The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0448.095TO, FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: -. ,...... "~"~.~:~ City of Palo Alto City ~tanager's Report HONOR.u!LE CITY COUNCIL CITY MA!'l4GER October Il. 1995 DEPARTMENT: Plumag lnd Community E.viroament CMR!448:9S -.. .. .. MsociatiOIl of Bay Area Governments (ABA G) Proposed Employment and Household Forecasts RECOMMENDATIONS This is an infonnational staff report transmitting ABAG employment and household fore<:asts. This infOGDaOOn will be used in !he Comprebem;ive Plan Update process. BACKGROUND Every other year. ABAG issues • major update of forecasted socioeconomic <!ala, including household and employment projections. The attached September 28, 1995 memorandum from Paul Passinger, ABAG's Research Director, contains projections for !he Palo AItoIStanford area. These proje..--tions will be reviewed by the ABAG Board on 0c10ber 19. 1995. POLICY IMlUCATIONS ABAG's emPloyment and household forecasts are an impor1ant input into County (and especiaIly Congestion Managetn<:nt Agency) and Joca! land use planning. The forecasts are • reflection of both locaJ planning policies and macroeconomic analysi.. of Bay Area, state and national groI>1h facIo!->. The implications of these forecasts are that Palo Alto, including !he Stanford University campus, will experience, over the nenlS \0 20 years, moderate honsehold growth and • slow recovery in empJoyment 10 the level of 1990. Major increases in housing and empJoyment are DOt foreseen for both Joca! and macroecooomic reasons.. Page 1 aU ·;. ruscJ.iSSlQ.N AB. .... G, woding with local jurisdlctions, periodically updates employment. housebold and IX!!er socioeconomk forecasts, Major updat .. are published every <>Il,er year, with the next publication due in early 1996 (Projections '96). Projections '% data ",;11 be reviewed by the ABAG Beard on October 19,1995. In past years, ABAG ~ have demonstrated • good umkrstan<fmg of local and macroecoooml<: fac10fS and have thus been as accurate as any furecasts reviewed by City staff. ABAG foreeasts are important data fur the Metropolitan Transportation Commis.<ioo's (MTC) regionallravel fureeasting model State law requires that Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and IocaItransportatioo models be ronsistent, at the County level with the MfC mode: and thus consistent with ABAG data. Cit), staff wori<s closely with Santa Clara County, CMA and ABAG staff in developing data and reviewing and rommenting on preliminazy fureeasts. ABAG staffs proposed hooseboId and employment rore<:asts fur Palo AIlo plus the Stanford Campus area: Households 28,973 29,216 29,826 30,386 30,866 31,356 Employment 94,129 9<l,00Q 91.200 91,900 94,700 94,100 Regarding the Household projections, ABAG is required by the Stale 10 incorporate the 1m Federal <=SUS results. City and Santa Clara County staff(i.e, the Coonty Center fur lJ.-ban AruIl)'sis) believe that the 1990 federal census household IOta!s fur Palo AholStanf<>rd are about 2,000 units 100 high. This occurred because of inaccurate census furms generated primarily ftom Stanford Campus residents. If the Stanford West housing proje<:ts are approved and COO$tructed, the increase in housing units between 1995 and 2005 woold be greater than the ABAG fOrecast. Because of the 199<l overcooot, staffhas not recommended 10 ABAG that the 2000, 2005, 2010 and 20 15 boosebold projections be increased. City staff are wodting ,.ith the Santa C1ara County Center fur Urban Aoalysis and Stanford Uoiven;ity st3ff1o resolve Ihe overcounl issue. Staff"'ill atfjust the household coont infOO:nation as part of ... odt on the Comprebens.ive Plan and coo<amate will> ABAG staff reganfmg future atfjustments 10 Iheir projections. Regarding the employment projections, staff concur> wilh the ABAG projection t!Jat employment, which decreased between 1m and 1995, will increase very slowly o,'erthe next ten 10 twenty years. The reasoning behind this conclusion is outlined in 1110 attllChed September IS, 1995 letter from City staff 10 Frank Lockreld. Director of the Santa Clara County Center fur Urban Analysis. The fmal employmenl projections prepared by ABAG CMJt;448:9S Page 2 of .. . . . \-c; :..~-,< ·"i . ' staff are in Atta<;hment B2 to the September 28, 1995 memo from ABAG staff to Cit)' Planning 0itecI0rs, and cootains II'Jooc adjustments 10 Ibe preliminary projections attached 10 !he September 15 letter. The projections are based, in pan, OIl existing City land use polic:res. City staff has net identified any Comprehensive Plan Advisory Comrnitt..-e recommeOOations tbs1 would modI .. ,), the projections. In rniewing Attachment B2, • significant part of the in""""", in employment between 19SO and 1990 relates 10 modifications in the unsus and other ",ays of determining Iota! employment ralber than an actuaJ increase in rmployment. AI.1JJlNATIVES This report transmits infonnatioo. developed by ABAG. If the city wishes 10 cballenge the projectioru;, research could be conducted 10 WSI ABAG's work. FISCAL IMPACT To the extent !hat increased employment is regarded as baving fiscal po6idves (e.g., more sales laX, greater property renovation) and negatives (e.,., increased infrasIrocture costs), the relatively sable employment levels may h2ve some primaJily indu'ect fiscal impacts: IDcreased bousing generates increased revenues (e.g., property laX, sales tax, property transfer tax and utility users tax) and increased municipal service costs that may or =y rot offset the increased revenues. POIentiaI costs associated with the Stanford West boosing will be analyzed during review of the project. ENYIRONMENTAJ( AssFMMfNT Al~AG·. household and employment projections will be incc<ponted into the Comprehensive Plan Update Em and other relevant environmental documents. ABAG's preparation of socioeconomi<: projO\.'tX>ns is not subject 10 lbe California Environmental QuaJityAct. STEps FQJU1WING APPROVAL Stafhiill use the ABAG projections as appropriate in City planning work and COIltinue 10 work with ABAG, the County Center for Urban Analysis and !he County COIlgestion Management Ageocy in monitoring and refining the projectioas. ATIACHMENTS 9128/95 Memo from Paul Fassinger. ABAG staff 9!J Sl95 Letter 10 Frank Lockfeld, "ill! attachments Pagd of 4 /~. , I ' CC: Planning Commissioo Comprehensive PIau Advisory Committee Paul Fassinger. ABAG Frank Lock1eld, Contcr for Ulban Analysis Michael Evanhoe, Santa CIani County Transpor.atioo Agency Chamber ofComm= Citizens for Affirmative Planning (Enuly Renzel) Stacl"e<d University (Andy Cae, D&vld Neuman) Stanford W.anagemenl Company (Curtis Feeny) _ PP.E.PARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber, DirecIor . , ~ ..... DEPARTMENT HFADRE\1EW: ;f&ou:zLtf.Liu4;., . KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Directcc of Planning and Community Envirorunen1 .. i , ' " . 'C<'''~',' .C.c',' •.. '." _<'~: /}--.:.~>:.". -.:.f~ . • :1/11 net If:4I T.U 111 U4 15185 ASSOCIATION OF BA" AREA GOVER/'o:ME/'o:TS To: City PbmninS ou..ctors in Santa Clan County from: Paul Fassin&<r, Research Directoc Date: September 2i, 1 m Re: a.ans .. 10 Draft Projections 96 W. bave1Dlllk subs1antial cbang.,10 the Proj«tioos '96 nmnben for Sanu Clara County. These cIwlges wve made ill response to comments b) individual cities, and a mot. eemprebcnsive ... of comments we ~ved from the Santa Clara TJlIllSjXl<".ation "Ceney. TypicaIly,1he commeuts we receive em",e'" city le ... 1 projections for households, popaIatioa, or employment. However, the Tmnsportatioo Ageocy also made substantial comments concerning the aD.oc.aticn 0{ Cens'.1S tracts ~'een c.ities+ W. make our f=oasts 81 the =sus IracI level and then aggregate 10 lhe subregional study area or city splJere of inlIuenc. leveL In so:ne cases, census Inlets cross city boundaries and IS • result. 1he numbeD fur • particular census tract must be split betw_ cities. The Transportaticn Agency has CKplained its melhod and ,.~ believe that its aDOC8!ioDs are more appropr'.ate fur !he Iracls it has identified. Tbe",fore, ..... !lavc clIanged !he allocation of some split census 1ractS 10 particular cities. We balie attached two set> oftal>les: (Attachments AI and A2) Iable. sh<;"ing changes for city Iev<l comments; and (Attachments BI and B2) t.bI .. shol>iing the lOla! of cily level comments and changes 10 1he allOCBlion of splil censc.s tracts. The second se-.s oftabl .. Ieflect !he fmal assignment of housebol<ls, populatioo and employment to individual cities. W. would like 10 !hank all of you fur !he substantial help you have provided in refining 0<11' forecasts. If you have any questions about tht: change, that we have made, please coolaCl me aI (5 I()} 464·7928. ce: Michael EV8IIboe, Dir<cIor CMP, SCTA Frank Locl:fcld, eUA III 001 o ---------:~T_~--------;--------~. -',:,' --, . , , , CAMPBEU.- ~ GIlROY- t.OS.·.LTOS- lOS ALTOS HlLLS- lOSG"TOS- Jo.IIU'lT...s- MONTE SERENO"" MORGAN HILL - MOl!NTACi VIEW"" PALO ALTO- SAHJOSE~ SANTA ClARA- SAP .... TOGA- SUNNYVALE- RBMlNDER SANTA CLARA DRAFT PROJECTIONS 96 Changes to Growth Forecasts 14,D\3 ~1!.D30 \6,260 16,920 IS,ne 17,992 17,840 n,5611 8;46 10,743 11,160 n,15O 10,5311 11,067 '1,.'0 11,450 2,790 2.7" 2,820 ',BOO 11,802 12.475 12,840 11,9110 lU7S 14.172 1-6,G80 17,130 1,423 1,303 1.320 1,330 6,591 1,230 10,620 11.280 21,9SO 30,564 31,1~ 32.120 24,983 28.917 20,180 29,m 231,425 264,919 219,110 200,900 34,21i 36,545 37,ll9O 38.580 1,547 lD,_ 10,64D 10,710 43,7« 48,531 SO,4OO 52,680 4,02' 4,951 5,150 5.400 UI,5iS 521.1S1 53t,52C1 564.'1' 'CfTY '"CITY SPl£RE OF INFlUENCe -"URS6.N SERVICE AREA ".'::' - N ~ , D ~ O! ,., ~ D • ~ ." !:: D C • D 17,540 17,940 n,lI2O • ~ 18,950 19,130 11,340 lS,I8() 17,400 1'._ ~ • • ~ 11,500 B,Sse 11,580 2,_ 3.000 !,O4O n,_ 13.110 13.290 >-.. 11,920 18.180 18,_ ,. " 1,3<10 1,380 1.360 12,_ 14.3110 15,970 33,180 34,020 34._ 30,330 30.110 31,300 301.850 320,910 329.4l1li 41.200 43,730 45,1120 10,940 11,870 l1,fl' 55,030 5e,780 59,110 S,S?D 5,740 S.aso-~ " SH.ne ''',ue UI,%'II f' ::=-- --OTHER ~GIONAL I>S'I£A 1 ~ ~ fi c C N - Changes to Reflect City Specific Comments ~ -. '':' ~ • ~ ~ >< ~ 0 • c CMFSal-20,_ 2~,619 11,000 U,500 • ~ 2~,600 2S,3OD 25,800 a ~ ~ CUPERTINO"' a7,239 17,992 35,900 :11,700 ~1,800 ~3,900 45,400 • GIlROY"" ',163 18,159 17.500 20.100 24,700 29,_ 32,aoo lOS"UOS-',605 lD,493 10,100 16,335 10,500 10,400 10,800 lOSAl.TOS Hl.LS-2,11:\8 2,281 2,_ 2,500 2,600 2 .. 700 2,700 t.OS~TOS-IUD!! 16,809 16,000 11,400 18,100 IS,_ 19,800 .... .. >-" r.am ,o.s-' 16,g59 as,753 :OS,aoo 42.800 48.aoo 53,_ ~300 MONTE SERENO"' ~68 717 500 800 500 800 600 MOIIGAH HIlL -5,572 9,455 9,400 H,OOO 13,600 18,800 20.100 MCX.ffi'AiN V1EW"" 59.279 61,640 60,100 83,700 87,100 11.200 74.100 PAlO AI. TO"" 73,757 94.161 90,000 111.200 91,900 904,700 Sl4.100 SAN.IOSE-231,131 ~15,9&l 314.600 ~3,300 371,&00 ~92,400 409,801) SANTA QJ.,RA-99,901 102.700 99,900 106,500 112,_ 115._ 12l,aoo SARATOGA-5,711 6,751 6,600 a,aoo 8,600 7,000 7.200 S\JNNYV.t-.LE-116.2Sl 111),522 1.02.800 106,200 l1G,_ 117,000 119,600 REWJNOER 3,468 3,654 2,900 3,100 2,900 3,000 3,000 SI'JfiA a.AIIA 7t!,9U IU.041 121,100 192,&35 m,HII '.