regional agencies smart growth strategy bay area alliance for sustainable development regional...

Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy

Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development

Regional Livability Footprint Project

San Mateo CountySeptember 29, 2001

SMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

San Mateo County Co-Sponsors

San Mateo City/County Association of GovernmentsCounty of San Mateo

SAMCEDAMid-Peninsula Housing CoalitionSustainable San Mateo County

Building & Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, AFL-CIO

East Palo Alto Community & Neighborhood Development Organization

Joint Venture: Silicon Valley NetworkLeague of Women Voters, San Mateo County

San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers AuthoritySan Mateo County Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO

Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management InitiativeVisitation Valley Planning Alliance

Housing Leadership Council

Special thanks to the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments and Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition for

providing food and refreshments.


SMART GROWTH STRATEGY

Regional Agencies

• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)

• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

• Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

SPONSORING AGENCIESSPONSORING AGENCIES


REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development45 Member OrganizationsSteering Committee consists of organizations representing the

Three E’s of Smart Growth and Sustainable Development:

Government: Association of Bay Area Governments

SPONSORING AGENCIESSPONSORING AGENCIES


Prosperous Economy: Bay Area Council

Quality Environment: Sierra Club

Social Equity: Urban Habitat Program

• 1 million new jobs

• 1 million more people

• 265,000 daily in-commuters to the region

• 150% increase in aggregate traffic congestion

• Conversion of up to 83,000 acres of currently undeveloped land

• 44% decrease in households able to afford the median priced home from 1995 to 2001

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUES

BAY AREA TRENDSBAY AREA TRENDS


Through 2020

1995 to 2001

Natural Increase

(“Our own children”)

Net Migration(“Other People”)


REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTHREGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH

50%

50%(approximate figures)


• Expand housing?

• Constrain future job growth?

• Expand infrastructure to handle in-commuters?

Find a smarter way to grow


CHOICES ABOUT FUTURE GROWTHCHOICES ABOUT FUTURE GROWTH


PHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHY

• Broad participation

• Bottom-up

• Build on local efforts

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

LOCAL EFFORTSLOCAL EFFORTS


LOCAL EFFORTSLOCAL EFFORTS


AIA Design Charrettes on Transit-Oriented

Development

• Smart growth land use changes supported by local governments.

• A regional incentive package and implementation strategies.

• A set of smart growth land use projections.

GOALSGOALS


The Three E’s of Smart Growth and Sustainable Development:

SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLESSMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES


Prosperous Economy

Quality Environment

Social Equity

• Efficiently accommodate projected growth.

• Provide sufficient affordable housing.

• Revitalize central cities and older suburbs.

• Reduce single occupant vehicle trips.

• Preserve open space and agricultural land.

• Foster equitable economic development while minimizing displacement.

SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLESSMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES


• Revitalization of existing communities

• Efficient design for edge development

• Development near transit service

• Mixed use

• Efficient density

• Mixed incomes

SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTSSAMPLE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS


PROCESSPROCESS

Public Workshop Round 1September and October 2001

Distillationand Analysis

Public Workshop Round 2March and April 2001

Final Steps


• Smart growth principles

• Land use mapping

exercise

• Regulatory changes and incentives

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS - ROUND ONEPUBLIC WORKSHOPS - ROUND ONE


HOUSING UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JOBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PROXIMITY OF HSG. TO TRANSIT . . . . .PROXIMITY OF JOBS TO TRANSIT . . . . .OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PEDESTRIAN QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PLACEPLACE3S: ANALYTICAL & MAPPING POWER OF GISS: ANALYTICAL & MAPPING POWER OF GIS


WATER CONSUMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• Three region-wide thematic alternatives

• Analysis of alternatives and existing trends:

DISTILLATION & ANALYSISDISTILLATION & ANALYSIS

– Housing Affordability

– Jobs/Housing Match

– Market Displacement and Social Equity

– Transportation and Air Quality Modeling

– Development FeasibilityCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

• Review results of first workshop.

• Address subregional issues.

• Recommend preferred alternative.

• Develop regulatory changes and

incentives.

