o n e s t a t e
m a n y regions
o u r f u t u r e
c a l i f o r n i a r e g i o n a l
p r o g r e s s r e p o r t
California Center for Regional Leadership in partnership with
Caltrans • CALCOG • U. C. Davis
2 0 0 7
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans)
California Association of Councils of Governments ( CALCOG)
calcog member agencies:
Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG)
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments ( AMBAG)
Fresno Council of Governments
Kern Council of Governments
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC)
Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG)
San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG)
San Joaquin Council of Governments
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments ( SLOCOG)
The 2007 California Regional Progress Report is a collaborative effort between the regions,
the State, university and philanthropic partners and the California Center for Regional Leadership,
which is the manager for this project.
Ping Chang
Program Manager, Performance Assessment and Monitoring,
Southern California Association of Governments
Coleen Clementson
Senior Regional Planner, San Diego Association of Governments
James Corless
Senior Planner, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Cathy Creswell
Deputy Director, Division of Housing Policy Development,
California Department of Housing and Community Development
Randy Deshazo
Senior Regional Planner, Association of Bay Area Governments
Steve Devencenzi
Planning Director, San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments
Ted Droettboom
Joint Policy Committee Staff Director, Association of Bay Area Governments
Christine Eary
Project Manager, San Diego Association of Governments
Gordon Garry
Director, Research and Analysis, Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Marjorie Kirn
Deputy Executive Director, Merced County Association of Governments
Julia Lave Johnston
Planner, State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
Dan Little
Chief Planner, Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency
PROJECT SPONSORS
PROJECT ADVISORY TEAM
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG)
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tulare County Association of Governments
California Department of Housing
and Community Development
Information Center for the Environment,
University of California, Davis
With generous support from the Morgan Family Foundation
Debbie Mah
Chief, Director’s Office of Strategic Planning/ Performance Measurement and
Performance Measures, Caltrans
Mahmoud Mahdavi
Senior Economist, Transportation Economics,
Division of Transportation Planning, Caltrans
Mike McCoy
Principal Investigator, Information Center for the Environment, U. C. Davis
Rusty Selix
Executive Director, CALCOG
Nathan Smith
Chief, Office of State Planning, Division of Transportation Planning, Caltrans
Barbara Steck
Senior Transportation Planner, Fresno Council of Governments
Dan Wayne
Senior Planner, Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Additional copies of the report may be downloaded at:
www. calregions. org
www. calcog. org
http:// calblueprint. dot. ca. gov/
For individuals with sensory disabilities this document
is available in alternate formats. Please call or write to:
Marilee Mortenson, Task Order Manager
California Department of Transportation,
Division of Transportation Planning,
MS 32, P. O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274- 0001
916- 653- 3758
or use the CA Relay Service TTY number 1- 800- 735- 2929
California
Regional
Progress
R e p o r t
J u n e 2 0 0 7
The California Center for Regional Leadership is very pleased to introduce the inaugural California
Regional Progress Report in collaboration with our regional, state, education and philanthropic
partners. This report provides the baseline for how California’s regions are doing across a range
of integrated quality of life measures within the framework of innovative regional planning led by
the State’s Metropolitan Planning Agencies ( MPOs) and Councils of Government ( COGs),
supported by Caltran’s California Regional Blueprint Planning Program, a process underway in
most of the State’s regions.
California stands at a historic threshold – with 3.5 million new residents since 2000, a population
nearing 38 million, and projections for continued growth and diversity which will dramatically
shape the future of our regions and our state. The question is not whether we will grow but how
and where we will grow, and what the impacts will be on our long- term prosperity and quality of
life. What kind of future do we want, what do we need to do collectively to attain that reality,
and how do we measure our progress toward achieving our goals?
The focus is of this report on the regions because they are the building blocks of the State – the
scale at which the economy, transportation, labor market and natural systems function. Regions
compete with other regions in the global economy, and all of our regions must have the capacity
to do so. The regions are where collective solutions for our future can be created, and this is the
genesis of “ regional blueprint planning.”
While the Regional Blueprint Planning efforts are at varying stages of implementation across
California, and while the State’s regions differ dramatically in many ways, they share the ever-increasing
challenges of traffic congestion; sprawl; lack of housing affordability for large segments
of the population; and uncertain ability to sustain a vibrant economy, preserve important farmlands
and open space and maintain quality of life for their ever- increasing populations. These regional
efforts have different visions and strategies but share the commitment and understanding that we
need to grow better and smarter in the future, and that we need to link land use, transportation,
housing, natural resources and economic development in holistic regional plans that create a more
sustainable path to our shared future and equitable access to these assets.
Many regions are already monitoring their progress through indicator reports, but this Regional
Progress Report is the first time all of the State’s regions are included in a comprehensive framework
and with a common set of progress indicators and measures. We hope this report provides
perspective and value to regional partners to assess progress toward regional visions and goals, and
to state and local policy makers and residents so they can better support regional efforts. This
report is a first step. We do not always have the data we need to measure what we want to
understand better, but working together we can identify those needs and improve our ability to
measure our progress and make mid- course corrections.
We applaud the visionary leadership and innovative actions of the regional, state, local and federal
partners dedicated to the Regional Blueprint process and outcomes. We also wish to express our
gratitude to Sunne Wright McPeak, former CCRL Board Chair and former Secretary of the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency, for her vision and leadership in imagining a path to a better
future for all Californians.
As we look ahead, we see that regional planning and benchmarking will become even more important
as regions begin to devise their strategies for achieving California’s ambitious climate change goals
and investing the recent voter- approved $ 42.7 billion in infrastructure bond funds. Our challenges
are many but our opportunities are great, and CCRL will continue in its mission to advance
innovative regional strategies with all our partners throughout the State.
Dan Mazmanian
Interim Board Chair
California Center for Regional Leadership
The purpose of the California Regional Progress Report is to develop
a common framework and set of indicators to measure regional
progress statewide and to help Californians improve their communities,
with this first report as the baseline. The intent is to inform state,
regional, and local decision makers about transportation, housing,
land use, environmental resources, and other infrastructure in ways
that lead to:
• 	 A more efficient and effective transportation system and land
use pattern
• 	 A strong and sustainable economy
• 	 Progress along the dimensions of place, prosperity, and people
( i. e., the 3 “ Ps”) which define quality of life for all Californians.
The 3Ps fully incorporate and expand on the environmental,
economic, and social equity dimensions ( i. e., the “ 3Es”) that
have been widely used by the regions of California, Caltrans, and
many others as a conceptual foundation for policy and planning
The Report is intended not as an evaluation of specific policies or
planning efforts, but rather a recognition that Californians are coming
together across the State and working in new ways to improve the
quality of life of their regions. This process is occurring through
“ regional blueprint planning,” a new and innovative mechanism that
moves beyond “ business as usual” as we plan for our future to address
the challenges and opportunities of growth.
As such, the California Regional Progress Report is intended to be a
resource for regional, state and local decision makers and critical
stakeholders, including residents, business and environmental interests,
non- profits and other civic leaders as they determine the policies and
investments that will shape the economic, social, and environmental
well- being of California’s regions and thus the State overall. It has
been created as a means to help them better understand how their
regions are evolving, in what areas they are making progress, where
they may need to change course or address emerging challenges, and
how the State can better support the regions and their communities.
Every region is a work in progress; this Report offers an objective
source of information on how the journey is going.
Regional Blueprint Planning
The selection of the indicators has been guided by the comprehensive,
long- term regional planning and visioning efforts of the State’s eighteen
federally designated Metropolitan Planning Agencies ( MPOs) and
Councils of Governments ( COGs) which are responsible for
transportation planning and investments of federal and other resources.
COGs also are responsible for identifying the share of the region’s
housing needs for each community ( see www. calcog. org).
These efforts, known under various names within the regions but
referred to generally as “ Blueprint Planning,” were initiated in the
1990s as a means for local governments and regional agencies within
metropolitan regions to coordinate long- range plans for transportation
investment, air quality, and land use. In 2005, the California Business,
INTRODUCTION
Transportation and Housing Agency launched the California Regional
Blueprint Planning Program. This is a voluntary, discretionary
competitive grant program that provides seed funding that initiates
or augments the activities of the MPOs and COGs to conduct
comprehensive scenario planning with regional leaders, local
governments and stakeholders on a preferred growth scenario, or
“ Regional Blueprint Plan.” The program is intended to better inform
regional and local decision- making through proactive public
engagement, and to foster consensus on a vision and preferred land
use pattern through the year 2025 or longer.
Originally established by the California Legislature as a two- year
program, the California Regional Blueprint Planning Program is
administered by the California Department of Transportation
( Caltrans), Office of Regional and Interagency Planning. During
2005 and 2006, Caltrans awarded $ 10 million for Regional Blueprint
planning to nine grantees comprising sixteen of the State’s MPOs.
Ninety- seven percent of the Californians reside in regions covered by
Blueprint Plans underway.
Participating Blueprint grantees include:
ABAG/ MTC ( Bay Area), AMBAG ( Monterey Bay), BCAG ( Butte),
SACOG ( Sacramento), SANDAG ( San Diego), SLOCOG ( San Luis
Obispo), San Joaquin Valley ( collaboration of 8 MPOs/ COGs),
SCRTPA ( Shasta), SCAG, and Tri- County Partnership ( a rural pilot
in Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties). 	 	 	
For a map of the regions see pp. 6- 7
The California Regional Blueprint Planning Program has
important components and partners. These include:
• The Blueprint Learning Network ( BLN) – provides learning opportunities
and technical support to the MPOs, COGs and their regional and local
civic partners, including local elected officials. BLN holds three statewide
workshops per year to focus on overcoming the challenges to effective
Blueprint Planning and addressing new planning issues. Partners
include members of the Governor’s Cabinet, State agencies and other
segments of the public and private sectors. The workshops are a forum
to share best practices and combine knowledge and resources. The 2007
workshops are co- sponsored by Caltrans and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research. CCRL and U. C. Davis Information Center
for the Environment are the managers of the BLN and collaborate with
MPOs/ COGs and the California Association of Councils of
Governments ( CALCOG).
• The State Coordinating Committee – provides State agency support;
is co- hosted by Caltrans and the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research and is comprised of Cabinet Secretaries and key staff from the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research, the Resources Agency, Caltrans, Department
of Housing and Community Development, Environmental Protection
Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the
Geographic Information Systems Council.
• A broad- based coalition of program affiliates to provide their perspective
and enhance the delivery of the program.