*,100 1 .. M3.201 "CITY -aTY SPtERE OF H'LUENCE -uRBAN SERVICE AReA -'''OTHER SUIlREGIONAL AREA "'.' ".~,} ---, ';,;,,> _.'" .' • , • DRAFT PROJECTIONS 96 Revisions to 1990 Base PLUS Revisions to the Growth Forecasts ~ ;: '"' ~ ~ • • ;:! "" .. ~ " • • (:AMP9ELld I',Oll \6,509 16,1~ n~''99 la.l19 18,519 18,599 • .. CUPERTINO'" 15,111 17.992 II,M6 19,066 1',450 19,8311 19,848 e • • .. GII.ROY"" 8,245 I~,165 1',182 13,172 15,202 17,422 19,962 lOS,l.l.TOS" 10,5J8 -';0,982 II ,:lOS n,MS l1,~!lS 11,445 11.475 lOS AI. roo HlllS-2.190 2,£62 2,101 2,111 2,B4' 2,BlI 2.821 lose.nos-11,602 12,883 '3.228 13.358 13,4611 U,598 13,1" M'U'lTAS-11,315 H,IM 16,009 11,'" >-., 1"7,909 la,us lU69 >-" MONTE SERENO"" 1,421 1,338 -:,353 1.363 1,373 1,393 U93 MORGAN HrU. H 8,597 9,880 10.610 11.9:10 13,33Cl 15,030 15,820 MCUlTAIII VIEW-27._ 3D,4S!. 31,~1 12,'11 33,951 33,911 M.511 PALO AUO"" 24,913 28,9ll "',216 29,126 30,3811 3D,eee 31.35e SAHJOSE-211,425 2&3,335 274.586 289,318 306,268 319,326 127.1118 smTAClAAA-34,279 36,340 36,885 18,4~ 40,995 43.525 45.&15 -SARATOGA-g,SO 10,346 19,540 10,670 10.MO 10,979 , 1,.1)10 ::r:,. ~AlE" 43,144 4a.e38 50.501 52,181 55.131 58.881 59,211 REWJNOeR 4,018 4.843 5,052 5,292 5,462 5.&32 5.142 SANTA CLAl!A 4511,5" 520,flO 53',520 561.111 1!IS.no '11.198 "',211 i ~ 'CITY ""CITY SPHEI'E Of N'lUENCe -.JRI!AN SERVW::E AREA --onER SU8REGIONAlI>miA ~ .f., f • NoI" that ItIe Center fO( l...IfWn An<if)'SiS ronJeSf-s !he household' (;eRSl,IS cou,.. ror Pafo Ano. CUA esllmafes iIrle cenSus counl is abOut 2 ... 000 I'touselw'ds'oo hig1t ABAG [leeds 10 adhere 10 Ole offICial Cf':nsus counls for !tie coUn1y. r CI:) -f§ 0 e • DRAFT PROJECTIONS 96 Changes to Reflect City level Comments and Changed to Tract Allocations CAMPBELL-20,390 2<1.412 22,800 24,~ 2(,400 25,000 25._ CUPERTlNO"" 37,239 17.992 35.800 38 ,BOO 41.700 43,800 45.400 GflROy-_.163 17.737 11,100 20,300 24,300 29,200 31.900 LOSAl.TOS-•• 505 9,94. 1.500 ,,"00 lQ.OOO 9.900 10.000 lOS AI. TOS HIllS"" Z,036 2,342 2.500 2.600 2.700 2.800 Z,_ lOS GATOS· 13,309 17,063 16.300 17.600 18,400 19.200 UI.!90 UilPITAS"" 16,05. 35,;?SQ 33,900 41,100 41>,800 51.1IOQ 52.800 MONTE seREOO-468 Tn 500 600 500 800 800 MORGAN HIll-5.512 1D~6ge 10,700 14,300 15,000 20,000 21.900 IoI(lIJITAIN VIEW"" 59,219 61,219 59.800 63,300 68.700 10.600 73,800 PAlO AlTO" 73,757 94,129 90,000 91,2OD 11,900 94.700 ",'00 SAHJQSE-231,131 313._ 312,000 340.100 369,200 389,_ 407,2CO SANTA ct..ARA .. 119,901 102.941 100,100 108.100 11Z.100 1\8.100 123.500 SARATOGA-5.711 6,751 1,600 6._ 6,600 7,000 7,2CO SVNNYVAlE-116,253 115,_ 107.600 111,~OO 115,300 121,800 12(,400 RE.lllMiDEF;l 3.468 2.!i'!4 2,2OD 2,300 2,200 2,200 Z.3OO SANTA ct.ARA 1I2.'2Z 152,"1 '21.400 192,7D1 MI."" i~GO(.1OC 1.043'- "CITY ~TY $PHERE OF INFLUENCE -u<BAN SER"JICE AREA --Qn£R SUBREGIONAl ~ -. ". "'--' , • :::t:." ~ " .t-. ~ ...,. tv }J ;;! -. -0 0 .. ~ '"' .. -.. A .. • ~ . ~ .. 0 > " ;.. " til .. .. ~ Dr.tior:s Iruf>roion""P"""",, T~ September IS, 1995 Mr. Frank Locl;:feld. Direc\Of Santa Clara Coun~' Center for Urban Analysis '0 West Hedding Strecl, J 1m Floor San Jose, CA 95 J 10 Dear Frank: This letter is an effort (0 explain our conclusion that it is reasonable that Palo Aho', employment (i.e_ employmenl within the City and on the uniocoq><>rated Stanford campus) could be lower in 2000 and 20 I 0 than ;n 1990. The Jetter 101]0"" up on the re<erniener (attached) you prepared for Mike Evanhoe Io,.,nd '" Pau! Fassinger at ABAG regarding Preliminary Projections '96. The letter notes !hal, -We believe the job estimates for 20lCl are low regarding CampberL Cupertino. Mountain y..,,,. Palo Alto and San Jose. The Cam~en and Palo Alto 20 I 0 job estimates are !he same and lower. respectively, as their 1990 levels. In neither case is this a reasonable assumption, .It.~ougb Palo Aho believes your ~s 10 be appropriate. The Mountain YIeW and San Jose increments of job gro\Vth from 1990 t<> 2010 are m<>ch lower t.'1.n are reason.ble given gro ... th that has already ocC".J1Ted and is likely to continue." The numbers that ABAG pro\ ided in the Preliminary Projections '96 report h.,e employ"",nl in Palo Alto and the Stanford campus at 94,! 61 in 1990.90.500 in 200(), and 93.300 in 201 CO. It is estimated thal el11jlloyment has dropped to .bout 90,000. A number of inter-related fac>ors have led me '" agree with ABAG staffth.t hiD .Aho's employment. incluatng the unincoq>Orated Stanford Unlverstty campus, might!lOl return 10 the 1990 1e"eJ feu signifkant period oftirne. EOHarnilk""" A'l.nu •. ' I'D &:n..10:::-....., P.lt..).e,jIt'.CAG .. rilB 4-153.-""ool.;:.K'..; ,11.5.~,::!2.tt)r-.2.'\ Mr, Frank Lockfeld September 15, 1995 Pagel " • From I variety of sources, it seems clear thaI Palo Alto's employment b., droppe<J DOtic<:ably since I m. These sources include discussions with Stanford Research park employers, information 0" campus and Medical Center employment provided b)' Sta:uord, and our monitoring oflraftk volumes at t.ey Palo Alto intersections, It is especial1y interesting that afternoon peak three-boor traIT..: is lower in 1994 than in 1 m at five of devon key employment-impa<:ted intersections, with four oftlt. five baving /ower peak traffic in 19941l'.an ;:t 198~, Two omer intersections showed only .. very sli!Jhl inere ... from 19&5 to 1994. • Pal<> Alto, as ",im any other area, has a commute shed. As with lOOSt arellS, • blgh percentage of Palo Mo employees live within. 25-to 3O-minute. one·",ay commute and relatively small pertent.ges of employees willli"e more than 45 minutes from the;'-jobs (see attacbed Stanford Research Park Commute Study). Paio Alto's commute sbed expanded in to'>e late 197Os1ear!y 1981ls with the opening Qf the new and greattl capacky Durnbarton Bridge. Sinee commute time. ~pecian}' beyond 25 \() 3iJ minutes, is a critical raclor for m<lSt employees, Palo Alto's commute .hed isn't iikely to ex:pand, except for • possible sman chan ge relate610 the 1994 opening of High .... Y 85. • Within Palo Alto's prim;uy comIT.ut. shed (Le. south San Mateo Coun/y and northern Santa Clara C oun!!o). residential construction :>ctlv;!:, is projected 10 continue at the Jow and very-law rates \Ve bave experienced in the 19&05. Alameda Coonty Ooesn't~r mu(b hope for incre",es ro the Palo Alto labor supply. in large part because !be Dumbanon commute is dlfficult and there is ve~ Iinle capacitY 10 gel more workers from A!amed;; County 10 Palo-Alto. ~:' '-j.,..' ,;-,.' Mr. Frank LocHeld September IS, 1995 Page 3 • There -wears to be general agreement that average wockers pe' household in Palo Aho and Palo Alto's commute shed has peaked and probal>ly "ill drop slightly in the next decades. • Crues within Palo Alto's corronute shed. and especiaUy Mountain Y>e'" and East Bay cities. cootinue to add non-residential floor area. Thus there wHl he more cmploymelll opportunities lOr wockers living in Palo Alto's commute sheds which may especially impact Lie ,,'ock Io<:ati<>o dedsions of people living in the outer portions of the commute shed (i.e., opportunities lOr a 10-15-2{) mLoute commute rather than 2 30-40 minute commute). Decreasing longer distance and time commutes would he consistent with ABAG and MTC commute pattern projections for the Bay Area in 2000 and 20 I O. • Palo Alto's employment areas are essentially fuDy developed. WMe there are some opportunities lOr expansion. it is unlikely that Palo Alto's oon reskiential fJoor area will increase by any subs1....2.~ia! percentage. • "''bile ""f ban~' experieoced and will continue to ba\'e some prh ate redevelopment of existing non-residential sites, the trend has been for some of the larger new uses to generally have lower employment densities tban older uses. This is especiafiy true in the Stanford Research Park. where new biotech uses are the major new use trend, and these uses are having"" e employee lOr 400. 500 0< more square fen • A notable drop in employment has occurred at the Stanford Memoa! Center. and health care employment trends would seem \0 mean mainten:m<:< "f current \rends 0< even ~.lf'.her drops in employment rather than increases. In summary. Palo Alto', employment has dropped; we will experience \'e') limited increases in non-resktentiaI floor area~ new uses coming into Palo Aha tend \0 hil\~ lower employment densities; the labor sUPl'ly in Palo Alto's commute shed "ill .experience smOot! increases during. the next deca.des~ and competing employment Mt. Frank LocHdd $¢plelltbe!' IS, 19f<5 Page 4 , ' ' opportunities will L'lCreOSe b the workers living within a reasonable commtrle from Palo Aho. Ba:;.-d on this tOOll>inati<:tl of faclOrS and ,the drop t~ employmem that bas occurred between 1990 znd 1995, I find it reasooable 10 conclude thill Palo A1,,,'s employment wm remain relatively .tahle over Ille 0.>:1 IS )'ears. Thus, v:,eJ) the drop t."at has ",,<urred, we might Wly weO h.ve less employment 1n 2()()(} and 20 I 0 Ihen we had in 1990, lCyoo wish 10 discuss this, please call me (41 >1319-23S4~ Sincerely_ l<£NNETI1 It SCHREIBER DireclOr of PtanrciM and Community EnVirOnment KRS:jm i;){5; H,g'1uI~!>t ... p<I Anachments ce: Mike hanh"" Paul f",singer. ABAG Gill)' Binger, ASAG Nancy Lytk Jim Gilliland Marvin Overway . FA 1ronsporlOriof}.geocy ~c.....~ .... t.J-W.~-~ , Paul Fassinger, Resean:h Di=1Oc Association G! say Area Governments P.O. 8<>. 2050 . Oaklond" CA 94604·2050 Dear Paul: " + .:" • s.,p<ember J, J m Thank you for the oppu.-tunity 10 comment On Preliminary Projections '96. ~~ .. -Y;"-" ;,..;.:. ,,--;"":.,"; . "~ The comments below are summarized from the CM? Technical Advisor} Committe< I..a.~d {Joe SubCommittee"s review of the Prcr:uninary data. Previous estimates for 20 1 D~ dev~loped from Projections 92 and Projections 94, "'ere compar.d ",ith the Prelimin!lI)' P' 96 projections. Cily estimates for 20 1 S have DO( been developed, hewev .. the (o"..ments regarding 20 1 0 should be lntt:tpreled .. applying 10 the 2() 15 year as wen. We DOle that projected countywide employment has decreased by "I'prow.atcly 35,000 from P' 94 estimates for 2()10, ""d that households, intctprCled as hoI;s1~ ucits, has dropped by mon: than 10 .. 000. The boUsing unit decrease is consistent ",im the contInued low level of r~sidt!ntia1 construction. And we respect your estimates of coUD!J"'ide employm,ru lever of approximately 1,005,000 m2()lO. w. believe the job estimates for 20 I 0 are low regarding Carupbe1l, Cupertino, Moun""" \-"''''. Palo Alto, and San Jose. The Compben and Palo Alto 20 I 0 pb estimales are the sam<: ~ lower, respectively, IS their J 990 levels. In neither case is this I reaso"~~r~p<ig~ . altllougl! Palo Alto beli.Yell yoUI<,~tes 10 be 2ppropdat.",-The Mountain V 1<'" an~ San Jose inc:mnents of jOb groWili TromT990 Ia 2010 are much 10"", than are reasonable given gTO,,1ll dial bas a1Deady occurred and is likely 10 continue. w. believe the 2010 estimates ofhetbjobs and households for Gilroy .. 