How the "Magic Formula" for housing growth projections for Marin was achieved by ABAG.

This emergency meeting of ABAG was held on April 2, 2013 to discuss the differences in the demographic forecasts by the California Department of Finance (DOF), California  Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The California Department of  Finance(DOF) has long been considered the gold standard for business and government economic forecasters since it is based upon detailed analysis of census statistics and does not pretend to know the future business trends, political developments and tax policy that can affect future growth.  It is a fact based methodology.  It is the core statistic for California.

The Calfornia Housing and Community Development  (HCD) projects housing growth in part using DOF forecasts but also include political policy initiatives into account.

The Asssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) guided by chief forecaster, Stephen Levy using the data from DOF, HCD plus a "special sauce" of projections of US economic growth,  estimates of the Bay Area growth, etc and projects forty years into the future.  His forecasts are the basis for the Regional Needs Analysis (RHNA) that projects the need for affordable housing.

His results are highly controversial since they deviate from all other responsible forecasts of the above agencies and private business forecasts.  For example, Marin population has been decreasing for the last decade but ABAG is projecting wild growth not seen in decades.

A Christmas Present to Marin from a Hollywood Court ruling rejecting "Densification"

The Law's No Ass: Rejecting Hollywood Densification

Hollywood Urban Planners must tell the truth to the public.  "The Law's no ass", says Judge Goodman.

by Wendell Cox 12/24/2013


The city of Los Angeles received a stunning rebuke, when California Superior Court Judge Alan J. Goodman invalidated the Hollywood Community Plan. The Hollywood district, well known for its entertainment focus, contains approximately 5% of the city of Los Angeles’ population. The Hollywood Plan was the basis of the city's vision for a far more dense Hollywood, with substantial high rise development in "transit oriented developments" adjacent to transit rail stations (Note 1).

The Hollywood Plan had been challenged by three community groups

(Savehollywood.org, La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of Hollywood, and Fix the City), which argued that the approval process had violated provisions of California law, and most particularly had relied on population projections that were both obsolete and inaccurate. [Editor's Note: ABAG estimated population projections of 15% growth compared to the Department of Finance projections of 2% ]

Judge Goodman called the Hollywood Plan "fatally flawed," and noted that it relied on errors of both "fact and law."

He ordered the City to:

(1) Rescind, set aside and vacate all actions approving the Hollywood Plan and prepare a replacement that is lawful and consistent with the City's general plan.

(2) Grant no permits or entitlements from the Hollywood Plan until it has been replaced with a lawful substitute.

An "Entirely Discredited" Population Baseline

The principal issue in the case revolved around out-of-date and erroneous population estimates (Note 2). The city based its densification plan on an assumption that the population of Hollywood would rise from 200,000 in 2000 to 224,000 in
2005. This estimate was produced by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is the metropolitan planning organization for all of Southern California outside San Diego County. SCAG had further projected that Hollywood's population would rise to 250,000 by 2030.

To house these additional residents, the city reasoned that higher density development was necessary. In a related matter, the Los Angeles City Council approved Millennium Hollywood, a pair of 35 and 39 story mixed use towers. This was in spite of warnings from the State Geologist that the property was bisected by a dangerous earthquake "rupture" fault (Note 3). Litigation is pending.

But there’s a fly in this planning ointment, rather than gaining population, Hollywood is losing people. Before the Hollywood Plan was finally approved, 2010 United States Census data was released that indicated the population had dropped to 198,000. This revealed both the SCAG estimate of the actual population and its 2030 projection to be highly inaccurate. Judge Goodman referred to the SCAG 2005 estimate as "entirely discredited."

Elementary Questions Raised

Nonetheless, the city proceeded based upon the incorrect population data. This led the Judge to raise elementary questions about the process (paraphrased below).

(1) Why was the SCAG population estimate used as a baseline by the city of Los Angeles if the US Census count, readily available before the environmental process was completed, had shown a significantly smaller population?