For additional information go to http:// calblueprint. dot. ca. gov/
02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 	 2
Framework 	 4
How Indicators Were Chosen 	 6
How Regions Were Defined 	 7
Importance of Statewide Challenges 	 8
and Regional Differences 	
Place, Prosperity, and People 	
The California Story Today 	 11
What Progress Are We Making? 	 12
Summary of Regional Progress Chart 	 13
A Shared Vision for the Future 	 14
Looking Ahead 	 15
PLACE 	 16
Efficient Development 	 17
Movement of People and Goods 	 20
Transportation Choices 	 24
Resource Use 	 26
Protected Lands 	 30
Air & Water Quality 	 32
Housing Affordability/ Burden 	 36
PROSPERITY 	 38
Employment Change 	 39
Income 	 42
Innovation 	 44
PEOPLE 	 46
Access to Opportunity 	 48
Health 	 50
Public Safety 	 52
Opportunities + Implications 	 53
Appendix 	 55
The California Regional Blueprint Planning Process was created to
foster consensus among community and regional leaders, local
governments and stakeholders toward a vision for preferred growth
and land use patterns for each region. The collaborative, comprehensive,
planning efforts are to result in a Blueprint plan for the region through
the year 2025. The long- range goal for the Regional Blueprint Plans
is to guide future infrastructure development, in turn to accommodate
anticipated population and economic growth within the regions.
The desired outcomes for the Blueprint Plans are to:
	
Foster More Efficient Land Use Patterns and
Transportation Systems That:
• 	 Support improved mobility and reduced dependency on single-occupant
vehicle trips, and reduce congestion
• 	 Increase transit use, walking and bicycling
• 	 Encourage infill development
• 	 Accommodate an adequate supply of housing for all incomes
• 	 Reduce impacts on valuable habitat and productive farmland
• 	 Improve air quality
• 	 Increase efficient use of energy and other resources
• 	 Result in safe and vibrant neighborhoods
Provide Consumers With More Housing and
Transportation Choices
Improve California’s Economic Competitiveness
and Quality of Life
Establish a Process for Public and Stakeholder
Engagement That Can Be Replicated to Build
Awareness Of, and Support For,
Critical Infrastructure and Housing Needs
Source: Regional Blueprint Planning Program, http:// calblueprint. dot. ca. gov
Regional Blueprint Planning includes development of regional
performance measures to measure progress toward the region’s own
vision for future land use and transportation, as well as statewide
performance measures to measure progress toward statewide
transportation and housing goals. This report includes measures
that address each of these areas.
The framework for the California Regional Progress Report
recognizes the interdependence of policy choices, regional blueprint
goals, and desired regional outcomes. Every day policy choices
and investment decisions are made at the local, regional and state
levels in areas of land use, transportation, housing, environment,
economic development, and labor force that influence regional
outcomes. Regional Blueprint Planning processes are voluntary
collaborations and are one of many strategies pursued to affect one
or more of these outcomes. In fact, by design, the Blueprints have
focused primarily on affecting land use and transportation related
outcomes in ways that either make a positive impact or avoid negative
effects on the 3Ps.
All of these efforts are early in their implementation— or even still
in the planning stage— and so have not yet had an opportunity to
have a major impact on regional outcomes. The California Regional
Progress Report recognizes this reality, and is not intended to
evaluate the impacts of the Blueprint efforts. Instead, it provides
a framework within which to understand the role of the Regional
Blueprint Planning efforts in the larger context of policy choices
across many areas. It also focuses on specific areas that the Blueprints
intend to affect more directly over time— such as land use and
transportation— to establish a baseline from which to measure progress
in the coming years.
The Report also recognizes that California’s regions are unique— each
facing a different set of demographic, economic, environmental, and
other assets and challenges. As a result, the Report focuses on how
each region is progressing compared to its past performance,
rather than how regions compare to one another. The Report
does describe patterns across regions to help regional stakeholders as
well as state policymakers understand similarities and differences that
could inform decision- making.
However, the purpose of this Report is to encourage every region to
make progress towards its own shared vision of the 3Ps regardless of
how they compare to other regions.
The Report recognizes that there can be important variations within
the counties of larger regions. To enable readers to examine sub-regions
more closely, develop comparisons, define their regions
differently, or for other reasons, data was collected on a county- by-county
basis and are available electronically ( see www. ccrl. org).
The Report also recognizes that some measures may not indicate
clear trends, or can be more meaningful for one region than another.
As a result, the Report examines multiple indicators across the
3Ps, and focuses more on underlying patterns or overall direction
across many indicators than the performance on any single
measure. However, since data ( where it exists) are being made
available electronically for measures at the county level, a region could
decide that a specific indicator warrants closer examination, or is
more meaningful to them than to other regions.
FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROGRESS REPORT
“ The Regional Blueprint Planning Program is a critical part of meeting
our Strategic Growth Plan goals to reduce congestion through smart
land use.”
Will Kempton, Director,
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans)
04
• Improve Mobility
• Reduce Congestion
• Increase Transit Use
• Encourage Infill
• Accomodate Housing Supply
• Minimize Impact on Farmland
and Habitat
Place
( environment)
• Air and Water Quality
• Efficient Development
• Transportation Choices
• Housing Affordability/ Burden
• Protected Open Space • Resource Use
• Movement of People and Goods
Prosperity
( economy)
• Employment Change • Innovation • Income
People
( equity)
• Access to Opportunity • Health
• Public Safety
• Land Use
• Transportation
• Housing
• Environment
• Economic Development
• Labor Force
Regional Blueprint Goals
Regional Outcomes
Policy Choices
i n f l u e n c e
influence
influence
The Report’s indicators are more concentrated on the dimensions of
Place than Prosperity and People. About two- thirds of the indicators
focus on efficient development, movement of people and goods,
transportation choices, resource use, protected lands, air and water
quality, and housing affordability/ burden. These indicators were
chosen to provide a more complete picture in areas that are to be
specifically affected by the implementation of the Regional Blueprint
projects in the years ahead. It does not mean that Place is more
important in some way than People or Prosperity. While we group
the indicators in three categories, they are inter- related and many
are relevant to more than simply one category. In many cases,
regions have developed their own reports that include additional
indicators in these other areas.
The Report keeps the focus on true regional progress— how well
regions are advancing all three Ps. If, for example, regions are
advancing on measures of place, such as land use and transportation,
but not on measures of prosperity and people, most would agree that
balanced regional progress is not being achieved. To what extent
regions are experiencing balanced progress is an enduring question,
one that should be the concern not only of the Blueprint efforts, but
all who have a role in shaping the decisions and investments across
the 3Ps. Stakeholders include not only local and regional leaders
including elected officials, but also business, the non- profit sector,
and the general public, and as well as state policymakers whose
decisions set the context and will help determine the outcomes for
regional progress.
05
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
BA
SJV
SS
MB
SLO
SB
HOW INDICATORS WERE CHOSEN
Selecting indicators for inclusion in the California Regional Progress
Report required clear criteria and a disciplined process. The Advisory
Team ( which included representatives of MPOs, COGs, Caltrans, 	
and other state agency partners) assisted in the development of the
overall framework as well as the selection of the indicators. The first
step was to review what the regions themselves identified as important
indicators of progress through their own indexes and/ or Blueprint efforts.
From this review, a common set of indicators used across several regions
was identified. Additional potential indicators were added based on work
done in other regions in other states across the country. From this list, the
Report advisors weighed each indicator according to the following criteria:
Alignment— An indicator must be consistent
with existing Blueprint visions, goals, or measures;
regional indicator projects; regional performance
measures; and Caltrans performance measures.
The relevancy of some measures also varied
according to regional characteristics, especially
related to the urban/ rural nature and difference
of scale. The greater the alignment across all
these areas, the stronger the case for inclusion.
Quantifiability— An indicator must be able
to be measured with credible, reliable data.
Some promising ideas for indicators are not ( yet)
quantifiable on a regional basis, while others
might be hindered by a less- than- sound
methodology.
Outcome- Based— An indicator is stronger if
focused on outcomes rather than inputs.
Clarity— An indicator is preferred if it is clear,
understandable, and easily communicated.
Availability— An indicator should be available
across as many Blueprint regions as possible.
This criteria was the most difficult to meet. In
the end, data was available across all regions for
15 indicators, and across the larger regions for
all 27 indicators. Smaller regions— particularly
those not yet undertaking Blueprint processes—
posed the biggest challenge for data availability.
Thus, some of the measures, while short of ideal,
represent the best data available at this time
covering the most regions.
The Advisory Team created a list of indicators
that met these criteria and received a priority
rating for inclusion from at least 75% of the
advisors. However, it became clear that individual
regions had developed innovative measures that
met the first four criteria, but were generally not
available for other regions. These innovative
measures are important to communicate to a
statewide audience, and are highlighted in the
Report, representing a promising indicator for
further development and replication.
Through the selection process, it became clear
that there are more and different indicators to
be measured than those that currently exist.
While the Report highlights some of these
possibilities, there is much room for improvement
in how we measure regional progress. Better
measures of regional progress could be a common
cause among local, regional, and state leaders.
Resources need to be directed to local and
regional as well as statewide data collection.
While goals along the dimensions of place,
prosperity, and people are long term, we should
always be searching for better ways to measure
progress towards these regional outcomes.
06
SLO
SD
SJV
NSV
SC
SD
NC
SH
NS
BU
SA
SS
BA
SB
SC
MB
San Diego
San Diego
There are many ways to define regions in California— according to geography,
economy, commute shed, habitat, history, political jurisdiction, or other criteria.
For the purposes of this Report ( see map), regions have been defined first
according to the boundaries of California’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations
( MPOs). There have also been some additional groupings. In the case of
the San Joaquin Valley, multiple MPOs are participating together in
blueprint planning and so are aggregated into a region. In the case
of the bi- state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the MPO is
included in the SACOG region due to data limitations. Some of
these Blueprint regions are very large in geographic area and population,
while others encompass a single county.
Second, for the balance of the state, we determined multi- county
groupings based primarily on a common economy or geography. In
the future, these groupings could change as regional partnerships form. Further,
as noted earlier, since data for this Report are available electronically at the
county level, stakeholders can create their own regional definitions as they see fit.