0100 high. We do no< believe that sooth cOUnly willexpciencc Ibe level ofbusiness sew", .. growth th'" ddves gI",,,,1ll in north county. Th. hoUS(h.old estimate for Morgan Hill is 100 hiSh, The estim.t.s for bolb Morgan Hill ~ Gilroy require COnstru<:tiOD levels that .. ocld txtcod annual Emits imposed by bolb c,ties. WhIle Gilroy's limit goes to 2003. Morgan Hill'slimi'2ocs to 2()lO. -"_. ~,';::--. -, ---"""----" "-~.--~--:----<---. ---;--"""",- :>~""~~' ".: " "--, . < ' .. ,""r· . , --'--, . o Hooscbold ~ are too 10.,. in San los< and too high in S'Wlyvale. The San So,. estimate oOl4K bousebolds is 15K lower Illan p' 941<vets, which wocld mean IlW the P' 9£ to P' 9~ decrease in San los< housing starts is greater than the cO'.Jll!y"~ide declme. The San So", G<cline does not appear reasonable. The p' 96 esrimale fo< Sunnyvale bousing units is 3K higber tllan the p' 94 cstmwe. W. an. DOl lWOI1: of lI!1J circumstance that would kad '" such. large increaSe, especially with • lowered estimate of countywide housing starts. Some of the discrepancies between ABAO', city estimates and CMP d!)' estimates may be due 10 percentage allocations at cities within tracts in the correspan~ence tabk. Atta<;hed are a series of recl)~ modifications to ~ tract &!iDeations. The C~fP allocations to cities are ba.s.ed on zone a1locatioos, wbere ZODes are subdivisions of tracts. Your tract allocations have difficulties with employment estimates whore the tract includes several cities. The most .~ tract is !'046.98, which includes Milpitas, So., los< and Sunnyvale. Tracts that split Moon!ain V>cw and Palo Alto, SunnY''lIIe and'o< Santa Oara and Cupertino, and Sa, Sose v.i-.h l1eighboring Campben and Sanla Clar.! are alsc prob'ems. " A review of the number of employed resid<nts, i.e. worl<ers. per household over tlle projectio!: period show; curious patterns. For example, 20!0 is o low poIne 1507, between 2005 and 2015. where the W<>rl<enIbh ON 1.535 and 1.530 respectivel). Worker per bousehold "'"OS are 10",., than Ihey ~ in"i990 .. when it was 1562. The worker per bOllSCbold estimates in 2010 are lower than they were in 1990 exc.pt for Cupenino, Gilroy,L05 AII<;<, L05 Altos Hills. Monte Sereno and RJ:maindes. San Jose, for e=pr", which had 1.61 .. orkers per ba=~old in 199:' declines 10 1.53 in 2010 and rises 10 only I.S{; in 2O!5. The Ie""'ns for til ... changes arc no< apparent allbis~. lov.'er employed resident estimates df,,, topics Sllch as job-worker ",60s and !he estimate ofJaboc 10 be imported from outside the count} '" fin Santa 0= CoUnly jok. The 2010 year appears different than~thc.r2005 and 201S .. itll respect 10 lIIe differ"""es betweea job growth and srowth in employed r.sicknts. from 1990 10 2005, for eX3mple. joh srowby about 101,500..tWe employed resicknts increase by ~6.000; this is. difference of only about 5,000. However, from 200S 10 20J 0 jobs increase by alm~ 58,000 ""rule employed residents increase less than 20,000; the difference new increas<S by 38,000. The 20 I 0 ""d 20i 5 proje<:tion period bas. job increase onl,. .belll 5400 greater lh3n the increase in resident workers. 11 may be appropriate ~ fe"iew 'L'lC5e osci1Iations in fJ.!'tber derail. at leas: to help 0 ur undemanding of these changes. For your infonnalion, Ibe fable below reports the CMF Adjusted P' 94 esti""tes of jobs .oc household for 2010 as compared \0 Prelimin"" P' %. 2 " . @ 2011 ® ~ .... c: P'9.( ; P'o.! lobo . b. rh 26411 -2 M ~ 44898 26321 + 3701 O. lOW l360 ~ EM. 2430 069 3100 r"" c IofM 19:n: II 18900 113210 ~ ... . S12i' 52400 11&160 =='"S; .3: !no non Is.! 1+ 74504 . 341>: ~ ·3()81 ·3.4])0 n 11500<: ;43130 10~ ?Q()() ~. 115295 IIQCOO 2295 16052 ~ !TOTAIS 6:>9545 .9G jobs + Thank you for !he opportunity 10 cortUmnt on Preliminary Projections '96. As ~ou know. we are in the process 0( improving: the countywide land use data'b~ ~ Inc transyor~r;oll zone Ie. cot We look forv.-ard 10 <he opportunity 10 share: existing ~d future avallabr. fund 1.!.'< "itll AB. ... G 10 assist and improve the Projections process.--- .Michael P. EV:lMoe. Director Congestiuo Mar.agemenl Pmgr.lrn -,·r "- "c~~4~ ~~~t1~C 'tt1-tr~ Allcc~tt~ns e <:en&o' Pof1;.l_t.i,cll ~c~t ~-~t7 l,ga tUO U90 :Ollt 504E01 IN 99 to " ,. v 'OC6al rA I I 21 ., ~")l >U • e 1 , "'198 SJ 100 100 J 1 50Ini 50 • ~ J( 90 _ 50noo KV u " JS 95 501'00 sa 11 31 S 5 SOS~l se " )Q " " 505.201 $!I I " 1< If SOS~ll' $C SO 50 ;0 ~Q 505203 .", 50 50 50 5. 5058<;0 &J lOO 100 90 t. "58~ $C 0 • ,. 10 SOS90a s .. 5 5 '0 5 5OS900 SO 95 " 10 95 Si1h02 CA '0 CG '0 40 50460l s.1 •• 60 ,. 60 5.650l "" 30 30 30 30 S¢i50! $J 10 '0 '. 10 SOU01 0-11 12 1> U 5Oi'Ol SJ .. ea It 88 50"0.1 CA " .. ,. 26 SO," 3 SJ ,. H " " SOUO( Cl< 12 12 20 2' 5QUc' SJ S{ I( ao 80 SO"O' S>-• • I • 50660. CA 15 15 1> 15 50".5 SJ 8S 15 as tS 506606 CA !lO •• .0 •• 50660' • J l. , . 10 10 50(70] CA 50 '0 • • SOO103 &J so so .. .. 50'900 u; IS IS '5 ., saUoe SJ 15 15 5 5 bQ12G2 loG " se 1 •• 100 507102 lOS • , • • 5C12n u 11 10 2, 2. 50720S LG to ~~ t. 10 50120' !WI • • • • 50720' lIS " 9& Ii ,£ & @ ~ tlod1t'i.cal;1.Qns to Citr-rZ';.ct ~QC4t.1ctl~ e...... Popul.aUon """'01'Z1'0'>~ ~.". .cit,. 1$10 :Ol~ lUD 2010 IU100 S>1 1" 100 10. 100 5l2'-2,. -loa 100 100 lOO sn,ol ~ II 15 11 ~e nHOO ... U " S, 5, $124~ -5' S4 " %< --.-:;-~~.' . . -" . ':.-,' ~ " ---~--, .' ~ o CPAC Briefing Report STANFORD RESEARCH PARK EMPLOYEE RESIDENTIAL LOCATION AND COMMUTE PATTERN ANALYSIS FfN additional i1iformatio. about "" COnIenll of this papa. pletJu conlact the following lead author: K.nnn~ Schrei?>er. Director of Planning and Co".".,.,ury EnvironJr""'1 329-2354 -'-.- -.,.---,.;.-. ---"';". J-"'- .-~ .. , --. " - .;. .... _,:~ .--".;.' -I'" -'.;;-' ;-.-.... ",,' , "' ,;;'; '~ '''':;' .:f ~. '-; ", .. ,< STANfORO RESEARCH PARK t~LOYEE RESIDENTIAL LOCATION AND COMMUTE PATTERN ANAlVSIS The f.llo';ng .n.lysls comp.re. 1962 and 1991 surveys of St.nford Research P.rk employees. Bot~ ,"rveJ' coot.ined dati from .~proxfm.tel, 2S percent of the P.rt', ""ployees (2,SOC of approxim.tel, IO,Soo f. 1962 and 7,422 of .pprDxi~.t.ll 23,000 i. 1991). Tbe 1991 employe. ,urvey foe.sed on the four P,rk employers with 1,000 Dr more employees i. the Park. The 1962 survey wa; from I broader .. ployer ba,e. The extent t. which the 1991 res,lts wODld be differeot if lOst Dr .11 Park employers were included Is not directl, known. However. comparjs~n ~f )ournel-to-wDr~ data from the 1991 survey ~th Santa Clara and San Mateo Count} 1990 federal census data iDdicites reasonable compatibility. The analys~5 iocludes bac\ground iBformatfon on t~e data sources ar~ analysis Qf employee residential locations. means of travel to and from w~rk, and trivel tfme. The inalysis also contains a conclusfons and implementation sectl0i'l4 fortlons of the 1962 survey and resldentla' location by city and county for the 1991 survey responde~ts are ittac~ed. Special t~anks are extended to ColleeR ",Carthy and Jerry Ruddy of tne Santa (lara Count} tommuter Net~ork for their ~11ingness tD generate and S~ire ~apped and tabulated data from tne 1991 survey. Background I. 1962, the Stanford rnaustrlal P.rk had approximate1, IQ,SOO employees. Twenty-two park fi~ss representing approximatel} 9,500 employees, particfpated 11 I transportation survey~ Z,.gg employees submitted completed questionnaires. The survey ~ork was ~Do~f~ated by Jack Beckett. then PreSident Qf Palo Alto Engineering Company. The ~ort was undertike~ with t~e u5lstafl(;.e Clf Stanford Un.iversity's (,,,i1 En'9'lneer'iog Oepartme.fl,t, Yith. the 5urvey resalts tabulited by ciYil engineering student, Brad inman. T~e 1962 survey report is attached. I. 1990 t (i.lifof,h. voters ip~rGved traT'ospo.rtaHoo-related ~'DpDsitions tfla\ included the requlremect for ~ount1 Congestion "anagement Ager.cles (CHAs). I. Santa Clara (ountJ. tne local CMA emerged from t~~ Golden Triangle Task force, ~ ~ulti-jurisdictjDn transpDrtatio~ and land use oriented ,lanning effort. Tbe l~s\ force bad devel~ped a model tranSpDrtat,on demand management crdf~ance that was adopted by five cities and Santa Clari County_ To facilitate implementation ~f the ordinance, the Task force established, funded and staffed the Santa Clara Countl Commuter Net~ork (eN). I. 1990, the eN became a •• leme.t of the County (MA. The ~or' of the CN included working wit~ Jarge employers oc their transportatfon needs, i~cludin9 admiaistration of an employer survey. II 1991, transportatfon survey resu1ts were available ror 7,422 of the approxim.t,l, 23,000 employees located f. tne Stanford Researc~ Park. The surveyed em~'oyees ~rk for one ~f the four companies with more ,~-. " ", ." f ~/, ... : -:;~~. i tha" 1,000 employees ;ft the P.estlrch P~rk (H@lli1ett-h.d .. ard, S},ntex t Yuh:!"., Vatkl.s-Johnso,'. Neither the 1961 nor the 1991 sur,ey res.lted ; •• random .ample cross .ectlon of the Park's t.t., employment. I, 1961. 19 of 22 fino. i. the Park partfctpated, but responses rro~ the ffrm~ as I percent of thefT employment .aTled (onslderobl,. Tbe 1991 survey, by Its lloitatlo. to firms ~ith over ],000 employees, does nQt reprtsent newer firms fl the Park, and perhaps contl.1Rs employees with lo'lge'T aver.age 'IIort. tern.rrt. The 1991 survey was a1so not a rlndo. sample survey of t~e four partlcipat{~g fi~s. E~en .;th these constTiir.ts, analysis of t~e survey res~lts yields i~formation that is consistent ~it" Fr~ftssional research reparted in ,iannfng and other professlonal publications. Key <onclus¥ons lcclude~ The .ast •• jorit, of employees live withi' 15 mIles of t~e place of wort; -A very small per(entage of emplo~ees live fart~er than 30 miles from t~elr work slte; Average one·~aJ commute times are nat sigclficantil longer 11 l~~l than 11 1962; ind The number cf employees who commute i. single-occupant automobiles ~as increased over the past decades. EmPlQyee's Residential locatioD Tbe 1961 survey idectified I ·regional area-extending on t~e PeniAsul, from t~e tit1 .f San <arlos thro"gh the (it, of San Jose. 2,320 (92.8%) of the Z.499 employees responding to the surve~ lived ~t.il this area. f~r these 21 320 employees. the iT residential locations vere identified is: North of Pal. Alt. {Le., lIe.l~ Park thro"gh San Carlos} llenl. hrt 6.~"; Redwood (ity 6.0lI Pal. Alto South of P.l. Alto (i.e.r ~unt'iR View thTOug~ Sa. Jose} Hi •• lie •• Los Altos SunnY'Jile • (:upertino Santa t\ ara los Gatos I Saratog. San Jose 21. 0lI 14.8% 1.2'1'0 9.0lI 4.5% 20.8%* 20.9%:1- 56.5\* t for an Une)pl1ined reason. the totals i~ th~ 1962 study equal 98.2% rather than 100%. 2 "'. -The residential location identified by the 1,422 respondents t. 1991 .ur,eys Ir. identified by city '0 Attachment I. By county, the re.ult., including all cit'.' with 100 or .or. eoploy ••• , i.clud.: A 1 allied. Cou n ty fremnot 380 Contra Cost. County I!ari~ Count! Rapa tounty Sin franc Ise. San Kate. County 1Ie,1. Park 134 Redwood Cit! 294 San Carlos lOS San Milteo 132 Santa Clar. County Clllpbell 105 Cupertino l.S los Altos 302 IIi l,1lt,s lOS lito. riow n9 Pal. Alta 633 San ,Jos. 1,3\5 Santa (lin 303 Sunnyvale JS3 So lin. C .un ty Sonoma County OUtside of the Bay Area Total 134 40 5 a ZIO 1,363 4,898 1 S 1M 7,422 3 (Z_SS) (I8.U) {66.O%J- {U~} '.' • An offort t. ~omp.re the two ,.rveJ' ,sfng the geogr.p~ic.l breokdowns f. the 1962 survey yfelds the following: • ~tslde of t~e ·Tegional ire,- (I .