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS - ROUND TWOPUBLIC WORKSHOPS - ROUND TWO


• BAASD coordinates a Public Education and

Engagement Campaign

• ABAG Board considers adoption of

Projections forecast

• MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan

• Other regional plans

• Regional regulatory changes and incentives

• Local implementation

FINAL STEPSFINAL STEPS


• General Plans– Revised Regulatory Framework– Additional Incentives– Regional Context

• Housing Allocations

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROCESSESRELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROCESSES


RELATIONSHIP TO DRAFT COMPACTRELATIONSHIP TO DRAFT COMPACT


• Housing Availability and Affordability

• Traffic Mobility and Congestion

• Open Space Preservation

• Livability and Community Vitality

• Social and Economic Equity

OUR REGIONAL GROWTH CHALLENGESOUR REGIONAL GROWTH CHALLENGES


HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITYHOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY

Bay Area Jobs and Employed Residents by County, 2000

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Alam

eda

Cont

ra C

osta

Mar

in

Nap

a

San

Fran

cisc

o

San

Mat

eo

Sant

a Cl

ara

Sola

no

Sono

ma

Total Jobs

Total EmployedResidents


Projected Growth in Jobs and Employed Residents 2000-2020

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Alamed

a

Contra

Cos

taM

arin

Napa

San F

ranc

isco

San M

ateo

Santa

Clar

a

Solano

Sonom

a


Jobs

Employed Residents


Alam

eda

Cont

ra C

osta

Mar

in

Nap

a

San

Fran

cisc

o

San

Mat

eo

Sant

a Cl

ara

Sola

no

Sono

ma


The jobs/housing challenge2000-2020

• Projected job growth: 70,000 jobs

• Resulting housing need: 35,000-40,000

units



Affordability Gap for Median-Income Households

-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

East

Bay

(Oak

land

PMSA

)

San

Fran

cisc

o/

San

Mat

eo/M

arin

(San

Fra

ncisco

PMSA

)

Sant

a Cl

ara

Coun

ty

(San

Jose

PMSA

)

Sono

ma

Coun

ty

(San

ta R

osa

PMSA

)So

lano

/Nap

a

(Val

lejo

-Fai

rfiel

d-

Nap

a PM

SA)

Home Price Affordable toMedian 4 Person Household

Median HomeMarket Price


INCOME CATEGORIES FOR A FAMILY OF FOURMedian Income - $80,100

VERY LOW INCOME0-$40,050

— Child Care Worker$17,860 —

Medical Assistant$28,130 —

Retail Clerk$20,360

LOW INCOME$40,050-$64,080

— Accountant$48,740

—Elementary School

Teacher$41,28

0

MODERATE INCOME$64,080-$96,120

—Computer Programmer$70,190



—Police Patrol Office$49,220


Housing need by affordability category:

• Very low income: 20%• Low income: 10%• Moderate income: 26%• Above moderate income: 44%


HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

2000

BAY AREA HOUSING PERMITS

JAN-SEP 2000

SINGLE-FAMILYDETACHED

63%

MULTI-FAMILY

37%

SINGLE PARENTS

WITH CHILDREN

8%

SINGLES

30%

FAMILIES WITH

CHILDREN

26%

FAMILIES WITH

NO CHILDREN

36%



Tree TopsMulti-Family HousingSan Bruno



The Villas at Bair Island MarinaMulti-Family HousingRedwood City



Colma RidgeSpecial Needs HousingColma



Rotary Haciendas ISenior HousingSan Mateo



In-Law Unit



0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

Vehicle-Hours of Delay150% Increase

2025

339,100

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

VMT Increasing FasterThan Population

2000-2020

VMTIncrease

PopulationIncrease

14%

28%

1998

TRAFFIC MOBILITY AND CONGESTIONTRAFFIC MOBILITY AND CONGESTION


854,600

100,000

300,000

500,000

700,000

900,000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 2020

Commute Mode SplitRemains Unchanged

(millions of trips/day)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 2020

In-Commuters to Bay AreaIncrease

(thousands of persons/year)

Cars

Transit

Walk, bike



648

San Benito County/Monterey

SAN MATEO COUNTY DAILY COMMUTERSSAN MATEO COUNTY DAILY COMMUTERS


Alameda County

36,92642,323

Santa Clara County

Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Year

6,4554,779

10,591

05,000

10,00015,00020,000

Urban Center TraditionalNeighborhood

SuburbanNeighborhood



(San Francisco) (Rockridge) (San Ramon)



BART Extension

Caltrain

Illustrations from Urban Advantage




Hayward Park Station Area Improvement PlanSan Mateo

BMS Design Group

Illustrations from Urban Advantage




Station SquareMillbrae

ROMA Design Group

OPEN SPACE PRESERVATIONOPEN SPACE PRESERVATION


Pacifica

Land has been urbanized 2 1/2 times fasterthan urban population has increased

Urban Population



UrbanizedLand

Population (millions)