HOW REGIONS WERE DEFINED
North Coast Region
Del Norte 	 Humboldt 	
Lake 	 Mendocino
Trinity
Shasta Region
Shasta
Northeast Sierra Region
Lassen 	 Modoc
Nevada 	 Plumas
Sierra 	 Siskiyou
Northern Sacramento
Valley
Colusa
Glenn
Tehama
Butte Region
Butte
Sacramento Area Region
El Dorado 	 Placer
Sacramento 	 Sutter
Yolo 	 Yuba
Southeast Sierra Region
Alpine 	 Amador
Calaveras 	 Inyo
Mariposa 	 Mono
Tuolomne
Bay Area Region
Alameda 	 Contra Costa
Marin 	 Napa 	 San Francisco
San Mateo 	 Santa Clara
Solano 	 Sonoma
San Joaquin Valley
Fresno 	 Kern 	
Kings 	 Madera 	
Merced 	 San Joaquin
Stanislaus 	 Tulare
Monterey Bay
Monterey 	 San Benito
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara
Southern California
Imperial 	 Los Angeles
Orange 	 Riverside
San Bernardino 	
Ventura
07
There are important people, place, and prosperity challenges
facing California. Every region shares in these challenges,
although in different ways. These are shared challenges that
cross boundaries of jurisdiction, sector, and traditional issues.
They stem from inter- related social and economic forces shaping
California and its regions— and can only be addressed effectively
with an integrated and collaborative approach among local,
regional, state, and often federal partners. Neither a top- down,
“ one size fits all” approach which views California only through
the lens of statewide issues nor a bottom- up “ go it alone”
approach which views California as an unrelated set of regions
with unique destinies will work. Instead, there are a set of
major statewide challenges that can be best understood as
variations on shared regional concerns.
IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE CHALLENGES AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES
Growing Population: Between 2000 and 2006, California’s
population grew almost 10%. Every region grew between four
and sixteen percent ( see chart on pg. 9). Immigration has played
an important role in driving population growth in California.
Indeed, it has played a role in every region, though with varying
contributions from foreign immigration and domestic in- migration.
Growing Diversity: California has become more diverse since
2000. The mix of ethnicities is also changing in every region,
though at different rates among different groups. Some regions
have experienced a decline in certain ethnicities, while others have
experienced balanced growth in all groups, and others have experienced
much faster growth in some compared to other ethnic groups.
Aging of the population: Many regions are projecting that
households with children under the age of 18 will drop while
households without children will increase with the aging of the
baby boomer population. This demographic change will bring
different demands for services, transportation and mobility choices,
and will affect demand for the type and preferred location for homes.
Growing Congestion: Over the longer term, California has
become more congested as transportation infrastructure has not
kept pace with growing population, expanding trade and goods
movement, and increasing distances between jobs and housing. For
some regions, inter- regional commute and goods movement corridors
are the biggest concerns, while for others it is local streets and
highway connections that have become overwhelmed by growth.
Growing Pressure on Agricultural Lands,
Open Space, and Ecosystems: California’s development
patterns have accelerated the conversion of agricultural land and
open space and disrupted ecosystems. Every region is experiencing
development pressures, although in different combinations depending
on their existing urban form, industry mix, and rural landscape.
Some regions are experiencing air quality problems primarily from
transportation sources, while others see significant contributions of
pollutants from agricultural and industrial sources and construction.
Growing Housing Costs: California’s housing costs have
skyrocketed. Every region is experiencing the effects of this trend,
though in different ways. Some regions have not provided enough
housing for their workforce, increasing prices and commute distances.
Other regions have built much more housing, some of which is
bought by people who then commute long distances, move from
more expensive housing markets, or purchase a second home – all
of which have raised prices and made homeownership more difficult
for local buyers.
Growing Global Competition: California participates in
an increasingly competitive global economy, putting pressure on the
state’s diverse industries to increase their value and limit their costs
through technological innovation, talent recruitment and
development, and international partnerships. Although every
region has a different industry mix, every region has no choice but
08 to meet this global challenge.
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
SS
BA
SJV
MB
SLO
SB
SD
SC
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
BA
SJV
SS
MB
SLO
SB
SC
SD
6,826,296
7,167,504
714,280
744,397
248,105
263,824
400,943
421,656
2,836,171
3,084,634
16,626,371
18,389,088
312,498
328,864
164,659
180,757
101,484
111,957
204,731
216,538
203,921
216,961
1,953,951
2,254,055
180,106
193,146
3,325,224
3,871,004
2000 Population
2006 Population
34,098,740
37,444,385
5.2%
5.8%
6.4%
9.8%
10.3%
15.4%
7.2%
16.4%
10.6%
5.2%
6.3%
4.2%
5.0%
8.8%
9.8%
%
%
Percent change is
below California average
Percent change is
above California average
It is important to recognize the different regional contexts across
California. Regions described in this report often start from very
different places. Some are very populous, while others are sparsely
populated. Some are ethnically diverse, while others are much less
so. Some regions are growing quickly, while others are not.
Understanding regional context provides a bigger picture within which
to interpret patterns and performance on many indicators.
At the same time, giving too much weight to context can be a problem.
For example, not all of California’s predominantly rural regions have
the same outcomes, nor do all of the state’s larger urban areas. Simply
because a region has a lot more people ( or very few people), has a
very diverse population ( or a more homogenous one) does not mean
that it will inevitably follow a certain pattern. Many factors are at
work in determining a region’s performance on the 3Ps. While an
important consideration, context is not destiny.
North Coast
Shasta Region
N. E. Sierra Region
No. Sacramento Valley
Butte Region
Sacramento Area
S. E. Sierra Region
Bay Area Region
San Joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Southern California
California State
Regional Population
09
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, “ Race/ Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail"
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, “ Race/ Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail"
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
BA
SJV
SS
MB
SLO
SB
SC
SD
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
BA
SJV
SS
MB
SLO
SB
SC
SD
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
SS
BA
SJV
MB
SLO
SB
SD
SC
North Coast
Shasta Region
N. E. Sierra Region
No. Sacramento Valley
Butte Region
Sacramento Area
S. E. Sierra Region
Bay Area Region
San Joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Southern California
Race/ Ethnic Population
Total Share of Non- White Population
2006
25% or Less Non- White Share
26%- 49% Non- White Share
More Than 50% Non- White Share
Race/ Ethnic Population
Percent Change of Non- White Population
2000- 2006
11% or Less Increase
12%- 18% Increase
More Than 19% Increase
10
California is a state of enormous economic, social, and environmental
diversity. The complexity of the individual stories of California’s
regions help us understand how California as a whole is improving
its quality of life— the interplay of place, prosperity, and people.
The summary table on page 13 provides a picture of how each of 14
regions is doing across 13 categories and 27 indicators. We have
coded each cell either a green or yellow.
Green means that the region has experienced a gain on that
measure over the designated time period ( usually at least 	 	
3 years and often longer).
Yellow means that the region has not made progress on the
measure. It can also mean that we found a small gain, 	
but one that we cannot be confident actually reflects 	 	
a measurable change because the data are not precise 	
enough to make that call.
White areas reflect where data are not available, especially 	
for rural or smaller regions.
We chose yellow because it signals “ caution”— that there has not been
measurable progress— encouraging regions to take a closer look to
see if there is reason for concern or a rationale for change. It is also
worth noting that for each measure we focus on percentage change
to show whether or not regions are making measurable progress. The
rate of change should be viewed in the context of the underlying data.
For example, a region can experience a large percentage change on
a measure by starting from a very small base number. Or, a region
can experience a small percentage change starting from a very large
base number. In these and other cases, readers can take a closer look
by consulting the county- by- county data available on www. ccrl. org
and www. calcog. org.
It is not our role, nor the purpose of this report, to pass judgment on
whether regions are succeeding or failing, winning or losing, or making
sufficient progress to achieve their own goals and aspirations. Instead,
we report objectively where diverse regions in very different
circumstances have or have not made progress compared to their own
past performance. In that sense, this Report should be a starting
point for discussion about change, rather than a summary judgment
on regional performance.
PLACE, PROSPERITY, AND PEOPLE
THE CALIFORNIA STORY TODAY
California is a land of dynamic change, creating both
tremendous benefits and undeniable challenges. The State
continues to be a wellspring of opportunity, creating jobs
and companies. It is also home to a population that is
growing more educated and better able to compete in the
global economy. We have become a safer state, with violent
crime dropping in many regions in recent years.
At the same time, economic change has put pressure on
our communities and infrastructure. In recent years, many
communities have made concerted efforts to be more
efficient in their development and expand the ways people
travel to work and elsewhere in order to reduce traffic
congestion. Many of the State’s regions have in fact made
progress in growing more efficiently and encouraging
people to use transit. But, the numbers and proportion
of people commuting alone by car is growing in most
regions, as are the number of miles traveled and traffic
congestion. Many people are living far away from their
jobs, often because they cannot afford to live closer, with
housing affordability continuing to decline. Many cannot
realistically commute by transit or other means because
of distance to transit lines or work, a legacy of earlier
automobile- dependent development patterns. Because of
single- use development patterns, housing is also often
disconnected from local services, recreation, and the like—
necessitating additional trips.
The California story is still unfolding. Can we create
economic opportunity and grow our communities in ways
that reduce congestion and improve quality of life? Can
we grow the talent of our population and connect people
to economic opportunity, raising incomes and increasing
their ability to afford a home closer to where they work?
Can we use our economic prosperity and efficient
development patterns to reduce our resource use, improve
our air quality and health, and protect our vital agricultural
lands and open space for this and future generations?
What is certain is that these and other questions like them
will be answered in the regions of California. What is also
clear is that State, regional, and local leaders will need to
work across jurisdictions, sectors, and issues to strengthen
our communities, developing solutions as innovative and
diverse as California’s economy and its people.
11
WHAT PROGRESS ARE WE MAKING?
The reality is that California’s regions are making
progress on at least some measures. The initial
impressions from the summary table on the
facing page are that:
• Every region tells a mixed story— progress in some areas, lack
of progress in others— across the full range of place, prosperity,
and people measures.
• Every region has made gains on most of the prosperity measures
in recent years— including increases in jobs, income, and new
business formation.
• Most regions have not made progress on a majority of the
people measures in recent years— indicators focused on
education, health and public safety.
• No region has gained ground on a majority of the 18 place
measures— ranging from efficient development to movement
of people and goods, transportation choices, resource use,
protected open space, air and water quality, and housing
affordability.
• However, every region has made progress on three or more
place measures. Eleven of 14 regions have made progress on
five or more place measures.
A closer look at the place indicators reveals
some shared patterns across regions:
• Most regions have made progress on measures of efficient
development, such as the ratio of new multi- family to single-family
residential building permits. Housing is being built in
denser configurations than in the past.
• People are driving more and experiencing more traffic
congestion. This has been a major stimulus to Blueprint
Planning efforts. Nearly every one of California’s most populous
regions has not made long- term progress in terms of movement
of people and goods— recording increases in vehicle miles
traveled per household and daily vehicle hours of delay since
the 1990s.
• However, more recently ( 2000- 2005), several regions have
showed progress, with lower rates of vehicle miles traveled per
household than over the previous decade ( 1990- 2000). Several
also experienced less traffic congestion. Many factors likely
contributed to these changes, including lower rates of economic
growth in the early 2000s, and completion of some congestion
relief projects.