•.• San Carlos through San Jose) 1.2\ (II! of 2,499) 24.5\ (I,B21 of 1,422) • Otstribut;oQ af e~loyees lfvlng ;~ the 1951 ·regfonal irea-of San Carl.s through San Jose: lill 1m • "orth or f.l. Alto 20.8lI." 13.11 (Le:, llenl. Port thrQug~ Sa. Carlos) • Pol. Alto 20.91;" 11.11 • So"t~ of fol. Alt. SE.5'· 7.s~8%'" [i.e., Mountlia 'few through San Jose} • As noted prev}ously. the 1962 percentages total iB.2X rat~er t~aD 100%. ** InclQ~es C~~bel1 and MiT,itiS fl 1991; dDes not ioclude San ~artlRs Morgan 8111, and Gilroy. • Df.tribut;oe of employees 11,lng iD <itte. i. the 1962 regional ar.a (0. • percent of tot.l employ ••• li.ing i. the 1952 regional areo}, lill Wl 1Ie,1. Park 6.5\ 4.1\ ~_ocl City 6.Of. 5.2:1 fal. Alt. 20.gs, 11.11 Nount.t. VIew I lo, Alto. Z I. Of. 11.8lI. Sunnyvale • Cu~ertlno 14.8lI. 19.6\ Santa (larl 7.2'1: 5.3" lo'S Gato'S • Saratoga 9.Of. 3.1% San Jose 4. Sl 23.ll • The 1962 s~rvey prc~lded percentages based on the tDtll employees Ji'i~g .nthi. the 'regfo.,l 'reo.' Rec.Jewlating the 1962 and 1991 surve, percentages to reflect totll employment and translltiog t~e 1962 ,:\shire'\~,,,,, 4 .. ' "'-" . percent.ges ioto "".bers of emp10yees yields the following figures. Not. that the 196! .urvey accounted for .bout lS~ of t.ta1 Park employment ,od the }991 survey iccounted for aboot 33~ of tot.l Fark emp 1 oyme.t. llll un " OUtside of the 'regional arei·, from San Clrlcs 7.~ (179) 24,SlI (I,B22) through San Jose North of f.1. Alt. (I .•.• from Me.l. fart through 19.7:4 (494) 9.911 (73!) San Carl.s) • • Palo Alto Ii.n (48S) 8.5\ (633) • Santi Clara Count11 from Kount,'. 'lew through San Jose 53.77. 11.341l 57.11 14.215)" TOT/,L 100.0\ (Z.499) 100.0\ (I,422) • Doe, not include the 10 empl.yees from San ~rtl •• Morg.n Rill and &i1roy that are outslde Df the J96t ·regi~nal area.- Percentage of tot.l employment and number of employees by city yields: Mea" fark Redwood C HJ Pal. Alto ""untail 'ie~ • los Altos Sunnyvale' Cupertino Santa Claro los 'atos • Saratoga San Jose Iranspo~tlt\OQ tB and fr~ ~Q~k illZ. 6.0\ (lSI) 5.6\ (39) 19.4:1; (t85) 19.5\ (487) i4.BlI. (34l) 7.~ (157) 9.0\ (209} 4.SlI. {1M} 1lil 1. ~ (Z34) t.O\ (294) 8.S' (633) 13.911 (I.Oll) 15.11 {I. liB} t. U. (103) Z.CI'. (179) 11.71; (1,311) II 1961, 66.4\ of .mplo~.es dro,. alone to work, ~ic" the 196! report noted was -more than the Ba, ATel iverige Df 601.-II ]991, 73.11 drove .lone to york. T~e 1962 ,.rvey 'ndiclt.s that 28.4\ of employ.es shared, ride t. ~" ~tl. the combined carpool .nd .a.poo1 percent.ge il 1991 wa, 14.6%. Alternatives te the Cir were Ilmost nonexistent il 1961, .nth 1.7i ~lt;Dg Dr bl,yclfng and Il~ost no ~se of bus Dr rill trans;t. I. 1991~ S.~ ised public 5 · ~.' .'-.<. ' bu.es, 2.4i rod. bicyc~es and 1.4' .sed CIltr.i.. The 1991 mode distribution for 7,420 employ ••• is: 1991 Stanford Research Part Coamute Mode ~ HlJfbe[ gr E!!Illg:/l:~~ P!1!:~en:tA9!: Drive Alone 5,428 73.11 Corpool 1,'74 14.5" hnpool U 0.81 Public ~5 434 S.8I Private Bus 6 o .J" lletorcyc 1. 43 0.6" Bicyc" 1112 2.5" V.n. 34 0.5" tolt .. i. 107 ].4\ ot~er --.ll ...Q..11! 7,422 1 O{). 0\ The f.llowing table compares t~e Researc~ ,arl'. 1991 commute modes wit. Santi tliro and San "ateo County commut. modes IS identified I. the 1990 federol c-ensus~ Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vall other Tn. vel Time SRP'1991 73. " 14.5 1.3 $.5 4.6 (ornnute PIodes Santa C10r. County 1980 1990 12.S!; 17.7% 15.6 12.3 3.1 3.0 Z.E t.l 5.3 4.' San "ateo County 1980 lll!Q 68.81 12.5" IE .5 13.0 J.9 7.4 Z.6 2.6 4.! 4.S Tbe }962 suney report Included travel time. and the estimates that "the ayeri~e comm~te time for employees in t~E Stanford Industria\ Par\ ;$ 20 to 2S mfnutes {one-wa, trip}.- 6 .'. - I . ;' '. ~". .,:-i' The 199] surveJ did not ast for Iv!rage trivtl tfme. but i variety of ~ther data wo.ld In~;cit. that the iverage trivel time is comparable t. 1962, Census dati indicates that for P.lo Alto residents. the iWtTage travel timE to vorl Increased sli~~llJ f~ IS.! .i"utes i. 1980 t. Ig linute. i. 1990. for Santa (lara (OUntl. average trivel time increased frorn 22.S linutes ift 1980 t. 23.1 Iinutes i> 1990. Cens", ind other d.t. {odicite that .. erage co,,"ute tf .. I, f. th. 20· to 25-.I •• t. range for every lirge America. urba. are. I!:Xcept fer somewhat .fg'her times iI urbai'\ areas IIflU: lIajor COfii1HJter rail facilities (I .•.• New Tort. Chicago ond Pblladelpbli). CeRsus data for Pal' A't~ 11so indicates slight deCr!iSeS in resident workers lrit\ commutes less than 19 mlnutes and Dver 45 minutes and increases for commuter triwe1ing between 20 and 44 .inute5~ ~owever, 71 percent of resident workers ~ave travel tfmes of less t~an 30 minutes. for Santi Clara and San ~ateo Counties, the trends are compirable to Palo Alta c~tes; except )1 San ~ateo Count't t~ere ~s i slight decrease in t~e percentage ef residents t •• ve1ing betwe •• 2Q and 29 .inutes. T~os. _ith travel time les. t~in 30 .inutes tot.t1 64.7' of San Mateo County resident lIiork:ers ind 61.2% gf Santi Clara Count, resfdent worLers. Another way of eViltiating travel time is the distance workers li~e from the ResearCH Park. Resldentfal location of t~! 7,422 .orlers 1ncluded 1a 1991 surveys has been ,latted by the Commuter NetwGrk in one-sq~are-.;Te grfds. Results of t~e plottfDg indicate t~it: ~~'~D&!~rt Df~tance I of VOf'ters I: SiJ Vorb.rs 10 .il.s or l.ss 5,256 58.7~ II t. 20 mll os 2.821 )1." 21 to 30 miles 644 J. z-. 8eyond 30 1111 es 224 2.5% When t~e resldentill locations are mapped~ it is <lelr t~at I s~bstantiil .ojoril, of those living i. the 11-to ZO·mile ~,.t.nc. ire l"atod wit~i. 15 .iles from tbe Park. Conclusions and Impljcltions Conclus!ons and Implicit ions thit emerge from the 196~ and 1991 survey res.lts illcl sae:- • The 1991 cOMUte patterl extends (Iver i larger area thin the 1952 patterl~ but the residences ~f yorkers remalB primaril, -nthi. a IS-mile radios Df the Research Park . • The ~11ingness gf commuters t~ triwel long distances is not is great as eften assumed ia casual reference t~ pe~ple commuting from ~odesto, Tracy. an~ Gilroy (respecti.ell. 14. 15, and 9 people out of 1.411). If 1 " .. : . o .11 R.se.rc~ 'ark comm.t.rs who 11,. beyond 30 .il •• froo the Park (2.5\ of t~e survey) (~anged jobs to work close to thefr houses. the l~pact on congestion woald be • mill •• , (and perhaps not even detettable) l"1'ro • ....,.t. • The commut! pattera ;s consistent with resear'~ $tudies that indicate people tend to work withi •• re.sonabl. (defined by some as IS alle./30- 4G _inutes) distance from their residences. Studies .lso Indicat. t~.t t~e average ur~an area commute time is ~ot getting s;9nificintl, longer. fbe Metropolitan Transportltic~ CDmmiS$lon predicts that average commute tImes I. the Bay Area will decr •• s. between 1990 and 2000 and 2010. The decrease res~tts primarily from continuing dispersal of jobs resaltiDg i. I greater mixing of employment and residential locations allowing ~ore peopie t~e option af wortfng ia clos~r proximity to their res idl!nc.es. • The increase 11 the percantag! of ~orker5 driYlng alone to work is si~11lr to count} and regional tren~s. but the Res!arch Park's commute patterD is somewhat closer ta San ~ateo County t~an Sar.ti Clara County Fa.ttens. • To t~e extent t~at I) most urban areas ;1 Sar. Mateo an~ Santi (lara coun~;es that are ~th;. 15 miles of the Research Pirk are substantially deyeloped~ and experiencing very moderate residential developmenti 2} potential resfdentfal growth areas il Alameda Countl are it or beyond the Margie of I reasonable co~ute time; 3) under curre~t zoning, the Res!arch fart ~iS relatl~ell Jimlt!d potential for Dew b~;ldin9 area; and 4) new employment opport~ntttes contfnye to disperse t~roughout t~e larger urban are., it is u"li~ell t~at t~e R.se.rc~ fark {and all of Palo A1t~~ under current land Ise po1i'ies~ giwen the limlted potent~al for eop10yment growt~ throughout the C.t,} will experience slgnificantl, -increased numbers (If <-orrrnuters. • TQ the exteut that SQccess i. inducing ~or\ers to not ~se thetT automobile ~s Dften relat!d to those commuting long distances, tne 1991 dati t~at 58.11 of wariers live .nt~i. 10 miles of the fark or.d 9.1S lfve beyond 20 .iles does not bode well for signific.ntl, decre.se1 automobile lise .. • An implic,tion of the )991 commute patter.s {and tIme speot commuting) is that volDntar~ polieies~ programs and iDfrastructure {e.g., carpo~l lanes~ upgraded trall service} are unlikely t~ have an appreCiable pos1tive eff!ct en lnducl0g a significant number Df people to oot use their iutomob1les fo~ c~uting. ~asures that ~~ effectively discourage auto use include ~anditory parting c~arges. rOid us~ fees and Europea~ level 9a~oltne taxes. l~ere fs little, if any, likelibood t~it ~ny of the$e' measures ~~1 become ~cceptab1e pub1ic PQ~icy ~ithl' a foreseeablE tfme period. • The decreased percentage of Researcll Part 'Workers from San Mateo Count" Palo Alto, ~untii~ View and Los Altos, Santa (lara and Los Gatos/Saratoga refl!cts the greatl, increased employment options 1m 1991 e , -- VtrS~1 1962 lna ImproY~4 acce.s to Southero Alamed. {ounty', .xpa~.a bou,fog opportunlt! ••. • The signlfltantly fll<:r.asl!6 per«nuge .f ",orhrs Ihing fa Sunn)",.I. and Cupertln., ,od e,peclally I, .orth.~ San Jose, reflects the •• b.tanti.l amount of bou""9 aev"oped I~ tho.e communit!e, OYer the ,lst 30 ye.,. and the Ttlltl •• ly more affordable housing fo t~os. locations t~an fa ,,1. Alt. (.!though the diff.renc. j~ housi"9 price. betwoeo Pal, Alto loa are.s t. the south appeared t. narrow during t~. 1980.) . Att.c~meots, 1~91 toplcye. Survey -t;t, of Resldeoc. '19~l Survey Report '. ' . :,." . '. f) e Attlthm~"t I 1991 St.nfor~ Research Park £~yloyee SljrV~1 • City of Re$fdeoce Al~. (/)\jot, .IIarlll County AI_d. 5 Belvedere 0 Albany 0 tofU ".dora 1 Ilerke1el J fairfu 0 llublil 8 larkspur 0 ~rf\'l11. 0 ,Ull YoHey 2 fP'ell!Obt 38() lo~ata 0 H.ywt ... 59 ~s. 0 I.ivermore Il S~~ Anselmo 0 ~r\ 111 S.~ Rarael 2 (!ak1a~d U S.Qnllt~ 0 1'1 e<IatJ;l \ e Tihurce .....J tlus~~t •• 21 hn lu~c!r~ 12 ht.l S Un!on tlty 83 Sunol .-...l Toul 134 tont .. tosh County lIap. Count, Mtfoc~ 3 Calhtog. 0 er •• twond 1 N~. 0 thyt~n I st. ""'0 •• 0 t.Il<'~n! ) YOUQtville __ 0 D.nyI11~ 1 (1 terrltt I lohl C 1li!)"(·,IO$ t laf.,_Ue 8 M.\Ytl~el Q San f (iI!\<: I St. tlO H<lrl~ •. Q 0r,D a 1 Pfl!ole 2 Sol ~M CO~"tJ Pithhur 9 1 'l .. unt ~il1 3 Senlth 0 tlt"",,,n4 1 DiXon 0 $M I'_bl~ 0 rllrfleld 0 San All",,,. , Il.i~ list< 0 Yalnut Creet 4 S.h". CHy 1 Calley -1 Yae •• ill. 0 V.1Jej. .......i r.tal 40 totd J <i) (D Sin Nat eo Cooot, Santa Clara Count! Atherton l6 Campbell 105 Belmont 75 Cupertino 355 Brfsbane 4 'ilrol 9 8urling .... 