Urbanized Land (square miles)

100 200 300 400

15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000

Urban Population

UrbanizedLand

Population (millions)

Urbanized Land (square miles)

100 200 300 400

15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000

70

13,000

150

60,000

1950

1990

Source: National Geographic

Projected for Development Through 2020Public Land or

Privately Protected Land

Conservation Easement

Owned in Fee

Urban Areas



Lands Projected for Development through 2020

83,000 acres subject to conversion



Urban Growth Boundaries

LIVABILITY AND COMMUNITY VITALITYLIVABILITY AND COMMUNITY VITALITY


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EQUITYSOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EQUITY

The Bay Area’s 46 Most Impoverished

Neighborhoods (NCCC 1997)

Very low-income neighborhoods

need reinvestment

while minimizing displacement

These neighborhood

residents need access to

quality jobs


Definition of Impoverished Community:

Areas where a majority of households earn less than 80% of the County median income (1990)



Impoverished

Communities In San Mateo County



Educational Attainment

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

San Mateo County North Fair Oaks

Graduate or Professional Degree

Bachelor's DegreeAssociate DegreeSome College, No DegreeHigh School Graduate (Includes Equivalency)9th to 12th Grade,

No DiplomaLess than 9th Grade

Impoverished neighborhoods:

• Can benefit from Smart Growth

• May be significantly affected by Smart Growth



SMALL GROUP EXERCISESMALL GROUP EXERCISE

GOAL

Identify the most appropriate patterns for smart growth in San Mateo County.


SMALL GROUP EXERCISESMALL GROUP EXERCISE

• Smart Growth Principles

• Land Use Mapping Exercise

• Affordable Housing

• Regulatory Changes and Incentives


PRINCIPLESPRINCIPLES


• Review principles generated this morning.

• Add additional principles if desired.

MAPPING EXERCISEMAPPING EXERCISE

• Planning Areas

• Planning Area Categories

• Place Types

• Predictors


PLANNING AREASPLANNING AREAS


Areas where development

might be possibleNot an endorsement of

new development

PLANNING AREA CATEGORIESPLANNING AREA CATEGORIES

• Key Sites

• Residential Areas• Mixed-Use Areas• Town Centers/Downtowns• Employment Areas/Institutions

• Rail Stations/Major Transfer Facility Areas• Corridors


PLACE TYPES MENUPLACE TYPES MENU


PLACE TYPE MANUALPLACE TYPE MANUAL


PLACE TYPESPLACE TYPES

Varying mixes of residential and employment uses:


• Residential

• Mixed-Use

• Town Center/Downtown

• Employment Center/Institution

San Mateo

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL


San Bruno

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL


MIXED USEMIXED USE


City Center ApartmentsRedwood City

Burlingame

MIXED-USEMIXED-USE


TOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWNTOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWN

DowntownSan Mateo


TOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWNTOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWN

DowntownBurlingame


EMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTIONEMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTION

Metro CenterFoster City CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

EMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTIONEMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTION


Harbor Industrial Area

• Varying land uses and densities

within each Place Type

• Specify percentage of planning area to be changed

• Focus on the next 20 years

PLACE TYPE CHARACTERISTICSPLACE TYPE CHARACTERISTICS


OTHER PLANNING AREA ASSIGNMENTSOTHER PLANNING AREA ASSIGNMENTS

•No Change (includes open space)

•New Place Type

•Percent Increase


•Broad brush, regional perspective

• County-wide interaction

APPROACHAPPROACH


PLACE TYPE EXERCISEPLACE TYPE EXERCISE


AFFORDABLE HOUSING MIXAFFORDABLE HOUSING MIX

Assign affordability mix to each planning area:

Category Default

Very Low Income 20%

Low Income 10%

Moderate Income 26%

Above Moderate Income 44%


• Fiscal Reform

• Monetary Incentives to Local Governments

• Regulatory Exemptions

• Transportation Improvements and Policies

• Monetary Incentives for Individuals

REGULATORY CHANGES AND INCENTIVESREGULATORY CHANGES AND INCENTIVES


regional agencies smart growth strategy bay area alliance for sustainable development regional...

Documents

es of smart growth

future job growth

urban habitat program

member organizations

natural increase

sierra club social equity

children net migration

philosophy broad participation