• While half of the regions— including both large urban and
lightly populated areas— have experienced increases in transit
ridership, almost every region ( where data are available) has
not experienced an overall increase in the share of the population
taking transit, carpools, biking, walking, etc. While there
have been increases in transit ridership in some regions, there
have apparently been comparable or greater increases in the
number of people commuting alone by car.
• Nearly every region is using more resources than in the past—
from gasoline consumption to electricity. The exception is
residential natural gas consumption, which has declined in
every region.
• While most regions are experiencing higher rates of conversion
of agricultural land to development, a few are recording lower
rates of conversion than in the past.
• 	 Most regions have added to their stock of protected open space—
or at least have not taken many acres out of protected status.
• 	 Most regions have improved their air quality in terms 	 	
of ozone levels.
• 	 Some highly- populated regions ( Southern California and the
Bay Area) have reduced the number of impaired waterways,
while others have experienced increases ( San Diego) Similarly,
some less- populated regions ( Central Coast) have more impaired
waterways and some ( North Coast) have fewer impaired
waterways than in the past.
• 	 No region ( where data are available) has made progress on
improving housing affordability.
A closer look at the prosperity indicators reveals
some shared patterns across regions:
• 	 Every region has experienced a net gain in jobs in non- farm
sectors, and every region but two has enjoyed real increases in
per capita income.
• Every region but one has also experienced net growth in new
businesses with employees, with every region posting gains in
new businesses without employees. In fact, every region has
experienced double- digit increases in the number of firms
where everyone working is at least a co- owner— a major shift
in how economies are structured in California.
12
New Building Permits: Multi- Family vs. Single Family 18
18
21
22
25
25
27
28
28
29
29
31
31
32
35
36
37
37
40
43
44
45
48
50
51
52
52
SJV SD SC BA SA MB SLO BU SH SB NS SS NC NSV
SJV SD SC BA SA MB SLO BU SH SB NS SS NC NSV
Ratio of Jobs to Housing Units
Decrease in Vehicle Miles of Travel per Household
Decrease in Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay
Means of Transportation to Work
Increase in Transit Ridership
Decrease in Fuel Consumption
Residential Energy Consumption – Electricity
Residential Energy Consumption – Natural Gas
Non- residential Natural Gas Consumption
Non- residential Electricity Consumption
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Urban/ Built- up Uses
Protected Open Space
Ozone – Decrease in Days Exceeding 8- hour Standard
Decrease in Impaired Water Segments
Increase in Share of First- Time Buyers of Median Priced Home
Housing Renters with Costs Greater than 35% of Income
Housing Owners with Costs Greater than 35% of Income
Increase in Jobs
Increase in Per Capita Income
Increase in Net Business Formation – with Employees
Increase in Net Business Formation – without Employees
Increase in Educational Share; High School or More
Decrease in Share of Population with Asthma
Decrease in Share of Overweight/ Obese Population
Decrease in Violent Crime Rate
Decrease in Property Crime Rate
SJV SD SC BA SA MB SLO BU SH SB NS SS NC NSV
SJV SD SC BA SA MB SLO BU SH SB NS SS NC NSV
1 1 1
2 2
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL PROGRESS
North Coast
Shasta
Northeast Sierra
Butte
Sacramento Area
Southeast Sierra
Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
San Diego
Southern California
No. Sacramento Valley
Santa Barbara
No. Sacramento Valley
North Coast
Shasta
Northeast Sierra
Butte
Sacramento Area
Southeast Sierra
Bay Area
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
San Diego
Southern California
Santa Barbara
San Joaquin Valley
Page
Page
Efficient Development
Movement of People
and Goods
Transportation Choices
Resource Use
Protected Lands
Air & Water Quality
Housing
Affordability/ Burden
Employment Change
Income
Innovation
Access to Opportunity
Health
Public Safety
Place ( environment)
Prosperity ( economy)
People ( equity)
Region Has Made Progress on This Measure
Region Has Not Made Progress on This Measure
No Data Available/ Not Applicable
Notes:
1- The Caltrans State Highway Congestion Monitoring Program groups San Luis Obispo,
Monterey Bay Region, and Santa Barbara as one region.
2- The Water Quality Control Board's regions of Lahontan and Central Valley include data
for both Northeast Sierra and Southeast Sierra.
13
WHAT PROGRESS ARE WE MAKING
Continued from pg. 12
A closer look at the people indicators reveals
some shared patterns across regions:
• 	 Virtually every region ( where data are available) has experienced
an increase in its level of educational attainment. There is
a bigger share of more highly- educated people living in these
regions of California, a critical ingredient for competing in
the increasingly knowledge- driven global economy.
• 	 Few regions have improved in two key areas of health: asthma
and obesity. Poor air quality has been linked to asthma rates.
Obesity can lead to many illnesses. Many professionals 	
believe that increases in obesity are in part a function 	 	
of community design.
• 	 While most regions have cut their rates of violent crime
considerably, all regions have experienced major increases 	 	
in property crime since 2000.
A closer look at the regions suggests
some additional patterns as well:
• 	 Four of five of the more heavily populated regions made
progress in efficient development in recent years— including
San Diego, Southern California, the Bay Area, and Sacramento
regions. However, three of five also converted their agricultural
land to urban and built- up uses at a faster rate.
• 	 More than half of the less- populated regions also made progress
in efficient development— including San Luis Obispo, Shasta,
Santa Barbara, Northeast Sierra, Southeast Sierra, and North
Coast regions. However, all but two of the nine less- populated
regions converted their agricultural land to urban and built-up
uses at a faster rate.
What would California’s regions look like if they were
making progress on all of the indicators measured in this
report? What if all the cells in the summary table were
green? Together, these indicators point in the direction
of a shared vision of quality of life for California— one
that connects people, place, and prosperity in mutually
beneficial ways in every region of the State.
In this future, California’s physical growth is getting more
efficient all the time— more housing and jobs on less land.
Californians are driving fewer miles because they are able
to work closer to home— or at home. More people are
living in places where alternatives to driving alone are
realistic— near major transit routes or close to other
commuters who carpool, or in communities where biking
or walking to work is possible. With greater attention to
design and amenities, the quality of California’s
communities is also improving. With these shifts and
expansion of California’s transportation infrastructure,
traffic congestion and delay is constantly improving.
Gasoline consumption per household is dropping along
with vehicle miles of travel, and there is wider adoption
of automobiles based on alternative fuels. With more
efficient land use patterns, less need for automobile travel,
and growing alternatives, Californians are enjoying
additional benefits such as better air quality, and lower
rates of asthma and obesity.
A SHARED VISION OF THE FUTURE
The California Transportation Plan:
A Long- Term Framework
The California Transportation Plan ( CTP) 2025 is a statewide, long-range
transportation plan for meeting California's future mobility
needs. The CTP provides a vision, developed in collaboration with
the public and our transportation partners and stakeholders, for the
State's future transportation system - a safe, sustainable, world- class
transportation system that improves our mobility and enhances our
quality of life. The CTP offers a policy framework to guide future
transportation decisions and investments that will ensure California's
ability to compete globally, provide safe and effective mobility for all
persons, better link transportation and land use decisions, improve
air quality, and reduce petroleum energy consumption. The CTP is
developed in consultation with the State's regional transportation
planning agencies, is influenced by the regional planning process and
provides guidance for developing regional transportation plans.
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ osp/ ctp. htm
14
There are many factors that affect how regions are making
progress on place, prosperity, and people indicators. The
role of this report is neither to present a comprehensive
explanation for regional performance, nor provide
projections about the future. Those are tasks for the
regions themselves in collaboration with state- level partners
and independent researchers. Changes can be shaped by
population growth and diversity, economic booms or
downturns, technological innovation, and other broad
forces. Changes can also be shaped by state policy and
investments in transportation, education, health, energy
and greenhouse gas emissions reduction and other areas,
as well as regional and local decisions in transportation,
land use and protection, and economic and workforce
development. And, change can be driven by the decisions
of individual Californians, as they respond to economic
opportunities, quality of life concerns, and the like. How
all these factors interact to create regional outcomes is an
exceedingly complex question, but one that would be
worth further attention by state and regional partners.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Sections on Place, Prosperity, and People indicators follow. Each
section is divided into indicator categories described in the summary
table— such as efficient development, movement of people and goods,
transportation choices, and the like. Within each category, we describe
why this indicator is important and what progress regions are making
on specific measures. We have included excerpts from regional reports
( Regional Views) to illustrate how the regions themselves are interpreting
their performance in specific areas. We have also included highlights
of regional measures ( Regional Highlights) that offer an innovative
approach for potential replication and/ or collection on a statewide
basis. The final section of the report focuses on opportunities and
implications that flow from the findings of the inaugural California
Regional Progress Report.
California’s economy is not only continuing to innovate
and create quality jobs, but is now growing more in areas
closer to where workers live. A more efficient development
pattern helps create prosperity by preserving quality of life
in communities and fostering a healthy business climate,
helping to create more vital urban centers with a critical
mass of people, housing, businesses, and amenities. More
efficient land use is creating better regional mobility, which
in turn is improving productivity. An innovative economy
is producing jobs at every level. With ongoing progress
in education and training, more people are able to climb
onto career ladders, helping them increase their income
and ability to buy a home— as well as their contributions
to California’s continuing prosperity and community well-being.
Housing affordability improves as incomes rise
and a greater variety of more affordable homes close to
jobs are built.
The conversion of California’s agricultural lands to urban
uses is slowing dramatically since most new development
is now taking place in existing communities. The amount
of protected land continues to increase— both urban parks
and rural open space— as Californians actively preserve
the State’s environmental assets and diversity for themselves
and future generations.