21 los Altos 302 C~lma los Altos Hills 64 Daly City 31 los ,.tos 66 East Pal. Alt. 73 Milpitas lOS Foster titl 60 Honte Sereno 5 Ralf Moon eay 43 MO!"gan Hill Il Hill s borough 8 Mounhh Vfew 729 Jllenl. P.rk 234 'al. Alt. El3 Mil 1 bra. II S.n Jos. 1,317 'aciflca 33 santa (lan 303 Portola 'all., U Saratoga III Red1ouod Clty 294 Sunnyvale 753 San Bruno 29 San "'artia 8 San Carlos 105 Stanford ---11 San ... teo 132 5.San rrancisc" 29 Total 4,898 'o'o04sI6. H ta Rooda II Pescadero 4 Sap. 6regor;o 2 JIIoDt ira 12 Ploss Seac. 1 l .... Jller I n iiranada -ll Totol 1,363 Sonoma ecuDt] Cloverdale 0 CctoH 0 Healdsburg 0 Petaluma 2 Rohnert 'ark I Sanh Rosa I Sebastopol g $(IMma 0 'Windsor ...l Totil 5 2 , ---"{ F -~-----'--_ . . "-- ,.:- .. '. outside or the 8ay Area tllavtrls Count} 2 (I Dorado Count} 3 ~ndocjDo Countl ) IIont.rel (ount1 IS Sacr~nto CountJ 2 San Benito Countl San Joaquilt e'Unt, 19 TrlCY IS Other 4 Santi Crwz Count! 91 Boolder Creek 1. Sanh er.z 23 Scot ts fa 11 el 10 San Lorenzo 7 Other 21 Stanlsllos County 25 PIodesto 14 Other II STANl'CIm lIIOOSTI!IAl. OOUI: DIPUlIERS ill coopenUcn wi'oh ~b. Cnu. tIIIlIlIE!:RIXI Ill!PlRDIEII'I'. Sl:A1!F(IID I/lIIVEiiSM PALO ALTO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA '. · .". AC~N'l3 This .t~ 148 »&de posdbl. t.'>rougb the eoopenUon ot ho!. Cluk 0g1 •• 1>7 and hot. ViD¢ent I. R0&8eveen 01 the CiriJ. Er-oeiMt>rtnc Department o! St&!1toM Il'ftiveroit7. The qu •• ti~ ..... prepared .l<>intl1 1>7 Pro!. Roggenen, I. C. Beckett and Brad Inm&n. I'.r. Inman 1 •• eiYil enc1neorlni ,tudent .t StaDlord. He cO"l'loted tho tabnlaUOl> ot reruts and made the eross retere:Deft ana.lyIils tor eV<iUaatJ. em. \ -, Twnt, two f1r1u eocperated 1>7 distrtbutil:c questionnaire. tG eo;>!o;yoe •• I. C. Beckett, Pre.1,jent of lMCO, acted a. Chairman of tho El!t>lo;yors croup. Li.t ot c;.,oporatil:c finIo • IlepreeentaUvo" .ldm!.nl Corpora'-1on, 1.. E. lIuseh .lUred nee\ron1c., .ll Jw l!eclal...,lspu,co, Rollert CunnizlghaJo CoiItl'Ol Data CorporaUon, I. J. l'erbor ~ X_, 'oi. A. BeUsle a-~ nectric Co., B. II. Coulter 01zm It (0o .. W. I. ConliJl B81dott-Paekard Co., .... 1th E.U.dge tockheed X I: S C-o-., Ka.riOD L". Sellers I!olah., J)oo I.. Smitb Xi!ttronic., A.s.soeiates, IDeo .. W .. ,6.. Perk1ns JrAtioDal. hees, Jollies eo. l'ut.e Fret_d Line Produets Co., B. F. BoUat. Palo .ll 1>6 EJ>c1z>oerillg Coq>alv', I. C. Beclrett Rad1&t1ao at StaDlord, 1)8"n1o [. Wilson Sboc:ltl.q 'frana1.a-tor. lobn SeloVAr' V. -I. SWeeT, Inc .... if .. L. !utler s,ntu IJostltute, Charl •• Bmth J.". 30, 1962 Vt.ah C-aDstruct1on & M1.n1ng CO'J! Y • .1 .. Seedorfl. Jr. v_ I.s.oc1ate., Donald .l. R>rtle<I&e Vid;ra, Inc., Georss rue,r. WatJdno-JoIlruoQlI~, S. G. Whitt,l...,. Ilm\alOCnllll !'be tollow1ni project __ W>dertaken iA response to ." '~r increuil:c de_ to loam t.he travel hab1 ta and de.ire" ~.t tbe people wrki.a& in the StaDlord lndn.trial hr'I: and ~ atten;>t to re"","",nd " ""tun plan tor the reU.f <>t traffic congeoUon. n is noeogniled that Pal<>.1.1~ 10 a tocal pOint tor """'7 cOlllllUtero in tho IIl.d-peninsul& area end that StaDl.rd Ind ustr1&l Park -te now a major employment. cen.ter .. J.ccording t.o the Sta:,tord II'ni.., .. 1t;r bw!~e •• ortice the rr.m.trial Parle is .-. ~S~ de"'lope~. Present .""loroent _r. about 10,$00 people; tbus there 11111 bo .~tnall7" 20,000 t? 22,00\) people destined Cor the Park area each ""rk1ng 407. This 1, ""'re tha..'\ tho existing end pl&m;ed roads can b.a.Ddle wi tlIout. causinc severe tratfie congest.1.on. EDpl0'7UO in the Industrial !'uk recognize the 1>¥>ortanee or pre.ervinl: 800dvill with the 5U!Toundi"l! ,.uid""t.iol e......"lU •• "7 diroetU!8 \n!rtc awoy troz> local .treet. and ontG ap;><"Opri&te .. oj. and bigh1O&YJi de.1ped " ; .'," i .-. , . o r~ the cOlIIII1ter t.nrf'1e. this report presents :5Urfty Nsult.s on present c~t.e patterns and desires of mopl."l"E!if!S 1a the U'e8. S4I'lt.a Cl!lra Cevrty has grew tremendously in the paat. fifteen :year!!. The tralfic p~lell ie-&C1lte everywhE'rB in the C¢UfltJ'" and is not. limited to !.he lIIid-i""'1nsula. '!'be ~tat.e Dividon of !!j6bWI\Y' ~<t_te. th.t the htgh~ denorenOT .t Sant& Clara Count)" b7 1970 11111 be $800,000,000. ,"0.\ or this 11111 ~ lor 100&1 higbwsl'" and count)" roed.. no .t.ate high- 1IQ' DI!I ed IlI'OW'lt S to .)2S2 J 100 .,0C'l0 • l'h t 5 requirement. \:.&n be e.xpected. to:! be P.et trom , .. soline taDs but the COWlty de!1clenq it beyond! present. .means or £1zw1c1llc. !)" the 100l' lY80 !.he total hlgJN0.7 ~t1e1.l1CT 1lI the countl' >111 o""oed 1.9 bUlion dollar •• In 1961, the people of San" Clara Count.)" "I'P", .. d b7 ho-tllrd. major1t;,-I $70,000,000 l!:xpre.~ !'ond Pr.gn.... l'be •• &no gez>eral obli~&ti." toMs to be uet2 oYer a teo ;reu period t~r the e:onstNc.t1oD or »jor expre'G~ to COIUl8Ct "sident1&1 and. Iq)].qnent center.. l'he progrQll h ~.!.gned t.r three ot&(e. ot conot""'Uoc tot&l1~ ~lO,OOO,OOO (no allov ancil tor tnnat.1.on). The est1:llated ~ tu rate for rep4J"ment. of the !trot .tap bondo h 2~'/~oo a.ss._ valuation. !nIio El<preP8lll9' procraa 10 plaDned to supp1 .... nt .tote tr<>e~ &lid b~. Three expre ......... 11111 dinctly ,ervo the StWcrd Indu.tri&1 Puk area .. the Foct'hlll !xpres8ll87, the Central. Expressw&7 ... and the Oregon Avenue-Pag. 11111 Rood l!:xpr<>.~. l'be State Div1s1® or lIiihWl\Y> bas pllU\B to lIOdeotl)" ilIIprove El Canino Real .. a Mia. arf.o.'3:ry t.o the St.antord Indu.:!t.t'1&1 Park. fvc my treewaysl· Jurdpero Serra .. one aile .!outhwest ot t.he FoothUl bpreS8Yl.7, and 'WU.lov I!oad, 21lllil •• northw.t of Poe-I!Ul R.ad w1l1 not dinetl)" 08 .... the Indltstri&1 Park but. VU1 han 00'" 1n!lu.ne. on future trattte pat.teMl$. t1DI! object of thi. repori 11 t. obtain prel1ainar7 1n! ....... Uon on tho po •• ibl ..... of ..... truri t to redIlce !.he _ ..... of IUtonobu" tnffic an<! storqe. n should be oboe~ thet 0_17 lira 1D tho Indust.ri&1 Park 10 required to prc~ adequate ctt-otreet par1dJ1c tor ill ell>lOTO". and Virltore. thi ....... Dl. ..... ta.tor he. the .tr.ct of ~ .... or prlYato autol!lob1l.. ... the sol. _ana .f tzuspcl'tatton. Pre sen. space devoted to Iut.OIIIObUe par1dJ1c 10 60 ae .... &nd 11111 imro1Te at lean 140 ae.... .r the Stante"," land re ..... d r"" re •• &r<:h and liP' 1ndustl'y. The lleed for a Solution Involved 111 the probleM or tr&!f'ic ctmgest10n is t.he exees" 't.i.ms :re quired tor CORaltillg P.nd the incomoenionco both to the c ...... ter h1=el! and to local re:s!dent.s who feel the effect.. of he&'7,1 traffic and congestion. 10 .... ba.. full)" evUuat..>d the c •• t or COllllll1t.illg b7 pri-.ate autoDobU. in ~eTence t.o a lPOI"8 eftic.ll."tIt q.stem:" but the cost. 1 s even gz'9&\.er mlder comiU_ ot congesUc::. &nd probable del""",. Unlo .. meb !IIOl'<I 10IIII 10 ~votad ~ lligllway. and parking space, there 1s no possible solution to the e~Dt trenc! oC rrowth ill tJU.s a.rea. Con sl&tr1ng the eost ot land and the limited UlDWlt ava.w.able :tor development, .." &1t.ernate .. l"UCl1 is desirable to haruUe future 10&40. PIIbUc tranaportot1on botb b7 ~. &n4 by tr&1ll, are potent1&ll7 IIOre e.tt1c1ent tor ::JOo'1'1.ng cotr.mlters. Tho prot-le!'l. or gt't.ti..nj: people to use publ1. transpcl'tat1o. bao been priJ>aril)" one of .tanda.rds of service and ba.bU. n.e ~ns1ty DC ~be Pal. Alto """& is not. 10'0 gr •• t enough to suppori & S)'"Stem haVing standard,=, ot service equal to c-r better than the automobUe, but "be U ... 10 not far distant -..hen this VU1 be t.he C&~. It is not too earl;,-to plan tor the oo""leta ".eve1opment .r the StWord Indc.rlr1&1 Park and tt.e lQe&nS tor reach:l.ne it. -~ - , . .. ,".,". , • . .', f :', -' .. ' "." , , "." ) t21 () AUied with Wo pl-=tnc it the growth ot the Palo Uto-Stantot"d &Ma .s a .l~ lnchld.i.nc the COl:IIP.Jte t~ other areas (rca local rendential sec.\ions of the &1d-peninaul.. nanning tor tht!) ~t'\U"e 1. ~seent.1.&l. t.o the preservation 01 business l."'lvestJrient i.n. the area and t.'1e enhancement. 01 ra s! IlanUal propert,. val" ... '1"&10 INZ'ft1 deal. ~ with the people wl>c 1IO,k in the St.r.n!ot"d Industr!&l Park. II •• ~~t 11&. beell .. ds to otlU\1 total trafUc or the 1DflllOll'"..e <>! otaer e~a,r.ment center. oa routa &election ot Park ~la,yees. :Jeftlop1¥ the Queatlonna1re , qgestl<>M&ire type ~1 .... Judged to be tho oZll,-pr.ctlc&l "'ans .,t developi.ne r&c:tual WOl"l!Stion suitable tot' arAlyai.s. Techniques o.t 'l""~I<>M&ire ..,th<>d. are ""U dsveloped and with the .dVice ot qualified r.cult)-;ember-a. at Stantord • one-page questionnaire. w.a pt"epa.red t<;;r WI!! :fOrOT!,. . .1 trial. distrl-bution or 185 ~sttotmaires l'e'V'ealed. a fell vealmeSstl, in the lnterpnotatiOll {J! parts Dt the form.. these -were corrected. betore I_rill d.Utri~loll to all puUeipeting firms in the Indu,tri&l I'ul<. QIlest.!<>M&ire. _" di.tributed t. eJ!W'lo,..e. during wrlc1ng hours 1>7 ouper n.sors and Somen.. A. b1"1et ezplana.t1oll .. stat!.ng tb9 objective ot the 0U1'W1 "" civen or&ll:r to in_e coope""tion. Eql"l"'es were •• ked to till out. the qaestlonna1res Oil t.beir e'Wll UN and to retUl""ll their answer. vith1.n ODe to threa days. P.espoll!i8 vas judged: ucell.Ult sbowi.rlc a sincere interest 1>7 the ""'Pl~. in p&rtieipoting in -,M •• tlU\1. ~ing "'" oat &\ 100;1 fo~ n,.,.. ~th 1 ... tllan 150 e.mpl."S".' and 25% C~ 1ttger group.. -' SIIIIlller sample '-""lJ.~ have proVided .eoeptal>le ,eau.tical In!" ...... tion but with .t..asnt .. help avall&ble for ~ restzlts, it vas pon1ble to use • larpr group: 2 J L.99 questionnaires were proces •• d "",t <Of • po.rtble 9 ,SOC ~.,..e. ~f t.ho partieipot1.ng cODplli ... RESiJU'S ~~~~R;i2; Locat.lou of el!ployee re.s"idences &s c!et.exw1De1! fJ'W. ;; plotted on • large ""'P obow1nc all st. ..... t. and loc&l boU!ld&r"...ea.. f'acuttate anal.:rele, th1rt.r-one re.clden~1al. ar.!&s were: aaleeted based. 0lJ appropr1&te neigbborbood economic c:onsidera t10:o. 'fbe." are S1ll!IZIarized to sbov \!bere the p&Ople live in .r~latlon t.o the stantON Indust.rial ParI: -Figure 1. TIle 50 )1 secUoDo are in _ Clara on:! San Hatec Collrltie:a and tor Ccaveniencfl i.J1 tenrdnology a.re dea:cribed bare a15 the "regl.o:Jal area' Cor .t~ . .I ... jorit1 of ""Pl_eo are not 1» the iJIimodiate Polo Ute 1U'e<I, and to ~b. tM. poizrt., ""t n! 2,&99 qoesticnna1re. t.allied, 119, or 1,. were nsponBes of people ll"rt.nc: out.s1de of the established l'lregional &rea-. (San Carlo. 011 the ""rtb and San Jose on the soutb). TIl ... people 11ft .. tar away &! Santa Cn3, San Frenclsco ... Oakl&nd and Walnut. Creek. Ott tbe 2'.320 tallies .l"elI'oaWnc within the Jl sec-tions selected tor anal1.1o, ~ 21 p.rcent live in the Cit,. o~ Polo Uto. Another 21 percent. li ... ill San II&teo C<luntl'. inclading 6.5'; from ReCvood Cit,. and aPi>l"O>dJMts17 6% from I!e:!l. Parl<. More t.hon S6~ live '3()uth o~ Palo Alto. TIle to. Utoo Xountaia View •• etio"" account tor le.S% o.od the SUllll)"VOl.~rtino orea about. U.S%. Sar£t.c.ga and Los Gato. are •• togotber acid another 9J and Santa Clara. 7.2':. s .... Jose contribute. only ~.s~. '!'be dgnU'iean1. point here 10 tba\ 1IIO~ of to ... people li .. ill a st.r11' between the foothills and Baysl10re i'ree""T. El C&IIdm lloal I:ighwa,-is the ... in thoroughfare through the middle leng\h at this .l!!tri,.. ndS" h1g:'bway is the :JlOr\ direct route tor moat people as judged bJ r8s1dent1u locat.ion. Saratoga. 