2.12-
1, as feasible based on project- and site-specific considerations,
which will help reduce water usage and, subsequently, wastewater
flows.
Transportation projects could only cause impacts on wastewater
treatment capacity in the case of excess stormwater runoff into a
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-67
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
combined wastewater/stormwater conveyance system. Therefore,
mitigation of stormwater drainage system capacity impacts will also
mitigate wastewater treatment capacity impacts. Mitigation for
stormwater runoff into wastewater systems from transportation
projects is discussed under Impact 2.12-3; mitigation measures
2.12(f) and 2.12(g) will mitigate these impacts.
2.12-3 Development under the proposed Plan could
require and result in the construction of new or
expanded stormwater drainage facilities, which
could cause significant environmental impacts.
2.12(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Complying with all existing applicable federal and State
regulations, including Provision C.3 of the EPA’s Interpretive
Policy Memorandum on Reapplication Requirements for
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, NPDES permit
requirements, the submission of and adherence to a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan, Water Quality Control Policy for Siting,
Design, Operation, and Maintenance of onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems, and/or other relevant current State Water
Resource Control Board policy adopted for the purpose of
reducing stormwater drainage impacts.
For projects less than one acre in size, reducing stormwater
runoff caused by construction by implementing stormwater
control best practices, based on those required for a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
To the extent possible, siting or orienting the project to use
existing stormwater drainage capacity.
Constructing permeable surfaces, such as stormwater detention
facilities, playing fields, landscaping, or alternative surfaces
(vegetated roofs, pervious paving).
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-68
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Modeling and implementing a stormwater management plan or
site design that prevents the post-development peak discharge
rate and quantity from exceeding pre-development rates.
Capturing rainwater for on-site re-use, such as for landscape
irrigation or inside non-potable uses such as toilet flushing.
Capturing and infiltrating stormwater runoff on site with rain
gardens, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, etc.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures in
reducing impacts on stormwater drainage facilities.
2.12(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Transportation projects shall
incorporate stormwater control, retention, and infiltration features,
such as detention basins, bioswales, vegetated median strips, and
permeable paving, early into the design process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are planned.
Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace measures that reduce stormwater drainage
impacts.
2.12(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. All transportation projects constructed,
operated, or funded by MTC shall adhere to Caltrans’ Stormwater
Management Plan, which includes best practices to reduce the
volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants in the design,
construction and maintenance of highway facilities.
Executive Summary
ES-69
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.12-4 Development under the proposed Plan could
require and result in the construction of new or
expanded water and wastewater treatment
facilities, which could cause significant
environmental impacts.
2.12(h) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. For projects that could increase
demand on water and wastewater treatment facilities, project
sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant service provider to
ensure that the existing public services and utilities could be able to
handle the increase in demand. If the current infrastructure servicing
the project site is found to be inadequate, infrastructure
improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be
identified in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant
public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking
project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new
facilities.
All of the mitigation measures listed under Impact 2.12-1 and Impact
2.12-2 will help reduce water demand and wastewater generation,
and subsequently help reduce the need for new or expanded water
and wastewater treatment facilities. The mitigation measures listed
under Impact 2.12-3 will also help mitigate the impact of additional
stormwater runoff from land use and transportation projects on
existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2.12-5 Development under the proposed Plan could
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the RWQCBs.
None required.Less than Significant
2.12-6 The proposed Plan could result in insufficient
landfill capacity to serve new development while
complying with applicable regulations.
2.12(i) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plans and Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
shall take the growth patterns projected by the proposed Plan into
account in their evaluation of landfill disposal capacity and
determination of strategies to implement to enhance capacity.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-70
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
2.12(j) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Providing an easily accessible area that is dedicated to the
collection and storage of non-hazardous recycling materials,
where feasible.
Maintaining or re-using existing building structures and
materials during building renovations and redevelopment,
where feasible.
Using salvaged, refurbished or reused materials, to help divert
such items from landfills, where feasible.
Diverting construction waste from landfills, where feasible,
through means such as:
The submission and implementation of a construction waste
management plan that identifies materials to be diverted
from disposal.
Establishing diversion targets, possibly with different targets
for different types and scales of development.
Helping developments share information on available
materials with one another, to aid in the transfer and use of
salvaged materials.
Applying the specifications developed by the Construction
Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) to assist contractors and
developers in diverting materials from construction and
demolition projects, where feasible.4
Significant with
Mitigation
4 The CMRA specifications are available on the CalRecycle website at: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/conDemo/specs/CMRA.htm
Executive Summary
ES-71
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures in
reducing impacts on landfills.
Hazards
2.13-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials.