LOOKING AHEAD
15
SJV SD SC BA SA MB SLO BU SH SB NS SS NC NSV
New Building Permits: Multi- Family vs. Single Family 18
18
21
22
25
25
27
28
28
29
29
31
31
32
35
36
37
37
Ratio of Jobs to Housing Units
Decrease in Vehicle Miles of Travel per Household
Decrease in Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay
Means of Transportation to Work
Increase in Transit Ridership
Decrease in Fuel Consumption
Residential Energy Consumption – Electricity
Residential Energy Consumption – Natural Gas
Non- residential Natural Gas Consumption
Non- residential Electricity Consumption
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Urban/ Built- up Uses
Protected Open Space
Ozone – Decrease in Days Exceeding 8- hour Standard
Decrease in Impaired Water Segments
Increase in Share of First- Time Buyers of Median Priced Home
Housing Renters with Costs Greater than 35% of Income
Housing Owners with Costs Greater than 35% of Income
1 1 1
2 2
Place indicators encompass both the natural and built environment. They focus on efficient use
of land, transportation infrastructure, and resources such as energy and water. They also include
measures of environmental quality— focusing on air and water. And, they include housing
affordability, which is closely linked to other place indicators. These indicators, while primarily
related to place, are also clearly linked to prosperity and people. Together, place, prosperity, and
people measures are reflective of important dimensions of California’s quality of life.
place
North Coast
Shasta
Northeast Sierra
Butte
Sacramento Area
Southeast Sierra
Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
San Diego
Southern California
No. Sacramento Valley
Santa Barbara
Page
Place ( environment)
Region Has Made Progress on This Measure
Region Has Not Made Progress on This Measure
No Data Available/ Not Applicable
Efficient Development
Movement of People
and Goods
Transportation Choices
Resource Use
Protected Lands
Air & Water Quality
Housing
Affordability/ Burden
Notes:
1- The Caltrans State Highway Congestion Monitoring Program groups San Luis Obispo,
Monterey Bay Region, and Santa Barbara as one region.
2- The Water Quality Control Board's regions of Lahontan and Central Valley include data
for both Northeast Sierra and Southeast Sierra. 16
EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL VIEW: San Diego
Future Outcomes if Local Plans are Left Unchanged
Excerpt from: SANDAG, Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region,
July 2004
“ Reduced open space. Current plans would consume far more land than
a smart growth development pattern, which would emphasize more
redevelopment and infill in existing urbanized areas near transit and
activity centers such as downtowns and shopping areas, and more
mixed use and compact development in currently- vacant areas that are
planned for residential uses.
More expensive housing and fewer types of housing choices. 	
On average, current densities in the cities and urbanized unincorporated
areas are relatively low, and planned densities on currently vacant land
are even lower. This pattern limits our ability to address our projected
housing needs, pushes up housing costs, and can result in more people
sharing the same house due to high home prices and rents.
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
By directing growth to already developed areas, local jurisdictions can
create critical mass for transit, reinvest in existing neighborhoods, use
transportation systems more efficiently, and preserve the character of
adjacent rural communities. More efficient development means
creating more housing and jobs on less land. One indicator of a shift
in the direction of greater efficiency is the ratio of permits for new
multi- family housing units compared to new single- family housing
units. A greater ratio of multi- family units suggests a shift to more
housing on fewer acres. Another measure of efficiency is the ratio of
jobs to housing. An imbalance of jobs to housing likely means that some
or many workers have to commute to the region from other regions.
Imbalance between housing and jobs. Jobs are a key driver of population
growth. Current local general plans allow for more growth in jobs than
housing. Additionally, local plans largely separate residential areas
from job centers, which increase traffic.
Environmental degradation. An imbalance between jobs and housing
leads to more and longer commutes, and increased energy consumption.
It also affects development patterns within our watersheds which
increases urban runoff, and in turn, affects the quality of both our
drinking water and our water bodies, such as lakes, streams, bays, and
the ocean.”
17
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
More Single- Family Permits More Multi- Family Permits
Source: Construction Industry Research Board, California Building Permit Date by Building Category, 1995 and 2006
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3
More Housing than Jobs More Jobs than Housing
1.2
Source: California Employment Development Department; 	
U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005
* Note: Does not include data for
all counties within region
North Coast NC
Shasta SH
Norteast Sierra NS
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Southeast Sierra SS
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
Monterey Bay MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
New Building Permits:
Multi Family vs. Single Family
For most regions, the 1995- 2006 period has
been one of progress. Although typically the
number of multi- family units approved is
much less than the number of units of single-family
housing approved, most regions
experienced a shift in the share of approvals
towards more multi- family units. In fact,
nine of the fourteen regions narrowed the
gap between the number of multi- family
unit permits and single- family unit permits
issued. The other five regions experienced
very slight changes, keeping their ratios
roughly the same sine 1995.
Ratio of Jobs to Housing Units
Although only two regions ( where data are
available) experienced progress in their ratio
of jobs to housing, most regions did not lose
ground between 2000 and 2005. Most
regions experienced very small changes,
maintaining their ratios during the first half
of the decade. The exceptions include the
Bay Area, which experienced substantial job
loss and drop in their jobs- housing ratio
from 1.27 to 1.15. The Bay Area is now
comparable to most other highly- populated
regions of California. The other exception
is the Sacramento region, whose ratio
dropped from 1.17 to 1.13 over the 2000-
2005 period. It is also important to note
that two regions ( where data are available)
continued to produce more housing than
jobs over this period— both the San Joaquin
region and Monterey regions produced just
over nine jobs for every ten housing units.
Of course, some of these new housing units
are being used by people who are commuting
to other regions. This is creating challenges
across regions, particularly the Bay Area.
Ratio of New Building Permits
Multi- Family Unit Permits to Single Family Unit Permits
1995 and 2006
2006
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Ratio of Jobs to Housing Units
2000 and 2005
Southern California* SC
San Diego SD
Bay Area BA
Santa Barbara SB
Sacramento Area* SA
San Joaquin Valley* SJV
Monterey Bay* MB
1995
2005
2000
18
The Silicon Valley Land Use Survey has given
the region a unique perspective on its changing
land use patterns. Beginning in 1998, Joint
Venture: Silicon Valley began to survey its 23
jurisdictions on specific land use changes not
otherwise available through other data sources.
The survey is conducted annually, with results
reported every year in the Index of Silicon Valley.
It has measured the average units per acre of
newly approved residential development— which
has now risen to more than 22 units per acre,
over three times the density of approved
development in 1998.
Just as important, the survey has monitored
progress towards a shared regional goal of
targeting new development close to transit.
As a result, the region has been able to monitor
the percentage of both residential and
commercial development within 1/ 4 mile of a
rail station or major bus corridor— which has
ranged from about 30% to more than 60% of
the total since 1998.
For more information, see www. jointventure. org
R e g i o n a l H i g h l i g h t R e g i o n a l H i g h l i g h t
Silicon Valley’s Land Use Survey
Defining Smart Growth Areas in San Diego, the Bay Area and Southern California
emphasizing infill development within existing
communities, and thereby preserving the region’s
open space. 	 	 	 	
For more information, see www. abag. ca. gov or
www. mtc. ca. gov
In the 6- county Southern California region they are
referred to as " 2% Strategy Growth Opportunity
Areas" which are existing and emerging centers and
corridors targeted for more intensive growth.
By utilizing the existing and planned transportation
infrastructure capacity to channel future growth,
this strategy will reduce travel demand, increase
transit ridership, promote walkable vibrant
communities, and sustain the environment for future
generations. Currently, dozens of local/ regional
planning partnerships are underway that demon-strate
the benefits of this integrated growth strategy.
For more information, see www. scag. ca. gov
The Blueprint Projects in the San Diego, Bay Area and
Southern California regions have defined smart growth
areas to target development, and measure progress:
San Diego calls them “ Smart Growth Opportunity
Areas,” which are places “ that accommodate, or have
the potential to accommodate higher residential
and/ or employment densities near public transit.”
These areas provide a rationale for targeting
transportation and other public investments and
incentives. Nearly 200 areas have been designated,
representing 15% of all housing units in the region
and nearly 33% of all new housing units in 2005. 	
For more information, see www. sandag. org
The Bay Area calls them “ Priority Development Areas,”
which are areas around transit stations and along
major developed corridors. The goal is to capitalize
on existing infrastructure to reduce travel demand,
REGIONAL VIEW: San Luis Obispo
Housing Density
Excerpt from: San Luis Obispo Regional Profile, Census, 2004
“ The most important finding demonstrated by the data ( page 19) is the
increasing dominance of the single- family, detached housing unit production.
Between 1999 and 2003, the single family detached unit increased from 63%
to 65% of the county housing stock… most planning professionals agree that
more work needs to occur to provide a greater mix of housing opportunities,
including multi- unit developments, apartment complexes, condominiums
and other housing types as higher densities that are typically more affordable,
and which consume less land and resources.”
19
REGIONAL VIEW: Sacramento
Land Use, Job Centers, Trips, and Congestion
Excerpt from: SACOG, 2006 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
“ Today the [ Sacramento region] has evolved in ways unforeseen even
ten years ago. The population, 2.1 million in 2005, has spread out to
bring Elk Grove, Roseville, Rocklin, and Folsom into the urban area.
Rancho Cordova has emerged as a second job center rivaling downtown
Sacramento, and Roseville is not far behind. Two- worker households
have become the norm, with extensive commuting from one community
to another. Low- density suburban patterns mean people travel
overwhelmingly by automobile. The radial transportation system no
longer serves the region’s needs well. The U. S. 50 freeway serves as
the region’s core corridor, carrying a full load of traffic in both directions
both morning and afternoon, and increasingly at midday as well.
Intermittent congestion is now widespread, since the spare capacity
once built into the system has been consumed by growth, with little
new capacity added since 1980.”
REGIONAL VIEW: Sacramento
A More Complete Picture of Travel Patterns
Excerpt from: Valley Vision, 2004 Quality of Life report
“ We know household travel includes both the trip to work as well as
other non- work trips to shuttle children to school or day care, shop, run
errands, and other purposes. The Sacramento region developed a
measure of both work and non- work related travel trips based on data
collected in a household travel survey. The findings? 85% of total trips
were non- work related— with an increasing share of these trips done
by people driving alone. These trips are big contributors to traffic
congestion in the region.”
For more information, see 	
www. valleyvision. org/ work/ publications/ index. html
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
Vehicle miles of travel ( VMT) measures the total number of vehicular
travel miles in each region on an average day, generated by trips
originating within and outside of the region. As explained in the
Caltrans 2006 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel, and Fuel
Forecast, “ VMT are key data for highway planning and management,
and a common measure of roadway use. Along with other data, VMT
are often used in estimating congestion, air quality, and potential gas-tax
revenues, and can provide a general measure of the level of the
region’s economic activity.” Vehicle miles of travel is also an important
indicator of how our development patterns impact the volume of
driving we need to do to go to work, take children to school, shop,
run errands, and the like. Higher vehicle miles of travel over time
suggest that concentrations of jobs, housing, schools, shopping, etc.,
are further from one another or more likely to require an automobile
to travel between them instead of using other options ( like walking,
biking, or public transit).
Sources of VMT generated by trips originating outside of a region
include goods movement along major transportation corridors, business
and tourism- related travel, and commuting across regions. It is
important to note that VMT is not measured in actual counts but is
a derived estimate. Models indicate that VMT tracks strongly with
income; strong economic growth leads to projected increases in VMT.