13 tbe rIl1c-leus or .. seccM area and is served priaari17 ~. Ilig!;""l' 9. - J • -. . ' I o ~t Chu->eterlstl.c» Host of the employe •• &rtI ... n • 71$. N. pro b:fis , rede~tiOl1 of the type ot itl!~t.r"1 where a high proportion tV"C eng1neers and 51c1lled t.echniei&na.. An evaluation 'W8:! l!II.doe to deuHl1ne an;r ~1&nU1eazrt dU{erences iD the COml!llt~ b&b1 ts 01 'W'I.:)l!'en .s compared. with ..",. OeDeralq. the .... "AS """" oxcept that & olight1)< 1I1gher per<:ectage of ~;o pn.fer to dr1ve alene .. 'I'!le Iligber pe~ ot """'''' emplO)'M. c.... "'oa the Redwood Cl tT Ilrea -4.3.5~. Other than this, it appears tba.t lIIOn 01" less teJales 1s ... nl:r co1n.cl_W. tpp&rellt1)< the h18l> 1:>0""" ..... 1<!entia} ...... u sueh .1'.3 to!J Alto~ Bill!, Portals Valley .. etr.:. have jU..5t &!J ~ a repreeentatioll !I.e: ot.1ters. ()-ror 61 percent ot hrIr emplO)'M' are Mrrted) h01lOVOr, the breakoo",," nri •• wi<!el;r. East lIonlo Park om Iortb Polo tlto han t.ho hiPst Z!'lIIIb<r ot !1.argl.e emplo,-ees.. Kore the. OlJil! ... third of these residents are 81.ngle. rbi, ldgb perceotage can be explained l>:r th. locatiOl1 of lIIIIQ' &p&rtII<!ot ~exo. aDd older _. with rented >"O<:IIU. Usc. ,.""..,.,.i«l peoplo &re 1nelill<ld to lift c10 .. r to l.he,1ol>. lOW1&' lIlUI'ied people seek .1nc1e faml:r _. within their f8llil;r bodc-t; tor o"""'Pl-, 10 the CllpertiDo ar.>. o ... r 9SJ ~f tho Park emp1o;r&'l' ..... marrl.ed. n-.1. Cl"O"P is villlnc to "'''"''to • considerable dirtanee in order to have • bore 1d. th1.a their _&:lIS .. J.pproximato1:r "",,-third of 121. fudlie, have tl/O 1nc_ produoers - this ..... t.:ue 10 all section.. excopt tha' Redwood Ci t:r 08~ and Su.~ o.)%) had tho highest level o~ husband om wit. wotidDs team.. Inc_ levels wre distributed obou~ a ....... vould predi~. Lown t8llil;r 1ncoIIe. wre 10 the Son Carlos-BelDont ..... a and in East Polo tlto. bQt.It. 1D SaIl llateo COImt1. \. " " Bigben inc ..... lIO ...... parted in Pornll Vall.,., Los Alto, and Lo. tlto, IIllls. '1'wo car t...ule. &r9 DOf. unusual. .I large 1.2.6$ reported t.., C&rS _ "'" adolitiODal 5~ rated J or lIOI'e ccrs. tAl •• than l~ ha ... DO car and ""st of t.hoso live 1D the Palo Uto vo& where 2.8$ reported thq did I10t ride 10 a car to cot to work. lIost 0IIpl.,.. ... 57% -paok t.boir luncb. III ths larce Cirms where C&tetorl.a .. moe 15 prov1d«l oolT )0$ pack their lllDOh. J.ppro!d.IIate1:r 6.5% eat. 1_ at. nearb7 restaurant. and S.7% go be ... tor lllZlCh. ~ti"'" 10 and From Work: ApproxiIIeto1:r twc-thirdo.66.~. dri ... &lone :t'itis Is 110" trE1Ji the Bq Area nwace 'Of 60... ftds difi'enmce can probabl:r be attribu.ted t.o the ruaranteed par1riDg &pace tor eq>lo;ro... 111 ~. of people vor1riDg tar the ..... ~. b&TiDB the .... wr1r1nc hour. and 11 oing 010.. to ODe another ehOWB a hiP pereent.ace dri 'f'1nc &lo .... Onl;r. re·, take __ r., S.7$, om 1l.8~ ride vit.lt. ..... _ we. rue IOIg!Pst. that lWl3' who \like paI_ero take lOre than one. Car poel. are 1101'0 IDImOrous &\ a di.tance trca tbe Parlr. Tbougb the totl1 ear pool. wre only ll$. tha use of car pools (taJdr.g t.arno drivin8) """ Cair1:r b1Bh- 10 the Cllpert100 ar .. -22.6$, tho Saratoga ..... 0·27.):&, and in Los Gatos-J3.'. lev people use lEans .o::ther than the auteZl!Obile _ (little ether .mea%UI ia cfi'ered).. Jl1.ne men 'WSlk to vork ... .tour 'U5e the S,P. train, aDd a use bic;rcle. -a total ot 1.6~. It ehould be ,b •• rvod that "'""7 companies do Dot enccur~ lIalJdng or pIlbl1c tr~rtot1on. For e"""'Pl-, Hewlett. Packard ha. DO ... ans for pedestrians to 1J&lJr Cr"", pIlbl1c sidewalks to the e:>trance. of their plant. J.pp&reoCo:r it t. 0.0\llIIed that. all people will arrive b7 BatoJfDbUe 01" priftte JrJOtor vehiele. There lIU ver;r Uttle ditterence in response to th6 quest100 concerning: lIIrOde of travel "tl"Ollll york in distinction !rOill lit!)" woZ'"k. Variat.ions wre not.ed tNt.these were occa51onal. -& - • . >- ."" .' " A lup perc9"tage illdicatod that -7 ~.,-ded _11' car. ~~:C!~;.:=:: .. ~ (29.1) reported. need ior their e.,.. dur~ the day. jl'J. atte.pt ,.., _de to learD bCIY 1'IAJ1;T could 'Q:c;e c~V cars tor bus:tn.e!s 001" were %!Ov'Using cOlllpan7 01G'.llec! car.. nul! question nee.u addi,tioW. explanatio;l. <kl the 8Ul'tace tbe.re doeS!'J,lt. appeu to be an:! reason vtrr SoO _ DO~ their oars c!ur1J>{ the 01.1\7. it vq surprl siD« to loarn trom. this """"7 thet ;;r.=~:;;~~' the Parle fro .. the "".t (south"".t) side. _ed on res1dsne4 11 CIIIII1no !leal obould hn. the hiPest percentage 0: use for Park employeee.. SeT&re Coagest10D on U Cudno torce~ coanuters W f.a!<e the FremoDt """te u th4 le •• er evil. West J'reJI¥)Dt into ,)unj.pero Serra Blw accOWlt. lor 27.8$ ot all tr"Uic de.ti.Ded tor the lDduotrUl Parle. 'I'h1a 10 the h1Pest of 0D7 siDgle route to the Par". Thi. tact appeen to oun>or\ the ~st ravorinll ths u..tIIll.tl.on o£ 8i&n&l 1.1gbt. at tlle OOnlel" o£ Page 11111 load and Junipero Serra Bl vel. lb. foothill bpre.SlOlQ" 10 ldea1l7 loea~d to barAl. thi. now of trotflc. It. would appeal" thai the pr<>pOoed .Toni!>"ro SO""". r~ 18 too tor Veat to be of _ ru-to Park toral:ne • ;lust as iayohore ~ 10 too tar East. te •• thBD 11. ot tha Parle empl.,. •• use Bayshore. !loC.t. of t.be .. ve from the north ~, East ~ and San Jose. 1n .lnal:isl.. of tile .mpl.,.. .. UviD( in sante ClA. .. showed t.bet 33.8$ use FreJIIOOt Aveme in J>!"'ferenoe to 11 CUdIIo. On"", J, .......... account. !~ 1'.9% of the regtonal tra!nc 01 vh1ch about 7t has 1t. orl(i.n in Palo Alto. file OniOn AnDUe 1Inderpo. •• ae_. Cor ~.6% ot the ·""gtoMl' auto_U ... entuiug the Park. El CU1no Ileal !l'OiIl th. south aM! 21.2$. : hoplo vU1 _ & sub,tent1B1 part of tile 4&)1 to 11... in .ne ""'"" in another. J, lov dri .... It h01ll'1 each ""7-(5-.. Crus). !lenero.ll7, it t&It.s longe' to cot homo tIwl to EO to ,.,..le. StAggered ,.,..k. iIlg hoIIr. hat holped rello'n tile ""mine peak but hu DOt had as IIlCh beDefi t in the late &IterDOcD. 'li,t of the ,cho:t.lo4 vorldng bours of the portio- 1pat1nc CirIu 1. included in tile oppend1.x. I'eople c .... tiDg f1"OOl t.be north pen1MUl& average hotter speed thBD tho... f!"OIIl 121. -u.. This is attrlbllted in part t. tha ...... r •• now characteri otiC8 in relation to San Fr8JlC1""o b<>und tra!£1c. Cc-.to tIM 10 &11. a tlmctiOD of _ houri &n4 ~cal locat1M ill the Parle. ~ Avenue hu a"" ... prCDCUnCed peak nov thaD El COlIIiDo; hon<:e it ~ b& tut tor SQIIS but slow tor others. n _. people Unng in South Palo Alto Irell S to 12 ziDute. to &et to vork &n4 lr<ma 10 to 20 III1m>te. to get _. Otl the otller hand it _. c.,..,.,ters lr<ma Saratop )0 to .S l!dnut.es to cot to work and abaut the ..... to cet hoIIo. I. _Jorlt7 de Dot favor use 01 pubUc to t.be Pa.-lI:. A high percentage, )OJ, said tha7 needed tlle1r car. o!ur1nc the 4a:y. a_nr, a sutC1eieDt :>WIlber iDdieated an intore" in publio tr""sit to warrant. at.tention. App.-oxiIIIate17 /jot 09.6) ... 1d that tho)1 voUld u.. a bIa it eorvico WN provided. ]!oat of those ""re in the LoB 11t •• foothill. area. (S1. 7~, the CupertiDc~. ""'. (!aJ%), IlDd Saratoga (58%). .llJoost SO$ 0.9.» eoq>ns09d l&_r to_ rapid transU (\.r&in3 in J>!"'lorence to blae.); hovner, • lore_ DUl!lber, 12.6% thought the qu .. tion on train. too UIpl'obabl. to answer. Quest1Dru1 on bU.sses and trains a9~d that. delivery wuld. be ins1de the l>lduat.rhl Pule. 1'bese people were willing to wJ.k as \IIl1ch ... , bloclcs bet_ he ... and tr&Ils1t .t.ation and would ... 1t •• ","ch .. 15 minute. lor . s - --....... ~ ---------~----:. // • " .-,' ~'. - , I , " . '. tile !lOrt bws (:Ie~ "PO" tr ... l distanco rl'Olll lIOrk). Over 77$ thonght t ...... ~t aMu' bl per lII1le ... ro re.""""ble t.h""", people over lS mile, c!1Btazice C&$t a. heavier II'no-vote el) the ~est101l.. (:ror tranl .ore tM.a lS 1II1l •• , :u pe. lIdle t. obtUnable.) People 1.> _la 'olle,. aZId to<> U~o. nUb bad DO tnterest tn publie t.ranrlt. U is ~ as wll, beca"", the" lov ,Sen.U,. residential are •• could ZlO~ be oel'V'!4 ecoocr.1eall7. 1lap1o:rees lA !'al • .u to _d li~tl. W .... rest. As 10", as tho,.. 18 <J'II>lo park1l!c q>ace n 10 lIIOnI convenient (liUle 10.' c! \w) to ct."iv~ &lODe to 1'OI'k tor t!>ose li'rine 010 •• tn. It. .... tnterest!nc to <'b?l'ft \hat lB$ (0 reloU"l;r M&h t~) would ame to • d.1tt.reut ... a if gO'>d public trar.sportaUoo ""re avail,,1>10. 110,-\ .t tbe .. >;Ere ill Eut !'ale eto, c<ntral Pal. lito and San Jose. (n t.a.1res la,s till! to C't'JaJtIllte Ira San Jose rta 8a7Jbore tlla.!l to COZ'II'IIUte tr-om Suoi~). 10 .OIIIe peo;>l~ .-.-.to t1><o 10 " 4eter>ibJing t.,tor ill cboortng either job 0:" home l.oea\ionl bowver, to .,E"\ it appears to be seeo~. the nerage COMUW tiDe ter e~o;rees iA the ::;tan.,"ord Industrlai Part is 20 to 2S .Id.nute&. rn1.:!! is .rea.sOllable~ but u tho area cont.inufl;J toe. grOl." IU'ld traffic beoomes .DOl"e congested ... travel t.iM ~Ul in:.:rease Ofticial. ot tbe ~. 1. 1'0,:; Area Rapid fran"U Di.triet. ectillRt. that \be preoeut empl_nt d",,"it7 of tha Stanford Imust.ri&l Park 18 DOt oultio1ent to ,1uBtUy cle'ignlnjj: • \."""U qa"''' v.lt.h • maJo< &t.\iol1 1a tI>e Indnstri&l Park. !to"",..., lIben O>I'lOJ'l"ll"t poe .... 15,000 this vcul<1 be ent1.rel;r te&sibll!l!. .c'ln:::!.ik~ "ther DtP.Qa iD the area, public t:ruwit ~ sboald start nov tn !Ultieipat1on ,f .he dq whoD 1\ w1U be 0 transportation neces.-1 t7. ·6 - -. SAN MAnO C<lt.M"¥ 20.8% WHERE THEY I SUWMARV I PALO ALTO 20.9% .lUMlptRO-5e.RflA BLVO ® LIVE I I r--ss.s I / MOUNTAJN VIE 8 LOS ALTC / 21.0% SUNNYVALE / CUPE~TINO / I SAN JOSE 4.5% LOS GATOS 8 SARATOGA 9.0% ., ~ --~ .-- EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS 7U are men 331 of those living In north Palo Alto and east Menlo Park are single whereas only 5% are single In the Sunnyvale-Cupertino area 331 reported more than one full time wage earner per family (about 42% In Sunnyvale) 42.61 own two autos - 5.0% own more than two 2.8% reported no car and most of these live In Palo Alto Portola Valley and los Altos Hills have greatest number of two car families -70J UrlvinQ pools are popular In the Sunnyvale Cupertino area -22.61, and Saratoga-21.3J ,'. " ~ ", EMPLOYEE RIDING HABITS 66.4% drive alone 5.6% take passenger 11.8S ride wIth someone· 11.0% car pool (rotate)· 3.2% chauffeured 1.7l walk, bIke (home to work) 1.4 employees per auto (approximately) Orlverls license -97.6% none -2.4% ·Drlver may not necessarily be destined for Stanford Industrial Park, and a few walk part way. ., " r'._ . ,. :-." " . . " . .. . -'. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY favor bus -39.5% Must use car at work O'ppose bus serv ice 29.1% _g~:.H. -. Total against 59.5% (actual count 59.5%) Favor trains -49.5% Must use car at work Oppose train service Total against 29.7% _!Q:.U 50.5%·(actual count 38.9%) ·Clncludes 12.6% who thought the question on trains too Improbable to answer.) Would like bus service but not trains 8.85S . Would like train service but not bus 22.6% ~reatest interest in public transit is from a distance through congested areas Los Altos lower foothills area Cupertino -Sunnyvale Saratoga -Los Gatos No interest from Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills Little Interest from Palo Alto VQ<1Ii(l BOOlIS caaur iUm • ~tIlUSS 10. OF 00l.0!DS Bam; I.