2.13(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
the routine transit, use, or disposal of hazardous materials,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Title 22 of the
California Code of Regulations, California Hazardous Waste Control
Law, Cal/EPA requirements, HAZMAT training requirements, and any
local regulations such as city or county Hazardous Materials
Management Plans regulating the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste.
For the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.13-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
2.13(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
the release of hazardous materials into the environment,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with Senate Bill 1889, Accidental Release Prevention Law/California
Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) regulating the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous materials and waste. In addition, project sponsors shall
comply with United States Department of Transportation
regulations regarding the transport of hazardous materials and
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-72
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
wastes such that accidental upset conditions are minimized. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
2.13-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in hazardous emissions or handling of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school.
2.13(c) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with DTSC School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Division
regulations regarding the cleanup of existing contamination at
school sites and requirements for the location of new schools that
would minimize potential exposure of hazardous emissions to
students, staff, and visitors to existing and planned school sites. For
the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to hazardous materials near schools.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.13-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in projects located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
2.13(d) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Determining whether specific land use and transportation
project sites are listed as a hazardous materials and/or waste site
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Requiring preparation of a Phase I ESA in accordance with the
American Society for Testing and Materials’ ASTM E-1527-05
standards for any listed sites or sites with the potential of residual
hazardous materials and/or waste as a result of location and/or
prior uses. For work requiring any demolition or renovation, the
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-73
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
Phase I ESA shall make recommendations for any hazardous
building materials survey work that shall be done.
Implementing recommendations included in a Phase I ESA
prepared for a site.
If a Phase I ESA indicates the presence or likely presence of
contamination, the implementing agency shall require a Phase II
ESA, and recommendations of the Phase II ESA shall be fully
implemented.
For work requiring any demolition or renovation, the Phase I ESA
shall make recommendations for any hazardous building
materials survey work that shall be done.
Requiring construction contractors to prepare and implement
soil management contingency plans which provide procedural
guidance on the handling, notification, and protective measures
to be taken in the event of encountering suspected
contamination or naturally occurring asbestos.
2.13-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the planning area for projects located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport.
2.13(e) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce the impacts associated with
people residing or working in the planning area for projects located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with any applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
requirements as well as any Federal Aviation Administration (14 CFR
Part 77) requirements. Projects shall not be approved by local
agencies until project design plans have been reviewed and
approved by the Airport Land Use Commission such that proposed
projects would not adversely affect subject airport operations. For
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-74
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
the purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means
consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related
to development near a public airport.
2.13-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the planning area for projects within
the vicinity of a private airstrip.
2.13(f) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce impacts associated with
people residing or working in the planning area for projects within
the vicinity of a private airstrip implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to comply with any applicable local land use
regulations and federal aviation guidelines as well as any Federal
Aviation Administration (14 CFR Part 77) requirements applicable to
projects located within two miles of a private airstrip. Projects shall
not be approved by local agencies until project design plans can
demonstrate compliance with subject airstrip, local and federal
aviation requirements. For the purposes of this mitigation, less than
significant means consistent with federal, state, and local regulations
and laws related to development near a private airstrip.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
2.13-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
None required.Less than Significant
2.13-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands.
2.13(g) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to the following. To reduce wildland fire impacts,
implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to comply
with safety measures that minimize the threat of fire as stated in the
California Fire Code as well as compliance with Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, Division 1.5 to minimize exposing
people and structures to loss, injury, or death and damage. Projects
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Executive Summary
ES-75
TABLE ES-2: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
# Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance After
Mitigation
shall not be approved by local agencies until project design plans
can demonstrate compliance with fire safety requirements. For the
purposes of this mitigation, less than significant means consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations and laws related to wildfire
hazards.
Public Services and Recreation
2.14-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in the need for expanded facilities, the
construction of which causes significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
adequate schools, emergency services, police,
fire, and park and recreation services.
2.14(a) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Ensuring that adequate public services, and related infrastructure
and utilities, will be available to meet or satisfy levels identified in
the applicable local general plan or service master plan prior to
approval of new development projects.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace measures that reduce public
service impacts.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2.14-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in increased use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated.
2.14(b) Mitigation measures that shall be considered by
implementing agencies and/or project sponsors where feasible
based on project-and site-specific considerations include, but are
not limited to:
Ensuring that adequate parks and recreational facilities will be
available to meet or satisfy levels identified in the applicable
local general plan or service master plan prior to approval of new
development.
Complying with existing local regulations and policies that
exceed or reasonably replace measures that reduce impacts on
recreational facilities.
Significant and
Unavoidable
*CEQA Streamlining
Projects Under SB 375
That Implement All
Feasible Mitigation
Measures: Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
2040 Plan Bay Area
Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report
ES-76
This page intentionally left blank.