Daily vehicle hours of delay is a measure of traffic congestion. Caltrans
measures Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay ( DVHD) by district, rather
than county; there is therefore some overlap in the data between
Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. Traffic delay produces
economic, social, and environmental costs. It impacts worker and
goods- movement productivity, as well as family time and air pollution.
It is an important measure of the interplay among development
patterns, transportation infrastructure, and use of travel modes other
than single- occupancy vehicles.
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Vehicle Miles of Travel
Between 1990 and 2000, there was a broad- based increase in vehicle
miles of travel per household throughout every region of California.
However, between 2000 and 2005, all but two regions made progress
on this measure. Almost half of the regions actually cut their VMT
per household during this period— including Butte County ( down
14%), Northeast Sierra ( 5%), Bay Area ( 2%), Monterey region ( 2%),
Southeast Sierra ( 1%), and Santa Barbara ( 1%). Three regions
experienced very small change during this period ( i. e., Sacramento,
San Luis Obispo, and North Coast). In each case, these numbers
represented a drop in the percentage gain from the 1990- 2000 period.
Southern California, San Diego, and San Joaquin continued to increase
their VMT per household between 2000 and 2005, but did so at a
lower rate than in the previous decade.
20
Work Trips
1991
Work Trips
2000
Non- Work Trips
1991
Non- Work Trips
2000
Work Trips
1991
Work Trips
2000
Non- Work Trips
1991
Non- Work Trips
2000
100%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
100%
0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Drive Alone
Car/ Van Pool
Public Transit
Bicycle
Walk
Other
- 20% - 15% - 10% - 5% 0% 5% 10% 25%
Source: California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005; 	 	 	
Caltrans, 2006 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast
15% 20%
- 20% - 15% - 10% - 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
By Travel Mode
Sacramento Area SA
Monterey Bay MB
Shasta SH
Southeast Sierra SS
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
North Coast NC
Northeast Sierra NS
Butte BU
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
Vehicle Miles of Travel per Household
Percent Change
1990- 2000 and 2000- 2005
1990- 2000
2000- 2005
Work and Non- Work Trips
Sacramento
1991 and 2000
21
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
* Note: Regional values are an
average of the counties Source: Caltrans, 2004 State Highway Congestion Monitoring Program Report
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Vehicle Hours of Delay
Between 1998 and 2004 ( the latest period for which data are available
on an annual basis), every Caltrans district reporting daily vehicle
hours of delay recorded increases on this measure. At the same time,
the trends have varied between the early and later years of this time
period. For example, the Bay Area experienced a rapid increase
between 1998 and 2000, then a rapid drop from 2000 to 2003, then
a leveling off in 2004. This region was most affected by the economic
downturn during this period. At the end of the turbulent period,
vehicle hours of delay was still higher than in 1998, but by only 11%.
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS
Continued
In some cases, patterns of delay have also varied within broader regions.
A closer look at the Southern California region finds that delays grew
in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, as well as Orange County, but
dropped slightly in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties between
1998 and 2004. More recently, however, the hours of delay have
leveled off or decreased in all parts of the region except Orange County.
Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay
1998- 2004
District 8: Riverside, 	
San Bernardino
District 11: San Diego
District 12: Orange
District 4: Alameda,
Contra Costa, Marin,
San Francisco, San Mateo
Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma
District 3: El Dorado,
Placer, Sacramento
District 5: Monterey,
San Luis Obispo,
Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara
District 10: San Joaquin,
Stanislaus
District 6: Fresno, Kern
District 7:
Los Angeles, Ventura
Explanation of Data Variation in the State Highway
Congestion Monitoring Program ( HICOMP)
In response to concerns that some of the data reported in the HICOMP
2004 Report was lower than expected or anticipated, Caltrans prepared
an explanation that addresses both economic and technical factors.
While no one answer will accurately cover all variables or circumstances,
there are a few general conclusions that will help interpret the data.
First, there are two general methods of monitoring congested traffic in
California: probe vehicles and automated detection. Probe vehicles
involve a vehicle traveling a length of the freeway ( one lane) that
measures the speed and length of time required to cover the measured
segment. Automated detection used embedded loops in the roadway
that render an accurate measure for volume and speed in all lanes of
travel at all times for one point in the freeway. Both methods have
limitations. Comparison studies show that automated detection
generally renders lower congestion results than probe vehicles. Regions
and highways use varying levels and/ or combinations of one or both
methods. In addition, the freeway segments monitored do not remain
static over time and thus some data variation is inevitable.
Second, there are external causes for congestion variation. As the price
of fuel increases, there may be a decrease in vehicle miles traveled as
people try to combine multiple purposes into fewer trips, or use transit
options. Sometimes capacity increasing ( congestion relief ) projects
are completed that may have an impact on congestion levels. Economic
factors may impact the number of vehicles on the highways, such as
occurred with the “ dot com” down turn in the Bay Area from December
2000 through December 2004, with a loss of approximately 500,000
jobs. Employment growth in Los Angeles County during 2003- 2004
was well below earlier average rates as well.
Source: Division of Transportation Planning, Office of Transportation Economics, and Office of Systems
Management Planning, Caltrans, May 2007. For additional detail see links in the Data Appendix.
22
REGIONAL VIEW: Bay Area
Infrastructure
Excerpts from:
The Innovation Economy: Protecting the Talent Advantage, Bay Area Economic
Profile, February 2006, ABAG, Bay Area Council and Bay Area Economic Forum.
Transit- Oriented Development – New Places, New Choices in the San Francisco
Bay Area, November 2006, ABAG, MTC, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
and Bay Area Conservation and Development
“ Peak travel times in the Bay Area have risen significantly, and local
commuters sacrifice more time to the road than those in any of our
comparable cities except Los Angeles. According to MTC estimates,
congestion cost the Bay Area more than $ 3 billion in wasted fuel and
time in 2003.
The cause is not just growing population. As people move further away
to find affordable housing and better schools, the number of commuters
and the length of their driving times rise. The flow of commercial goods
is also increasing, intensifying congestion as trucks compete with cars
for limited highway space.”
“... already Bay Area households located close to transit stations make
fewer driving trips than do others in the region. Households within a
half- mile of train stations and ferry stops log only 20 vehicle miles of
travel per day, just 56% of the regional average.”
REGIONAL VIEW: Southern California
Traffic Congestion
Excerpt from: SCAG, 2006 State of the Region
“ For the past two decades, Southern California has been consistently
experiencing very high levels of congestion. Contributing factors include
large population and physical extent of the region, rapid population
growth, high automobile dependence, low levels of transit usage, and
a maturing regional highway system with limited options for expansion.
In addition, over 40% of all U. S. imports passing through the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. As the nation's predominate gateway
region with respect to the Pacific Rim, Southern California has incurred
a heavy price in congestion and the associated air pollution.
It should be note that over the years the SCAG region has developed
the most extensive High- Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) system in the nation.
In 2005, Southern California continued to achieve the highest carpool
share of 13% for journey to work among the largest metropolitan regions
in the nation. The region’s bus rapid transit system has become a
model for the nation.”
23
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
The modes of transportation we use to access work, other people,
goods, and services, impact the quality of our air and the region’s
transportation infrastructure. By utilizing alternative modes of
transportation, such as public transit and walking, residents can reduce
their ecological footprint. Increases in the use of alternatives to
driving alone can reflect the rising cost of automobile commuting,
but also more accessible transit service, shorter distances between work
and home, more efficient land use patterns overall, and other factors
that are giving Californians more realistic transportation choices.
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Commute Mode Shares
Most commuters in most regions travel to work alone by car.
Commuting to work is, of course, only part of the picture. Non-work
trips for errands and other reasons can constitute a large percentage
of total travel ( see example from the Sacramento region on pg. 21).
Nonetheless, data are most complete on the commute to work, and
so is chosen as a measure of transportation choices in this Report.
Since 2000, the only region to see genuine progress on this measure
is Santa Barbara. The percentage of commuters driving alone dropped
almost 7%, with increases spread among public transportation ( up
2.1%), working at home ( 1.8%), car pool ( 1.5%) and other means
such as biking or walking ( 1.2%). Although other regions did not
make progress overall, they did experience shifts in commute modes.
In fact, in every region but one for which data are available, the
percentage of people working from home increased between 2000
and 2005, undoubtedly due in part to the wider accessibility to the
internet ( and, more recently, broadband access).
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
Transit Ridership
Transit ridership is a function of many factors, including improved
accessibility, expanded services, reductions in service due to public
funding cuts, and changes in the economy. In half of the regions,
transit ridership increased between 1999 and 2004. These regions
included large increases for some heavily populated areas ( i. e.,
Sacramento was up 19%) and some sparsely- populated places ( i. e.,
Southeast Sierra was up 62%). For example, the Bay Area experienced
a decrease in the absolute numbers of transit riders as the region went
through a period of serious job loss, but also experienced an increase
in the proportion of commuters using transit.
At the same time, in regions where data are available, increases in
transit ridership did not produce shifts in the share of commuters
using public transportation. Increases in share of people driving alone
overcame increases in transit ridership. For example, in Sacramento
region, transit ridership rose 19%, but the share of commuters using
public transit declined and the share driving alone increased. Santa
Barbara was an exception: transit ridership grew 7% and the share of
commuters using public transportation also increased by 2.1%.
REGIONAL VIEW: Santa Barbara
Transportation Initiatives in Response to Jobs- Housing Imbalance
“ High housing costs and continued employment growth in the South Coast
subregion of Santa Barbara County have resulted in longer commutes and
increasing traffic congestion, particularly on the 101 freeway between Ventura
and Santa Barbara. SBCAG and its partners have responded to the challenge
of this jobs/ housing imbalance by initiating regional and interregional
transportation improvements to reduce demand, increase commuter options
and promote alternatives to single occupant vehicle, rush hour commuting.
SBCAG has worked with its neighbor to the south, Ventura County
Transportation Commission, in establishing the Coastal Express, an
interregional commuter bus service operating between Ventura and Goleta.
This service builds upon the success of the Clean Air Express, a commuter
bus service that runs from more affordable residential centers in Lompoc and
Santa Maria to job centers in Goleta and Santa Barbara. As gasoline prices
climbed over the past year this increase in ridership on regional bus services
was accompanied by increase in local bus ridership, particularly in
Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. The latest commute surveys indicate
that these programs have resulted in a reduction in the percentage of
single occupant vehicle trips and an across the board modest increase
in use of other modes such as carpool, transit, and telecommuting.
The region's plans call for continued expansion of commute options
through the addition of HOV lanes on 101, initiation of commuter rail
service, and working with employers and commuters to reduce peak
hour travel through flexible work schedules and telecommuting. ”
For more information check out “ 101 In Motion” and “ FlexWork”
programs at www. sbcag. org.