&d.rel Co.,.,...UCD 2"2 8,00 • ~:)O srn Caliton>1& 1_ lltr.<! ilectfOll1cI )<)5 60 7.1.5 • 1.:15 ;176 lwter Dri .. I.S 8.JO • 5:00 Le~o .10 11$ 7oJO •• :00 l.1l1 Calitonda 1._ 2SO 8.00 -.:.5 Coo<d'<>l !lata Corporation 60 8:00 • 5.00 3)~ IIW.!ev A_ 8.)0 • 5.30 IIastmon Kodak boo 6:00 • 1 .. )0 925 Pap IIUl Rood 7:00 • 3:)0 (Prod.) .:leDorol Iloctn. ~ .. )Xl 200 -1:)0 -.,15 601 CaUtom1& 1._ 100 • 7.~S -•• 30 G1lm " ColIpazv 29 6 -8:00 ••• bS 25'>0 ~r Street 23 -e,liS ••• )0 lIevlott-Pacbrd ~ • 2,300 1.30 ••• 15 1>01 hce Hill 11084 1.1lS -•• )0 !.ocIr!Ieed 1!111S1le. " Space Co •• 2,(J$ ~ • 7.00 • ).)0 l2S'l Jfe= DUX strn1r 15 • 7.)0 ••• 1S 290 • 1'45 • ,".)0 II!WIS 200 7.)0 ••• 00 (shcp) 3300 iUlrtlV I._ e.)O • $:00 (oI£1ce) !let.rca1C8 1.00001_., Iz>e. 320l Port..r Dr! YO 20 8.)0 • 5.)0 Palo Uto ~ Co. 220 110 • 7.)0 ••• 00 620 Pare 1!1l1 IIoa4 >0 -7.)0 -.:~ 1're!0!'I1IId L1ne I'ro4IIcta Co. 51 1,0 • 7.00 • ).)0 600 HrmoenWq Z • 1.)0 •• :00 !1 • 8.00 • $.00 lIa41aUcn at Stword 100 $ -8:00 ••• )0 3180 Bmoftr Street 65 -8:30 • 5.00 Sbccklq fran.!.tor 132 67 • 8:00 ••• )0 (pro4.~ 1601 Poco IIUl llood 6S • 8.00 ••• 45 (ollgl'. 10. cr i:'l'IJlIEES __ =='--_____ _ S7!1tu In.UtuW 25 9:00 -S:OO 322l Porte. Drl ... :;tab CoastNetio" ~ .41JwIg ~r.oo IIanoTor Street 1> 1> -8:lS -S,OO Yar1&Ii Issoeute. • ',100 ~ -e,oo -hlO 611-..Vq ~ -8:1$ -".1lS \'1~. IDe. 7S B,oo -s,oo 2626 lIaDOwr st,....\ Va_-Jc!mo"" CCIOpOZQ' 180 20 -7:00 -.}.)O JJJJ R1llrtev.l._ 11S -801$ -S:oo kS -8,)0 -S,lS -" ';,''< -.:~~ .-~ : ' -~ '.<~ ~'.-:-c _-;;. /< ,,' , EAnI~In '1'llIl CQ!PA.IIUS lNII ~stl~1 Issued lI.e!.ura • ! 1 iNiral eorro~.~iOb 150 )1.j )oekaD 150 61.) =trol llate CorponUoe 60 88.) z.:..-.. loc!at 150 50.6 Genonl ne~. 12$ 87.0 Oimt.~ 31 100.0 lI.wl.tt-l'IIc~ 600 ~.O LockhH4 XIoS SSO 61.S 1101&1>. 12~ 78.~ _rom .. :10 60.0 J&tiOllll rr. .. 60 .-" .re'Wn18 1'1110 lito E1IciDeez1.Dc Co. 15S 92.0 I'rtI!onood u". ProdI>ct. 50 88.0 lI&dl.aU ... a\ Stanlord 100 ~.O 5lloelclq I'ran$l..-1)0 B1.~ I. Y. St.cq. l:ic. )0 5).) S7Dta In5t1ta.te 2$ 10 ... turns Vteh ,eo...t""'-laD " II1.mnc 70 70.0 ,art ... '.ooeiate. 700 B1.8 1'1.d,Ja. IDe. 75 114.0 Wat.Jcine·JoIllIa"" ~ 150 72.0 1lU.VEl.'iIIIi!: .. (Que.Uon 112). $ ot respeetive total 'l'7P1eal reopoDOe' ~ct1"" 13: u... S' 10' lS' 20' 2$' )0' ))', 40' loS' SOs .SOt fo vorl: 1) $).2 28.1 •• 2 O.~ ro_ 8.8 )2 •• )/;.1 lS.5 2.a 2.8 &leU"" 21<. To vork 1.6 3.9 31.) lS.6 18.8 19.5 ).1 3.1 fo bOIll8 3.1 1$.6 3.6 16.~ )4.1, S.S 1.0 This questiOnnaIre IS an .artentpt: to discover the trallel parrErns pi Pari: employees ro derermine the t't:"asi 'I<Ulily and pub!.K: a<:::ct':ptan.:-e of. modere area-wide tra!lsport.atSOfl system. Your-cooperatiOn in returnins [},e quesdonMire 'Win be greatly appreciated.. (l) Home address City '-----------------------Nearest cross street ______________ _ i 2) Do you hive Ii driver's license? Yes No __ _ {"!} Sa: me.!e __ fernai.e.__ {t} W.arrted.1 Yoes __ No __ (5) Number of family empicyed?__ {6} Number of cuI i'l famJ.ly' __ (.7) Annual fucome bracket: (8) up to IS,DOC OS,OOO -$7,000 '1,000 -110,000 What are )'our lundt habits? pack lunc.h go home for luncb cafeteria at ""ort: no luncll __ $10,1).)0 -$15,000 over $15,000 restaurant -nElm~, _________________ _ 19} How do you usually cravel to and from .. ~1c? It yoo leave 'IIC'!i: at lunch, please checi: .hat column, too. Arrive Lea: ... ·e Luncb a} drive alace b) take passengers e} ride wit.b -a.oome'"C employee d) alternate driving in car pooL No. iII pool 1 ________ _ e} chauffeured by member of the famny o ~er{.~uy) _____________ . _____ _ (1OJ Do ,au o,eed your caT durlDg tile day f~ use cxhEr than lunch and u".aveling ~ and fTom work? Yes __ (U) What route do you most often ta'ke "0. and. hom 'Wo-r\:'! {lldeI to rn.tl~ cn reverse side.} 1«> __ __ (i2) HOw long does your trip to ,,"ork takd _______ --"; to retuJ'1ll home 1' _________ _ (13} Would yOtl D6e all area-wide moderu OOS system with freql!etli: schedules and coo'Veni€n[ stops? Yes (If an6"er fs "DO." disr~rCI No .. 14.1 No __ _ (J4) Please cbecl: under wbat condItiOns you 'WOwd be willL'g to use iii bus (0 aDd from wo-rk. (Delivers you .ithin 200 'yat"~s of wwk .. ) .} Maximum di&tanc:e of hus stOP from your bome-- , ISO yde. £1 block) __ 2 blocis __ S hlocks (fmile) __ 1 mile __ bl Maximum waiting tim~ 'betweell buses--S mm. __ 10 mtn. __ 15 n-o.in. ___ 3Q mfu. __ _ cl Cost oCtrip--4t per mDe (mInImum 2Ot) Yes No __ d} Additional time excee:ti:og preseru: travel time--5 rnirl. __ 10 min. __ 15 min. 3Omfn. __ (IS} Would you 'Uve in a differen[ location than you do no ..... :if public transportation was better? Yes__ No (HiJ Would yoo tailor electric u-aIns On a private righr-cf'-way .... ith a snunJ.e bus service? Yes __ No ~~,.,--/:i:~--'"",_<------------------... C7 ..•. ~ ... 1) Z} 3} 4} 5) INDICATE APPROXIMATE ROUTE YOU 'RESINTLY USE TO REACH YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT * Oregon Avenue 6} Jur..ipero Serra from Alma from the south San Mateo Co>.nty £1 Camino from the south 1) El Camino from the no rth eM rles ton Road 8) AIm.. from the north 9) Other West Fremont from the south .. SeC! other side , . '%;k~ ," "_-e .• > __ _ fotal ~donal' hilT r,.. AU the ?ark 10. of ~e~t1~re!'i ... 2 .. j20- 2) fES 97.6$ 10 2.1.$ !II. .1m ') l!UE 71.06$ l'ZIIla Ze.1$ !IA .22$ ~) III.RRIE!I: tI!S 80.68$ 10 18.S~ 1Il .62$ $} BO. JMPt.OD:l), 1) $1.01$ t) 32.6~ )} 2.~3'; I,} 1.O!'~ orsER O-.2~ !IA·S.~ ( •• S,6,1,lt.t)· .3$ Q) 10. CIJIS 0) .86$ 1) >J.4h$ 2) 1,2.6% J) 5.1U O'IUII III ) •• 61 ~.S,6,l.1t,t)-1.oe~ 7) • $),000 9) >.000. 7.000 J l'.1:1:J ... 10,000 10,000 • 15,000 • 1>.000 10.1._ .IJ!I!Ift Il!lVi 66.102% 66.1U· . S.S2 s. n. U.16 U.8; U U ).2) 3.2) 1.6b 1.$9 .. ) ... , 12) ma: S' }C, TO WORI:, :ro Il00, = 8} Ill!l:E: PA~I BQ!l; CAnTEIW. lIOIlE RESTAl1RAi'I' I.l.~ • S7~ 5.n 2).} 2.28 6.sS ).84 .. 1.2$ LOlICII lO} NEED 01.&, tI!S ~.1% 10 67.1ild IA .66$ 1. 13.n 8.12$ .l -DRIVE ALOlIE 2.210 B -TAU 1'/1 SSEI«lEPS I.'" C -lUDB IIUIi CIlHER U) RaITlI, •• 1S D -01.& POOL • • 000B I -C!II.1JFFi!:URE!l .31.6 , ~ orlIEI! (wall, \r&I.D, bu, b1q'Ole. "U7) III 1S' 20' 2$' )0' 2. 6.99 ). 21.2 to. ".j!! S. 21.76 6. 1.9 1. 9.0) 8. 1.12 9. 3.68 III 2.84 1) FU<J1. IIQS, rES )9.6% 10 S9.SlI$' I/O !7e. \0 1lC) 28.1$ of tile III) an"""r •• III .86$ • 110) COIiDmCIIS, .I.. 1 l110ek 2O.1~ 2-1<1.88$ 5.-26.":& ll!ile ).28$ IA-1. ~ II. ....U: S·-1;.6% 10'-1,2.1$ IS'-32.9$ )0'-1I.3S II. ".OJ,J C. Coot, US n: I/O 17.1,$ Jll S.hS. II. Edra t'i:Ioo: S'-21. 7110'-"7.S~ lS'-21.)~ )0'-1.85: III 6.97$ 0-.545% IS) ... oom 1W XCIYE. ns 16.22% BO 19.8$ 1Il 1.98-' 16) l.nOB l!:HW:S: (US TO Ill) US 210.5% 110 a. 8SS (1ID:ro IJ.) us 22.6% I/O 21.08% l/O.l.liSWER 12.6$ (ODrel.ted) IES 2.37% NO 1.~:r lIA .)68$ 9.0 \ @ TRAFFIC GATEWAfi) TO THE STANFORD INDUSTRIAL PAHK t AS P[!itCEKtA&E:!) ( R£~\-omL 0 KLY ) BAYSkORE--.---y--FREEWAY .. r oJ ~ I I 133 1.7 ~~.r, to --ALMA ST. ---_)--EL STAMFORO I"I>IJSTRIAL PARK T 22.6 I CAM1~ + ~2.8 I Q II: .J ... ~ '" '" f I REAL --(~---21.2 OTHER :U -WALK-BIKE 2.8 R ~ .:! ,:> 40.1 I .t "-~O ( ~ ______ L~'--__ 11.6 ____ t9 I{i. FREIoIOfoiT TRAFFJC TO GATEWA!I THE STANFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK f &S _f.ltCEPoI'T'AIj[S 1 ISAY ARE. TOUL t ~ '" '" 0: o I I ~ '" lot oJ '" '" " 11.4 v --------~----•• -------1.6 --:-..~~-6.7 -Al .... ST. .. t •• I.lllfIIIIIIISP I ! f I f I I I I II ~ • ) I' I 1 ) I , I I J II I I I 1 I I II r I I H I ~ . . ~ 25.7 I ---"""",)--El CUl'NO REAL t 20.3 -__.-1-S.S r STANFORe INDUSTRIAL PARJ( 54.8 I 0 It: .J .J i '" <:> if 39.0 OTHiR 3.5 --wAlk-BracE 2.7 1.6 ____ L __ "-- 5 '4 -- 22 -. 27 1I01ltE::> ~ d ,.o. s .;..x:tton.s , 2 3 1 oSl : .86 .71 ! .10 2.~ 2 .«. .<l4 .OS .SS .111 3 .1) .1) .86 " .1.7 2.$6 (~ .13 .~ 6.$0 S .35 .)5 6 .15 ! .15 7 .010 .~ .15 .07 I .35 B .11 .06 .Ci.. .06 1.116 .~B .60 ),()1 9 1.64 .aQ .12 , .)) 2.9) 10 1.32 .20 .16 . 1.68 1) 2.2$ .43 .1,7 .10 2.91 I 6.16 12 3.0& 1.12 .60 I .55 5.s> ~ •• 33 2.r.o 1.07 1.35 .05 5'.20 1.35 oS> 1 . .90 1S .85 .10 I .5'5 16 1.1:8 .38 1.96 .110. 3.98 17 .80 2.18 ).52 1.64 .05 a.19 18 l.n •• 02 .06 ; 6.00 19 .12 1.20 I .01 Il.)) 20 1.16 .87 1.69 .6) .OS .09 10.52 21 2.515 6.11 .10 • 9.1~ 22 .OS .71 I I .85 U .16 .0) 1.02 I 1.21 ~ .19 .02 5.20 .10 5oS1 ~ .r.o .1,1 3.60 .~ 2.4$ .05 7.20 26 .36 .21 I 1.2$ .05 1.6/j 21 .21 1.6~ , 1.90 29 1.15 .56 .68 .21 I 2.93 {JO .17 .)1 .0) .~ I :~~ )l .26 .21 .~ .66 I .20 1. 2 1) • .90 1.02 21.16 5.00 27,80 7.81 6.97 1.1'0 6.&9 llegional Routes in lercent edoe. not include East Ba.7 01' forth I'enL.,sulo) .' " .. "- '. •• 0-. ,.-" STANDARD INDUSTRIAL SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT 0",11_" br rie S'~.",'4. ra4rtsf1'7at Den/c.p"' •• ' CommftfH C.,ttfl.,1cr Stofe Cia ... ).,. 0' COllfmerH PALO ALTO SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CAUFORNIA , .. irlSh4".6, fie ,.ro Alfo ClJam&er 0' Commerce.. SepfemH:"', I" r ~ . .. )-~:->"-;: I. LOCI. TION! 2- 3. "to Me 'fI4d. ~pur.e.tion 01 52,287" .Apri" 1960. IIccordi1l9 to Ike U.s. Censlo$, ~nci 2'5.475 g, Apo1. )950. The FOputdfi~ of~. ,.'10 Mo r..omtr\I,lN!y iii Apnl l~bO, W/Oo 161,5bO, ~d of $an'. Clora Cor.mfy 641,3:15. '010 Alto is 1Il"'loIeifea fA i'f,e San Fr"~·lKc:I ~y regrorl. 33 miles SO\ltn of ~11 func7scc. 385 miles-ncri1l of Los Anc;IelH, .nd 6 rni'1es soufh of fY,. n~re$t leltporf ferminor lit .Redwood City. CLIMATE: ... ..,.T ............ • Icda" H ... t.nty-11 .. _ '-W ..... w_ .. ~ ~""'l • .u.t "-...... fw'.ih. WI..,. J.,. 37.h 465 55.1 3.<0 8~j) 69.1 n.1 0if"&Cfi0rt:; Narl1!west "0><. <3.1 563 1M , .os 13.B 56.2 53.' ~I!'an Hourii' Spee4; JoI,. SS.s U3 711) 0.00 825 61.1 i().6 t. mill'!S per JiOw- O<:t. 46.' S9.3 7l~ .1r) 77.2 58.1 00.' Yeor 46.5 513 e!J 15.52 80.' 62.1 60.' ·Aq.-..g. 1960-6T -S1~ 1'10 •• "3Y:z~~ ......... g. SC~1'O; C-t)' .n ".To .Altc TlAHSPOaT ... TION: ....it: So~eMII "~.e. Truc:l:: 45 l'eglttar1y sc..~u'Pd common camers. r.umerous: contr&O ce.r1'ier'S... Air: $o~ Frencisco llltemefi~ar AJrpcri., 11 miles north: San Joso ~unjcipot Nrporf. IS mi1. SOIlflt; I.fo A'to N~rf. 2" tru1as eeri. Ius: GrtI~; Peariess: -Poeninsu1e Transit; !'arreFt Airparter+ Ov..rugM deivery '10: los Anq~Te:s.. Sari Frd:'ICisco, ond mo.d of C!lHomia ene Ntved'e:, W.at.r:. &. rN'1es to Port of Recf.n:.od Cify. 32 lr':i1es fu Pol1 o{ Serl Fra:'\C~o. Kgfr.tf.,.... U.S. lOT and 101 Mef'l'l.fe. Colifomre 107. Aitpc.rfs: Pe:Q Ar1 o--SI!I rl M.feo Co(ll1.-1} tno sdedule-d let"\lic::el. 4.. DlDUSTtIAl. SitU, A There era }~2 eeres in th. cay "mils Z!:IMd For IigM industry. !52% Is 'oIeC-4l"1t end .ltaila b!e irl par-cels rang in9 it! $he wm Yl ecr"8 to 1 SoD Kret. Typ·fC.al s.e1e p~~ during nbC re'""'ged from 1)Q,OCO to $65.000 per 6Cn-. Thll!' terro'" is &eve1 fa gerlt1y rolfr;,.g. Drain:llge is good over md!d' of the a~4. Svbsoi'l is "",~1y .do'be end' pitin; ir. l\o.