(2) Why was the 2030 projection (from SCAG) not adjusted in the Plan based on the new, lower 2010 US Census population count?

The City defended using the stale and erroneous population data. Judge Goodman commented: "That clearly is a post-hoc rationalization of City's failure to recognize that the HCPU (Hollywood Plan) was unsupported by anything other than wishful thinking" (parentheses and emphasis by author). The Judge continued that this resulted in a "manifest failure to comply with statutory requirements."

The Judge set out the burden faced by the City to achieve a legal (and rational outcome):

...if the population estimate for 2030 were to be adjusted based on what the 2010 Census data had shown, then all of the several analyses which are based on population would need to be adjusted, such as housing, commercial building, traffic, water demand, waste produced -as well as all other factors analyzed in these key planning documents.

To its discredit, the city incredibly argued that "it was entitled by law to rely on the SCAG 2005 population estimate." The Judge disagreed. Any other conclusion would have proven "the law to be an ass" (Note 4).

Abuse of Discretion

The La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association argued that the city of Los Angeles had failed to exercise "good faith effort at full disclosure," contrary to the requirements of California environmental law. Judge Goodman appeared to agree, finding that the city of Los Angeles had abused its discretion, noting "A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the goals of" the environmental process.

Inaccurate Population Estimates and Projections

This is not the first time that Southern California population projections have been so wrong. With more than a century of explosive population growth, more recent trends may have eluded some of the planning agencies. In 1993, SCAG projected that the city of Los Angeles would reach a population of 4.3 million by 2010. SCAG's predicted increase of more than 800,000 materialized into little more than 300,000. This is not to suggest that projecting population is an exact science, nor that SCAG has been alone in its inaccuracy.

In 2007, the state's official population projection agency, the Department of Finance projected that Los Angeles County would reach 10.5 million residents in just three years. But the 2010 US Census counted only 9.8 million residents (See 60 Million Californians? Don't Bet on It). In contrast with the previously accustomed growth from other parts of the country, Los Angeles County lost a net 1.2 million residents to other parts of the nation while the rate of immigration fell.

Not a Unique Problem

This instance of overinflated and inaccurate projections is not unique to Los Angeles. The use of out-of-date or erroneous information is increasingly being used in regional planning. Recently, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved the San Francisco Plan Area Plan, which used population projections substantially higher even than those of the Department of Finance (despite that agency's previous over-optimism).

As in Los Angeles, Plan Bay Area also used outdated data for automobile greenhouse gas emission factors that have long since been rendered obsolete by technological advancements. Other planning agencies around the nation have engaged in similar practices.

Planners in the Bay Area, SCAG and elsewhere in California are using similarly flawed projections that presume a substantial change in housing preferences toward multifamily and smaller lots. Yet, years later, the projected trends have not emerged in any significant way (See: A Housing Preference Sea-Change: Not in California).

Wishful Thinking: No Basis for Action

Judge Goodman's decision could have relevance well beyond Los Angeles and the state of California. Regional plans must be based upon current and reliable data, no matter how late received. To proceed based on faulty data is no different than not changing course when an iceberg appears in the navigation path. Wishful thinking has no place in rational planning.
--------

Note 1: The Hollywood rail stations are on the Red Line subway, which was projected to carry 300,000 daily riders by 2000. The Red Line is carrying approximately 170,000 daily riders and would need three-quarters more to reach the projection for more than a decade ago (see: Report on Funding Levels and Allocations of Funds, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1991, page B-49)

Note 2: The plaintiffs also argued that the Hollywood Plan's densification would result in additional traffic congestion. This is a serious concern, given Hollywood's central location in the second most congested metropolitan area in North America (following Vancouver, which recently ended the decades long reign of Los Angeles). Greater traffic congestion is associated with higher population densities.
Note 3: LA Weekly said that the fault might be capable "of opening the Earth, splitting buildings in half" (See: How the Hollywood Fault Made Millennium's Future Uncertain, and L.A. a Laughingstock).