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
24
Car, Truck,
or Van;
Drove Alone
Car, Truck,
or Van;
Carpooled
Worked
At
Home
Public
Trans.
( excl. Taxi)
Taxi, Motorcycle
Bicycle, Walked
or Other Means
- 30% - 20% - 10% 0% 10% 30% 50% 70%
Source: Transit Operators and Non- Transit Claimants Annual Report 1999- 2000 and 2004- 2005
20% 40% 60%
- 30% - 20% - 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% * Note: Does not include data for
all counties within region
- 6.7%
- 0.7%
- 0.2%
0.6%
1.7%
1.7%
7.7%
1.5%
0.9%
-. 03%
- 0.1%
- 1.7%
- 1.9%
- 8.2%
1.8%
0.6%
1.0%
1.1%
0.4%
0.7%
- 1.0%
2.1%
- 0.4%
- 0.3%
- 0.4%
- 0.3%
- 1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
- 0.3%
- 0.2%
- 1.2%
- 0.2%
0.5%
0.2%
Source: American Community Survey
* Note: Does not include data
for all counties within region
SB
SJV
SA
BA
MB
SD
SC
San Joaquin Valley SJV
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Southeast Sierra* SS
North Coast* NC
Butte BU
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra NS
Sacramento Area* SA
Bay Area BA
Monterey Bay* MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
Transit Ridership
Percent Change in Total Annual Passengers:
Motor Bus, Bus Rapid, Street Car, Trolley Bus, Ferry Boat, Demand Response Vehicle, and other
1999- 2004
Commute: Means of Transportation
Percent Difference: 2005 from 2000
San Joaquin Valley*
Sacramento Area*
Bay Area*
Monterey Bay*
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Southern California
25
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
Resources are needed to run California’s communities and economies.
Gasoline and diesel fuel consumption are fundamental resources,
especially for transportation and goods movement. Fuel consumption
creates economic benefits, but also creates financial costs for industry
and households, and is producing greenhouse gases that are having
far- reaching climate effects worldwide. How resources like energy
( natural gas and electricity) are used indicate if regions are becomming
more efficient, generating cost savings and preserving environmental
resources. Greater efficiencies will allow for continued growth of
the economy.
RESOURCE USE
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Fuel Consumption: Diesel and Gasoline
In 2006, every region but one recorded higher consumption levels of
both diesel and gasoline on public roadways than in 2000. In fact,
six regions consumed 10% or more fuel than six years earlier. In most
regions, fuel consumption rose faster than vehicle miles traveled per
household. While several regions made progress on VMT per
household, they did not reduce overall fuel consumption due to
population increases, more volume of less fuel- efficient trucks and/ or
automobiles, or other reasons.
It is important to note that some regions are more substantial goods
movement corridors than others. These regions typically have a larger
share of inter- regional truck traffic as a proportion of total vehicles
on public roadways. Specifically, between 10- 20% of total vehicle
miles of travel in these regions are from truck traffic compared to
about 5- 10% in other regions. Regions with additional truck traffic
likely experience some effect on fuel consumption, although data on
that estimated impact is not available.
REGIONAL VIEW: Southern California and Beyond
Global Warming
Excerpt from: SCAG, The State of the Region, 2006
“ Global Warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being,
public health, and natural environment in Southern California and
beyond. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include,
among others, a reduction in the quantity and quality of water supply,
a rise in sea levels, damage to marine and other ecosystems, and an
increase in the incidents of infectious diseases. Over the past few
decades, energy intensity of the national and state economy has been
declining due to the shift to a more service- oriented economy. California
ranked fifth lowest among the states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
consumption per unit of Gross State Product. However, in terms of total
CO2 emissions, California is second only to Texas in the nation and is
the 12th largest source of climate change emissions in the world,
exceeding most nations. The SCAG region, with close to half of the
state’s population and economic activities, could be an important
contributor to the global warming solution. Toward this end, SCAG has
been developing regional energy policies and implementation actions
through its Energy Working Group and the upcoming Regional
Comprehensive Plan collaborating with a broad range of stakeholders.”
For more information, please see www. scag. ca. gov/ rcp/ ewg/ index. htm
26
- 10% - 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Source: Caltrans, 2006 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast
- 10% - 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Northeast Sierra NS
San Luis Obispo SLO
Southern California SC
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Southeast Sierra SS
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
North Coast NC
Shasta SH
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Monterey Bay MB
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Fuel Consumption
Percent Change in Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
2000- 2006
27
- 12% - 10% - 8% - 6% - 4% 0% 2% 12%
Source: California Energy Commission; California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates
- 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
* Note: Does not include data for
all counties within region
- 12% - 10% - 8% - 6% - 4% - 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
North Coast* NC
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra* NS
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Southeast Sierra * SS
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
Monterey Bay MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
Residential Energy Consumption
Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption per Household
2001– 2005
Electricity Consumption
Percent Change in Million kWh
Natural Gas Consumption
Percent Change in Million Therms
Natural Gas and Electricity
Between 2001 and 2005, every region reduced its residential con-sumption
of energy from natural gas by 2% and 12%. Twelve regions
also reduced total commercial, industrial, and agricultural consumption
of natural gas. Upon closer examination, most regions experienced
decreases in natural gas consumption in their industry sector and
increases in their commercial sector. Regions were about evenly split
in terms of increases and decreases in their agricultural sectors.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
28
- 20% - 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Source: California Energy Commission
- 90% - 60% - 30% 0% 30% 60% 90% 120%
Source: California Energy Commission
- 90% - 60% - 30% 0% 30% 60% 90% 120% - 20% - 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Natural Gas Consumption
BY CONSUMER CLASS
Industrial, Commercial, Agriculture & Water Pumping
Percent Change in Million Therms; 2001- 2005
Commercial
Industrial
Agriculture & Water Pumping
At the same, only one region made progress in reducing electricity
use in their residential sector. Every region experienced increases in
its commercial sector. While most regions experienced gains in other
non- residential sectors as well, some areas’ industrial and/ or agricultural
sectors did cut their electricity use between 2001 and 2005.
Electricity Consumption
BY CONSUMER CLASS
Industrial, Commercial, Agriculture & Water Pumping
Percent Change in Million kWh; 2001- 2005
NC
SH
NS
NSV
BU
SA
SS
BA
SJV
MB
SLO
SB
SD
SC
29
PROTECTED LANDS
Conversion of Agricultural Lands 	 	 	 	
to Urban and Built- Up Uses
All regions continue to convert agricultural lands to urban and built-up
uses. Although the rates of conversion are beginning to slow in
some regions, the total amount of land being converted is still larger
in the 2002- 2004 cycle than the 1996- 1998 cycle, especially in San
Joaquin Valley, Southern California, and the Sacramento Area. Between
1996 and 2004, four regions cut their rate of agricultural land
conversion— including the Bay Area ( down 1%), Monterey Bay
( 65%), and the North Coast ( 99%). The regions cited with high
growth rates but small absolute numbers are in the path of urbanization,
both urban in- migration and second home development.
Protected Open Space
Seven regions increased their percentage of acreage in protected status
between 2003 and 2005— including Northeast Sierra ( 15%), San
Luis Obispo ( 5%), San Diego ( 2%). For this measure, protected open
space was grouped into three different categories: State, Federal ( not
including Department of Defense), and Regional/ Local. In most
regions, federally owned land makes up the largest percentage of
protected open space.
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
Land preservation is an indicator of how a region is absorbing
population and economic growth. An important measure showing
change is land conversion. In particular, the conversion of agricultural
land to urban and other built- up uses reflects a reliance on development
into new land rather than filling in or reusing land in existing urban
areas. Agricultural land is a unique and limited resource for most
regions, offering many benefits including food production, exports,
habitat, natural landscapes, and heritage. Yet, a combination of
competitive pressure and economic opportunity can make agricultural
land susceptible to development. Slowing the rate of conversion is
a measure of progress.
Converting land from unprotected to protected status is another
important indicator of progress. Preserving open space protects
natural habitats, provides recreational opportunities, focuses
development, and maintains the visual appeal of regions. Protected
lands include habitat and wildlife preserves, waterways, agricultural
lands, flood control properties, and parks. Although not measured
in this report, the development of urban green infrastructure is an
important element for creating livable cities and for supporting more
compact urban development.
REGIONAL VIEW: Bay Area
Open Space/ Protected Lands
Excerpt from: At Risk: The Bay Area Greenbelt 2006
Edition. Greenbelt Alliance 2006
“ Permanently protected acreage is now more than
one- quarter of all non- urbanized land in the Bay
Area, and more than one- fifth of all land.”
“… the remaining high- risk regional sprawl hot
spots are predominantly at the outer edges of
the region. These are places where land prices
are lower and where growth pressures from the
Bay Area overlap with those of the Sacramento,
Santa Cruz and Central Valley regions.”
REGIONAL VIEW: Central Valley
Urbanization
Excerpt from: Rural Economic and Health Vitality
Policy Agenda Report, CCRL 2007
“ Land use trends including high rates of farmland
urbanization in the Central Valley are [ a] great concern.
High quality farmlands are being disproportionately
affected by city- oriented growth and development, with
implications for the viability of agriculture, one of the
State’s most important industries. Rural ranchette
development, a fast spreading form of sprawl across
many regions, is also consuming large amounts of land.
These low density single use patterns of urbanizing
land are inconsistent with general planning policy goals
to preserve valuable farmlands and open space/ habitat,
reduce sprawl and traffic congestion, improve air quality,
and create more livable communities.”
REGIONAL VIEW: Sierra
Housing and Land Use Conditions
Excerpt from: State of Sierra Agriculture – An Assessment
of Working Landscapes in the Sierra Nevada, 	
Sierra Business Council
“ Numerous factors – population growth, land use
change and development patterns – affect
agricultural lands throughout the Sierra… Currently,
nearly 70 percent of Sierra Nevada’s population
resides along the western foothills and the
population in these counties is expected to grow
by 50- 100 percent by 2020. The increasing
population requires homes, businesses and
schools for the new residents. All these people
and businesses require land. Frequently, the most
economically and easily accessible lands for
development are agricultural lands. Less efficient
land use development patterns through ranchette,
second homes and leapfrog development increase
land consumption of agricultural lands.”