* feql.l;red f:lr.tept in \Om$ tI~lilas r.~e.r ffle b6~ore. Sa of Wate: ~if'tS: i" to 30". Sin 0{ s.ww Unes: ." io 18 "-: 36-orl'f.1l. Si:e of Ges tr.es.: 3'" fa 2-4 .. H.P. c&pOcifi es. CopacHy of Electric t:1e5; 4 t:V .and 12 ~ 5Upp'Fy ~nr$. Ne/lreU R/lil 'lie: Sellfflern Pac:if~ r/lilr-o.d' "Pur trtICh Itv.i1/lb!e to some ~reM.. A t"mlfed' number of $1m for res.eord~ ar.d devefopmer'lf fec:iMiei ere sifuet&d m uni~~et.d .~!IS immediltfery oc:ljecen-t to Palo Nfo. 8, Of !'foe 1052 tKrelI ref.n-er! fa obove, 704 0Cl"eji comprise th", "Stanf.or-d fnd~rl,ial ".rl: edLa.::enf to St/lrlford Ufli ... ersity wher. )0 n.afiol'll!r!y hewn trIm .are pres.=-I1~IJl located in • rertricf,d cu~L.lr4l' l!'f)'<Iironmen.t for !ferea .. fedrona. 1"fl~ltl1;lt end'developrnMt, ond pubnmi.ng ()perefions. OtMer ~.tioM~r J.r,own .I~ fronics ,1r.d r-e:surch +ltm'i are l.x.tfeci' in -the l'efo Mo fndurlriel Pert compri5ing epprolitI'L!lfef;tlSO &eres r.eat ~e .JOu~earl c""ity tmt! "Oound'a.ries.. ..... ; , >,,~. "-::>~,~ , 'c'"' , .. , ..... . .--, .- o S. INPUSTllOJ. WATER SUrrLT: J._ ~m. of s...pp~.r: Ofy or f'.oto JJto. I. Me:.tiJ'MI~ Pll1l'lf:ing C&poo1r~ ].I mi1\icn ge1/de'l. A .... n.~e 'C1-nsl.lmpfiol'. t l S m.'9Jd. C. Cod per '.000 9<!1i1cms Irl quanfities of 100,000 9,r. per month fQ..JS8. Cost per 1,000 galklns ill quarlfi¥ies 0' l,OOO,OOO ge!. J;8T JT>Cn~ ~0.320S, I. GAS. lJ.ECTIJC AND TlUl'HONE UTIUTT SUYH:ES: tcurrenf 5p6CJ;C rates end • .",j'/ability of services .,bt6in~br& tlpor. reqlje..<1 (rom wpp~~ J A Gas: ~pplied ~'j hcifk Gos .. Ekcltic Ccl"lpM;y .r.d di-m"ibIJted by Oty c-f ~&Io ..... ~. Cod pf 1r.d'l!SIriof G..u.: Iltfef'npfibr. 5erYlc:.-. Fl. ... Sao,...tc. \/I'c""-'irD........, -. ~.:-~ w; .. ...w,e.t.-, "'""i. "" .... P .. !\wi .... ".., .... ,.n. .... 500,000 4.0<' 44,.4\" SOO.O<Xl NA·· 536" 100,000 .... &4 , 51.02 • 100,000 NA·· 5.040 , 50,:)00 4JIiI' SZ.57' SO,OOO .. 5.85 , 25.000 4,92 , 5<.09' 25,000 s.e~ ., S.OCO S.H' 56 ,SO ' 5,000 5.92 • • I Tharm =: IOQ,DOG LU.I. U.O. c:c~f • .n-,.... ~bOt ~ 1100.. -s..~ fo • .,.01.b~. _ ......... ;:.bl. fro.rn PSI E n. q~.~ .,-" 66,00(] th/lno.. .......... -~ "" .... Av.Cor1 \lc-"'iJ N.n.I,'G. ....... tl's.g. ItWH a~ .. '..-rwH ...... ""'" 8u:.1:I1I 5000 I(W t ,000,000. $12M7.aC '.21 " 2.000.000 $20<03.'0 25<lO KW 500.000 6660.30 Ul' '.000.000 10445.0'0 1000 rw 200.000 2942.40 L4H 4GO.OOO 4524.50 500 KW 100.000 1595./,0 1.60# 200.000 2527.iQ 300 I(W 1>0.000 98<./,0 1..65 .. 120.000 f.495.~ \5<) 'CW 30,000 53SJ'O D.· O().OOO 1)0.30 C. T efe~o rle; N.!Ime of SuppTier. P",ific l' &'ep},or.e wmpo.,y. 1. POPIILA TIOH GROWTH AND TI£ND5: ..... ...... ...... ,.., , ... ,- PC¥lufafiOll in Collnfy r74,9.9 290,547 6042.315 PoPuta~o.l". to Cty lim~ H •• 7J.' 2:S.414j, SUe1 No. 0; Oc:GlJp. Owertin9 Units 5,:510 l47B 16,896 SdIooJ &ronmen:t-Grad8'.i .-6 2,974 7,eB] No. of Wdter CoMed'ioru-'.754 9,66? IJ' .26' No. of Eledr-k Mete~ 6.5?S 9,:56] 18,260 tlo of T elepllor'ol!!5 2 .... 'SO ... 75,000"· Nc. of Gas Me'ers 5,893 I,M/i; r 7.568 ~ So..~ ~.itl AI"" G .... -'WoJilt!'_s. ...... o.p~rtn..ttt uti",.',- "·5'1 CI'w.r.pV-... d'4ng"'l C:<)VW '.r~ Nta.. 51.,.fort1 O"i><e .... ..,. ~.~ra ,..rl .. nJ A ..... r";l~. ~.:.~; St,'9l. , 5935 , 64.2 • 643 • 65.0 , I. ... CC0'4 '.ICWH t.o1 f r.o< • 1J3 • 126 , 125 • 13ll' "'Ty lnl e9l,00Q 53.l00· T 7,S96 f"Jt, 7.15~ 11,+48 IS,S4/) 17,24)"· 16.095 -.+ .. ,-.' . -~ • •• GOVUNMENT FACILITIES -TAX ANO INSURANCE UTES: A 'The City of 'Illto Alto l!~ :~e Co'Jn.c;'1·M~r1dgeY" t(p'l of goverrun&nJ. '&..nefSf!d' \oallJ/IffOn 't~61~2 is $i 71.. 09S,IIO: I. Comb7rled tol-ar ,pro~rty f.a. r/lfes 19c 1~2 p.er i i 00 ene~ed value: Acfuei' C.ityi.80. mulf~pfl~ b't tJ,~ ~ilrfO of.::ir'v a!ilI!'~!'Mnf to COIJr./y oIIuessment cf LtV IIqua!s. ",d'lus.t.d Cq $.90ltIJI. County SL17tJ. School end o*'l!Ir $5.68), Adj. Tofa1 $7.455. U"inco''POrat.,.d Area; CCHmiy--O.lbidl!! ".fi2l. Schoo' $5.534. Otner 01.5.1, $.29". Totel $7]5". hoperty is ~i.lOe!Sed at eppro::imete!l' 2Si' .. of mdn:ef .... ellJe. C. Cel,ln~ 41'1d/01'" Of)! 541&5 T/lIII: !tate 1'X,. O. porJC.e Deportment S,iK 104 men. fqlJipmerd' indvd,e,s 18 petrol a"", 4 mOforcyt:les. lI~d 2 fhree-~eeli11rs., an with 'two-"'II), r5d'io equipme:tt. f. nrfl Oepetfml!lInt hM 76 perlOl"ln'lllll~d" fun! equ;pped nenons, 6 engine c."mpenill$. ar1 aeriar '-odd.r. J resOle frucl: end 9 ofher mj$Cene~ e~.r"9litq • .. ehic~ (14 ..... ith t""o-way ~:f"<o c.ommunTce:fio-r-J. aM II Fire Pf'8'V6nfio" Burel!!u; mltfual~ic' agree-ment 'IO'itn "s",lTOlJod;r1.g ereas outside fN. (J1'y. f. IMI,ll"artee CI~S5ific4fior;: CIty:. 3; Unde\ll!lopecf Fodl,itIA--N:9"_ G. ~ Syrle~ CapadJy: 2& IN1tOI1 gel./day. Peo:l~ flo .. : 14 m.g./d SeNice to fringe A..-eIH: Av;.i1,bre fOf ~siOOl to fr.nge lI,eoS-. H. Jo.:IN' projed5 lIIuff,or~ for improvemenf of c::i'y serv;c6S; M:!O~*JJ.s P~ri rxrufion~r fa6l'ifie~ San hfon;o ~~~ PKiFtc: Rllifl"'Ood overp49, flew MI.""nicip-al Service C&rJte-r, a t.fth fi~ st":;'ort. e_pr&nwi!!'t' and 'Sheet improvements.. ne\ll' afhfal'k canter, c;,y pCl~ 'improvemen's. il":"Iprolfemenf er.& flJIiP5r1sic~ of MlJI'ilcipa! Yacht Herber. Coun~sored tmprolfemel"lf of Pollio AJ'to ..-..trporl and m",rs-mj~en..con/l.r nste hignwllY corutrvdiOn prOgram.. t. IMI PAlO AlTO LAlOR MAUn AREA. JUlY, 1960: A Area iI'Icludti: Palo Al1Jo, Ml!ln10 Part AfMorfon. los ~, t.0!! M05 Hirl1. Stadord. EMt Plllo .. ~'to, Mou~ foil1 .,iew, !a~n Po/!'*. Mel Wood.sio'e. I. &+\mated' Cr..ifia.r.. 'Op\lJ/lf\c~ J.J.l;r, 1?60: "-rea: 214.00c. 'II~C ...... ~: 52,200. ~",duding Stanf::lrd U!'l.rva~'1y ~ents lind commuters employe-d' olJfli oje ff,e i!!reaJ C. &timeted Crvitia., EmpioytMnf in Area. JuTy, J 9W: 71.000· • l"!PI: Of-IMtUSTIY. ... ~ "'" , ... 1YPE OF INDUSTRy.. , ... .. Agno.,rture, Foresfry &: fisheries 1.500 d. Tran:;portafion. Commur.kafioo & Vh1ifies 1.>00 b. Confr&d Consf.-vcfion. 1.<00 e. Rete~ I: 'Whole~lIle T rode 13.600 c. Manufodvrit1G' '<.400 Primor.; 'Pu tshin9 .00 ,. Rr\e.r.ce.. !nsu~N;. &. k"' &'I1t& 1."00 ~n-etedricat Mec=hiJ'1~f')' <00 9· Seno,::e 23,900 8oc1Pco1 Mod>i""'Y lMilO h. Go"l!mmef'1t··· A.500 Otf-.er Me.ru.rf'acfuri"9 2)00 • .so...n;a: c.ri'f=t,t. 5!-.. ,. [)e,p ..... ",IfIM:J s,.,pk.ym.~"._ •• &oP!~1If fig,," iIoa"de .... !iI •• nd' SDt.='l' ",~,b"" .If .m"tc~oIoct .u~peid ""'i1J WQr-U"" ,,"d dcm,uf;a,. _. fn-r.;f .. d" .. .n ci...m." _mJllC}-eJ 01 F.d",,~. ~i1I~ ,,~d '~i 'iI""~",,,.~ilI r.q_tdl.a err ~ lfldi ... ilx i" ... ~idi ~,~~ _ re .... gegld. , .. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF IME LAlOR fORCE: &tertf C1 Un'foniz,efiort.: ConstrucfiOI1 ~n& so""e monuf"cturing ir,d,-,,>-t~;-es ar. unicl1Tzed. Govemmel)i ~;rp. ~. _. c1aricat and domesfi.c. worl:ert a:re not Imlor'lizeC'. Mosl fefai) ond wl-.olesaTe 9"'O'.1p5 are Mt ur'lJor\-sff,r:~ted. no"-&"11 rhe e!edronics and rt!:sea.rc" gt',;:p'~ ·"Jut!: to ff1e lerge number of -t.c.t...nTcal. profeuio:lO'lar, .scientifIC., rese,,1'clI Ill"od te/Khing de:5.5!fi.:.t.lfioru.. .. _ ., In file uni'm;zed 9'"='uPS, 'abor relafioru are e~ener.t d-.Je to a fe.l"O,-ebre cr.md~ f~ rll~ ,ptQdlldi~"1 ... ·i-tn • ~.~imurn 01 labor c!l"spute-_ A. sized ~ le segment comprises comm"ie'1 to San fr~n.::iKO and o""e:t. ~J .. ~a C) le-L ~ ~'. ~ o II. W"'G ..... TlS: W,.ge raft: inf"rma(1011 ma)l b!, obb~lled from tr.e C'II~m'bl!r ~f Corr.merc. ol'ld f~m ~. Pakl Me oit.r;.e Df ~ S1'lIf, Oepartmel1' of Emplormenf. for mc;.rmar",,, Ol'l. II;Inion. conh&d wIIge rates ~nd proli1oiol15 lind ror CJ.)Mtdi .... ~ bllf90~rJl19 I?ro'lolilierns. ~e &QIJrc: ... !f,e Staf, ~rtm!!"f of Irldudrio!l Rel~ficns, C=v;~;on of lll~r Stafis.fia .rod Rese.t!lrch. +45 ~d'.n ~,.. A\/e.N.l., SOli. fra.t\Ci~-:o 2, C4tfOl~,ill_ II. HOUSING "'YAlLAlnlTY. ,lieu AND RENTAi.S: RIlfI'a& ~r one-and fwo...~ed'l"O()m epol'tmerl'f$ liMa dl:p~exe:s rll~e befwMr: $ 125 lind $300 ~ moon,. Iter-fels for two-and I'h~room Stouses f'e:r,ge betwH" it lS lind $300 per ITllOl'lth. Sales price!; of exTsfing h.omes w.e from $20,000 fc:I 145.000 c:t.Jrin;l J9bO. Th,re .re 6 51.:burb.on r-!llsie/'erlfi..,f ere," "",ithin 5 mili.'!S of Plilo M1:, otlari!'l9 "om8$ pricad frorll S I s,sao to $65.000. The"'t! ere 1 hote!!. wil'h 215 rooms and 23 moh-15 irl f!,e lire, witJ. , .. S rooms. 11. CO"'MUKITY .... en.mES: The Pa;Cl A1fo.-Stanfcrd ~s~1 CerTfer llAl a tofal' of b27 be&.. Th .. n .... U. S. V.tere,"" AdrnIr.!sfrafion Hos.. .PIta': hl!S ~,OOO be&... Ofher-tMd'ic.a1 (~ci!i+ies il"rCk-!. 2H~ p""yt.kie~, e"d lU~eaM, "7 d.~'fists.. ,,~d "'e ~eC'\.~ ford ConvaTe:sc:er'd H.:.rna end CN1d,...f\·s Health Cenfer. EducllfiOl'lor facititiei include 24 etemeniary sd:lc/s, 3 fJl'liQf" lligh Kf,co~ and 2' Iliglo. ~ls. ed\llt ed'iJCilfull".. :2 parochial IC~OOk. 3 pri ... e.t. scJ.oots, F001'J..iJ! Cof fegll' and S"h::nford tJni".·ersoly. Thera ~re -41 chrc.J,es, 5 ti::a"lIi;es. 1 n~peper, eN! 11 bar.'b:. Rscrea:1i""nol faal1fill!l$ g',duck 5 fne.efers. T 6 po!Ira, 13 pta)l';rcu~ds, 6 rw'tmming pel'J!s, 3 go~ co<J1"$es, numerous rio-n; rlebr~. ~t lIar"bcx-, blr-c1 sardui!lry. mU"lkif>4l I!irport. end a 1200-ec:rw M.l~fic fooi'nila pa:\. 'Neerby ere ~ltee stete: redwood ~m. II varillty of Oo'"'"...ean hoed. r-!$vrfi; ... ;!h'n ':;Ir>e i.eur, and me/';y Sierrll ski resom withia threa hours. klt5eara ~stm:frtH1S withln ihe area "iodo,Jot: S+"n~Qrd Reseercll\nsfi'hlte. Starr ford UnNtrJ'1I,i1y, 'o'to ~ Me-d"t cal ftwseard FouM"a-f"Kln. Cenfef for f!1e Advanced' Shlay of f!,e 8e"aviore! Sciel'KlM. e.,a many fi~ fcc..!'e4 ic Stzlnford Irldtnmol P." lind P'ao Me lnd"iJrlriol PII,-l P~'1ned b-fufol..-e c..crlSfrucfior'l t!.l'1! resellrch fdt;es of Ganll!lflil T etep1tGne lind Elecfro.'li~ le'boretories. be., Amtrrican fnsfi"h..-1e (0(" Itesearc'h. sr'd BroilaMica Cente-r. I~ MANUF ... CTUIfNG: The,.. are U11i91rl lno!lrn.rfecturifl4 pubn~fUn9 and' f'lHearO. flnns in the GOmtru.ini'"v. leeo"ing. groLip c:~es ot prodvds are eTectronics insfNme::"<n 4r.d researc1l. PJC!o c(;mml.lnk,ofion .sysfems. medical L."'tffr\.Ime"1'h IIna re $eara.. pnrling ar-c pubr~hu,g, pra~;cs, l,ert-eopler, aM:! fi'm processrng. The 5 largest lI'\4fI!.lfeKfuring f'irrr:J m P/lfc Alto ate: M.-ME Of QOMII.QrT Venez" AssocIates ~..f'echrc! Ccmpa"), Pbilco Carpel tefJOri l!!)dJ~ed' M'i~1ef & SpKe Comf>lln~' klmaro 'rnsfl'iJrmnh., 1t1c... Spjnco [)j\lis:Clr); Eastman Kodd; P>"OC~....5irog ubmafory Gene-rel E!eclr'ic Company Trcverrng Wr,v. Tube Produch Secfion ACrniraf Corp<:lrafiol'1 IS. NOH-MAIIU FACTUIING EMl'LOTMEIfT: NAME OF COt.d'I\NY s~rcrtQ U1'llvers"'" .. ,Stan!~rd kesear.;J.lnrti1'ufe PII10 A'tc MedicllT an., _ ~~~U~Shl1rord 3000 1100 2:/00 1500 418 400 )SO 212 -4b1b 1i# 406 <00 Eractro'lio ~rcni.::s. Electronics Ere.ctronrcs Resea.-cl Medical trufn.m'lero Rl!!seerd, Color Film Processing Eled'T'O"lo Res.e4~cl.. E~n>cs S:.wve'y 1Iy: F'sla A1to C},amber of Commerce iii cOClperllfi:.n with the Sf6fewide Jndu:stri~ Deve:icpmercf Comma .. "'-:',., ~-,;,:fe"e. CaHomia S+4fe ~mber of Commerc:e.. ReYf,e-.ved ~,{~ Califpmia StaJe Chamber of Commetce,. September. 1961. R&V.19bC. • . - f I I I / I , , , -", , • ,