Note 4: "The law is an ass" (as in a donkey) refers to cases in which the law is at odds with common sense. This phrase was used by Charles Dickens, but appears to have first been used in a play as early as 1620.
Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.

Photograph: Los Angeles City Hall (by author)

Plan Bay Area Public Forum Summary Recap.

Marin Headlands

Hi Citizen Marin Friends,

I thought you might be interested in my recap of last night's Plan Bay Area Public Forum.  It includes a quick summary of this morning's ABAG/MTC Executive Committee meeting.


FYI -

I attended the Plan Bay Area Public Forum last night.  Most (or all?) of the panel of "Experts" were "Pro" Plan Bay Area.  As such, although insightful comments were made, a full examination of the plan was lacking without having "Anti" Plan Bay Area experts on the panel also.

For example, in Richard Halstead's Marin IJ article (scroll down to read his article) you will see that Linda Jackson (Planning Manager for the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM)) touted that the plan maintains local control due to a clause written into SB 375 that nothing in a Sustainable Communities Strategy, like Plan Bay Area, could supersede the land use policies of local jurisdictions.  However, she failed to give the full picture when stating this.

Here's the Full Picture Regarding the Draft Plan Bay Area & Loss of Local Control:
http://transbayblog.com/sb375/#localgov
SB 375 does not supersede local laws and local governments are explicitly not required to update their general plans in accordance with the law’s centerpiece, the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). However, SB 375 uses incentives (I.e. transportation funding, etc.) and penalties (I.e. court sanctions; accelerated Housing Element update cycles, etc.) to entice local jurisdictions to follow the law and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

For example,  the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ("Transportation 2035" is the Bay Area's RTP and allocates funding to regional transportation) contains an internal consistency requirement.  This consistency requirement effectively trickles down to cities and counties, because the “Metropolitan Planning Organization” (MPO) may only award funding to projects that are consistent with the “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS).  Thus, the incentive of receiving federal funding — or, stated differently, the threat of being denied federal funding — gives local governments a good reason to regulate in a manner consistent with the SCS.

Moreover, under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) state law, a local government is still required to amend its Housing Element and rezone its land in order to accommodate the quantity of housing it was assigned under the RHNA — and SB 375 requires that the RHNA be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). In that sense, local governments will still be called
upon to implement major aspects of the SCS (via the RHNA), whether or not they want to.

As a result, when local governments select Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites, the sites should be close to mass transit. Furthermore, when local governments update their Housing Elements and zoning, these updates should allow for compact, high-density, mixed-use commercial and affordable residential development at the selected RHNA sites.

Plan Bay Area & the 2007 Countywide Plan:
There was some implication that Plan Bay Area is OK because it directs development in the same areas as the 2007 Countywide Plan (CWP).  Indeed, the conclusion should be the exact opposite.  In my opinion, this should demonstrate that Plan Bay Area is another poor planning document.  One of the most significant findings of the 2007 Countywide Plan's Environmental Impact Report was that "land uses and development consistent with the CWP would result in 42 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts" (including, as already mentioned, a water deficit).  How could emulating this be a good thing? Two wrongs does not make a right.

Lowering Green House Gas (GHG) Discussion:
There is mounting evidence by renown technical experts that the Draft Plan Bay Area's analysis of lowering Green House Gases is severely flawed.  None of this flawed analysis was recognized or discussed last night.

Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Caused by Plan Bay Area:
The panelists did acknowledge that the Draft Plan Bay Area did not address sea level rise or Marin's water deficit for new development.  Due to these serious problems alone, it is hard to understand why they would still condone the plan.  Other significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts were largely ignored.  More over, unless I missed it, one of the basic problems of the plan was not even brought up by the panelists - that encouraging residents to live near transit & busy roadways, known to emit Toxic Air Contaminants, seriously increases their risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.

Lack of Knowledge of Marin's Elected Representatives:
I have received reports from people who attended the City of Mill Valley's hearing about Plan Bay Area and Sausalito's hearing about Plan Bay Area.  At both hearings, it was apparent that the council members were just starting to delve into the Draft Plan Bay Area and it's Draft Environmental Impact Report (both extremely complicated documents) and had a great deal to learn.  For instance, Mill Valley council members didn't even know the concept of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations".

Based on last night's discussion and lack of understanding of Marin's Representatives & residents, it is clear that Marin County needs, at a minimum, another six months to evaluate the Draft Plan Bay Area.  Unfortunately, all implications indicate that the plan will be railroaded through.  A resident just called to tell me that at this morning's ABAG/MTC Executive Committee meeting, the Committee voted to NOT extend the comment time on Plan Bay Area.  Supervisor Steve Kinsey was one of the strongest voices against the extension.  According to the local resident who attended the meeting, out of approximately 20 to 25 Executive Committee Members, only 2 voted for more time for review.  Novato Mayor Pat Eklund was one of the two.

This is a sorry state of affairs



www.tamalmonte.org


 

 Experts say Plan Bay Area not 'alot of weird, new ideas,' preserves local control over growth
By Richard Halstead
Marin Independent Journal
Posted:   05/09/2013 10:08:03 PM PDT

Nearly 200 people gathered in Angelico Hall at Dominican University to hear a panel of local experts detail how Plan Bay Area would affect Marin's environment, housing equity and greenhouse gas production. The forum was organized by several local environmental nonprofits, and moderated by Marin County Supervisor Katie Rice.

The broad message that the panelists delivered was that while Plan Bay Area may be flawed, it is not the disaster portrayed by its fiercest critics.

One of the panelists, Marjorie Macris, a leader of the Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative and a former Marin County planning director, said, "First of all, we need to recognize that Plan Bay Area is not talking about a lot of weird, new ideas."

Macris said the plan's most basic objective — to focus future growth around transportation corridors to prevent sprawl — is shared by the Marin Countywide Plan that she helped write in 1973.

Nevertheless, Plan Bay Area has ignited controversy in Marin with a coalition of neighborhood groups calling itself Citizen Marin opposing it, and another group of residents, Concerned Marinites to End NIMBYism, defending the plan.

Citizen Marin asserts that the plan robs local jurisdictions of control over land use decisions and will
result in high-density apartment developments that will damage Marin's pristine natural environment. Concerned Marinites to End NIMBYism counter that opponents are really worried that the creation of higher-density, more affordable housing will attract lower-income, more ethnically diverse residents to the county.

Another panelist, Linda Jackson, planning manager for the Transportation Authority of Marin, said that concerns about a loss of local control are misplaced. Jackson said that when the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, from which Plan Bay Area springs, was written "local control was a big issue for all of your city council members." As result, Jackson said, a clause was written into the law specifying that nothing in the plan could supersede the land use policies of local jurisdictions.

Jackson explained that Plan Bay Area was developed largely as a response to that Climate Protection Act of 2008, which requires each of the state's 18 metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Statewide, the plan seeks to channel 80 percent of housing growth and 66 percent of the job growth in "priority development areas," or PDAs. Marin has just two PDAs, both in San Rafael, the second-fewest of the nine Bay Area counties.

For those worried that Plan Bay Area would mandate unbridled development in Marin, Marcis said the Marin Countywide Plan, updated in 2007, lays the groundwork for an amount of commercial development much larger than Plan Bay Area — an amount equal in size to the Transamerica Pyramid.

"If you're concerned about excessive growth, the place to focus your attention would be on your local, elected representatives," Macris said. "They can control it."

But the panelists also had critical things to say about the plan, as well. For example, they said it fails to adequately plan for sea level rise due to global warming or address Marin's shortage of water for new development.

Contact Richard Halstead via e-mail at rhalstead@marinij.com