30
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
+ 30%
+ 73%
+ 93%
- 1%
+ 42%
+ 62%
+ 715%
+ 725%
+ 317%
+ 261%
- 65%
+ 491%
+ 200%
- 99%
* * * *
SH
NC
NS
NSV
BU
SA
BA
SJV
SS
+ 715%
- 99%
+ 725%
+ 200%
+ 491%
+ 261%
+ 42%
MB
SLO
SB
SC
SD
+ 317%
+ 93%
+ 73%
+ 62%
+ 30%
- 1%
- 65%
SC SJV SA BA SD SH NS NSV BU SB MB SLO SS NC
* Note: Does not include data for
all counties within region
Source: California Department of Conservation,
State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Source: California Department of Conservation,
State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Protected Open Space
Percent Change in Acreage; 2003– 2005
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Urban and Built- up Uses
Acreage and Percent Change: 1996– 1998 and 2002– 2004
2002- 2004
1996- 1998
Agricultural Lands
Percent Change in Acres of Agricultural Land Converted
to Urban and Built- up Uses; 1996– 2004
North
Coast
Shasta Region
Northeast Sierra
Northern Sacramento Valley
Butte
Sacramento Area
Southeast Sierra
Bay Area
San joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Southern California
Source: Public and Conservation Trust Lands, 2003 and 2005
SH
NC
NS
NSV
BU
SA
BA
SJV
SS
- 1.5%
+ 15.2%
+ 0.3%
- 0.1%
- 0.2%
- 2.9%
0.0%
+ 0.3%
+ 0.2% + 0.1%
+ 4.9%
- 0.1%
- 5.0%
+ 1.9%
MB
SLO
SB
SC
SD
Northern Sacramento Valley
San joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Southern California
North
Coast
Shasta Region
Northeast Sierra
Butte
Sacramento Area
Southeast Sierra
Bay Area
31
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
* Note: Regional values are an
average of the counties
Source: California Air Resource Board, 2007 Air Quality DVD
AIR & WATER QUALITY
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
Air and water quality directly affects the health of all residents and
the ecosystem of regions, which is in turn affected by the choices that
residents make about where they live, how they choose to travel to
work, and how they use natural resources. Air and water quality are
also a product of the mix and nature of industrial and agricultural
operations. Government and developers also make decisions that
affect land use patterns that in turn, impact the natural environment.
Improving quality is an important measure of progress, as it means
people and the economy are functioning in ways that produce fewer
harmful impacts than in the past. In addition, several regions are severe
federal non- attainment areas for air quality. Failure to meet deadlines
for required standards could severely restrict future economic growth.
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Air Quality
Ozone pollution was vastly reduced throughout the state between
1998 and 2005. In 2005, all but one region had fewer days exceeding
California state’s 8- hour ozone standard, relative to 1998. The North
Coast, Bay Area, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo had the least number
of exceedances throughout most of the eight year period. By 2003,
the North Coast was able to reduce its number of days above the state
ozone standard to zero.
Although Butte emitted more ozone pollution in 2005 than in 1998,
the region made overall progress from 2000- 2005. In fact, Butte
reduced its annual number of days exceeding the state 8- hour standard
in 2005 to 31 days— 12 days less than in 2000. Ozone pollution
increased in the region from 2000 to 2002. In this case, Butte is not
alone— eleven of the fourteen regions saw a spike in ozone levels
between these years, and then levels began to subsequently decline
again. Elevated ozone levels in 2002 are likely a reflection of the fact
that meteorological conditions also influence ozone patterns; according
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002 was
the second warmest year for the globe on record.
Tracking ozone pollution is essential because many studies have shown
that ozone pollution can have serious effects on health. Furthermore,
many scientists assert that there is a correlation between high ozone
levels and respiratory problems such as asthma.
Air Quality: Ozone Pollution
Number of Days Exceeding State 8- hour Standard
1998- 2005
No. Sacramento Valley
Southeast Sierra
Southern California
San Joaquin Valley
Bay Area
North Coast
Shasta
Northeast Sierra
Butte
Sacramento Area
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Days Above Standard
32
- 100% - 50% 0% 50% 200%
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2007 Air Quality Data DVD
Air Quality Improving Air Quality Decreasing
100% 150%
- 100% - 50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Southeast Sierra SS
Southern California SC
San Joaquin Valley SJV
Bay Area BA
North Coast NC
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra NS
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Monterey Bay MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Air Quality: Ozone Pollution
Percent Change in Number of Days Exceeding State 8- hour Standard
1998- 2005
REGIONAL VIEW: Southern California
Air Quality
Excerpt from: SCAG State of the Region, 2006
“ Air pollution consistently ranks high among public concerns in Southern
California, and control efforts have been a high priority in recent decades.
A recent study by the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) found that
the population- weighted exposure to concentrations of PM2.5 above
the federal standards for residents of the South Coast Air Basin ( within
the Southern California Region) is an astonishing 82% of the statewide
exposure and 52% of the national exposure. This exposure translates
on an annual basis to 5,400 premature deaths. An important contributing
factor is the significant increase in goods movements in the Southern
California Region during the past decade. It is important to note that
about 80 percent of the PM2.5 pollutant emissions are out of the local
control but under control of the state and federal jurisdictions. SCAG
has been working closely with the local air districts and the California
Air Resources Board on strategic actions, including legislations at the
state and federal levels, to address this air quality health crisis.”
REGIONAL VIEW: Central Valley
Particulate Matter
Excerpt from: The Great Valley Center, Assessing the Region via Indicators: 	
The Environment, 2005
“ Every Central Valley county and the majority of the state continues to
be in non- attainment of PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Since 2000, an
estimated 6 tons of PM10 per day have been added to both the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins… The Sacramento Valley
Air Basin has had some positive gains in reducing exceedance days. In
2000, the Air Basin had 81 calculated days about the state’s 24- hour
standard. In 2003, the number dropped to 66. The San Joaquin Valley
Air Basin has also seen some positive gains… in 2000, the Air Basin had
195.6 calculated days above the state’s 24- hour standard. In 2003, the
number had dropped to 167.2.”
Even though there has been a
broad- based reduction in ozone
pollution throughout California,
measuring overall air quality is more
difficult. While ozone is a
significant contributor to unhealthy
air quality, there are various other
pollutants, such as particulate
matters ( PM2.5 and PM10), that
are also contributing factors. PM
pollution refers to microscopic soot-like
particles produced by power
plant emissions, diesel exhausts,
construction, wind- blown dust,
vehicles, fires and other sources.
When inhaled, particulate matter
can lodge deep in lung tissue and
cause severe health problems.
Because annual PM2.5 and PM10
data are available by air basin rather
than by county, ozone pollution is
included as a measure in this report
to show one important dimension
of air quality. Most regions are
generally not making as much
progress in reducing PM10
emissions. Only four air basins
monitored by the California Air
Resources Board show a clear long-term
positive trend in reducing the
number of days above state PM10
emission standards. These basins
include: Great Basin Valleys Air
Basin, Mountain Counties Air
Basin, Mojave Desert Air Basin,
and Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
33
AIR & WATER QUALITY
Continued
Water Quality
When looking at the number of impaired water segments in 2002
and 2006, the overall state trend in water quality has been mixed:
about half of the regions have made progress in improving their water
quality. Polluted water- bodies throughout California include bays
and harbors, coastal shorelines, estuaries, lakes/ reservoirs, rivers/ streams,
saline lakes, tidal wetlands, and freshwater wetlands. Urbanization is
one of the factors that directly impacts water quality; urban water
runoff from roads and parking lots contain high levels of contaminants
which can flow directly into streams. Runoff and other problems are
exacerbated by aging infrastructure.
For this dataset, there are a few notable differences in the regional
definitions in comparison to the regional definitions used in this
Report: both Northeast Sierra and Southeast Sierra are included in
Lahontan and Central Valley. This difference is due to the way in
which the California State Water Resources Control Board groups
data. They do so by predetermined regions rather than counties.
The water quality in the Bay Area, North Coast, Northeast Sierra,
Southeast Sierra, and the Sacramento Area is improving, as these
regions had fewer impaired water segments in 2006 than in 2002.
The success of improving water quality in the Lahontan region can
be attributed to the reduction of impaired lakes/ reservoirs, and
rivers/ streams.
The Southern California region used throughout this Report straddles
three Water Quality Control Board regions: Colorado, Santa Ana,
and Los Angeles. Although Colorado and Santa Ana had more
impaired water segments in 2006 than in 2002, Los Angeles greatly
reduced its number of impaired water segments. Thus, overall, water
quality in Southern California improved. This substantial change in
the Los Angeles region is due mostly to the reduction of impaired
coastal shorelines as well as rivers/ streams.
Other regions have not made as much progress in improving water
quality, although there have been some steps in the right direction.
For example, even though Central Coast had an overall 12% increase
in its number of impaired water segments, the region reduced its
number of impaired coastal shorelines from 11 to 6. Polluted runoff
has been the main contributing factor to San Diego’s increase in the
number of impaired water segments.
34
2002
North Coast
San Francisco Bay
Central Coast
Central Valley
Lohonton
Los Angeles
Colorado
Santa Ana
San Diego
Bays and Harbors
Coastal Shorelines
Estuaries
Lakes/ Reservoirs
Rivers/ Streams
Saline Lakes
Wetlands, Tidal
Wetlands, Freshwater
TOTAL
Bays and Harbors
Coastal Shorelines
Estuaries
Lakes/ Reservoirs
Rivers/ Streams
Saline Lakes
Wetlands, Tidal
Wetlands, Freshwater
TOTAL
2006
Percent Change
North Coast
San Francisco Bay
Central Coast
Central Valley
Lohonton
Los Angeles
Colorado
Santa Ana
San Diego
Southern
California
Southern
California
2 	 	 1 	 5 	 41 	 	 	 	 49 	 1 	 	 2 	 4 	 49 	 	 1 	 	 57 	 	
7 	 15 	 49 	 	 1 	 	 72 	 13 	 5 	 7 	 7 	 51 	 	 	 	 83
11 	 6 	 8 	 4 	 72 	 1 	 	 	 102 	 3 	 11 	 9 	 4 	 64 	 	 	 	 91 	 	
8 	 18 	 88 	 	 	 1 	 115 	 	 	 3 	 15 	 82 	 	 	 2 	 102 	 	
8 	 8 	 32 	 2 	 	 1 	 43 	 	 	 	 12 	 53 	 2 	 	 2 	 69
11 	 39 	 5 	 18 	 78 	 	 3 	 	 154 	 12 	 57 	 4 	 19 	 88 	 	 3 	 	 183 	 	 	 	
6 	 1 	 	 	 7 	 	 	 	 	 5 	 1 	 	 	 6
4 	 1 	 1 	 5 	 19 	 	 	 	 33 	 3 	 3 	 1 	 4 	 20 	 	 	 	 31
20 	 19 	 10 	 12 	 36 	 	 	 	 97 	 13 	 20 	 10 	 3 	 21 	 	 	 	 67
- 14%
- 13%
+ 12%
+ 13%
- 38%
- 16%
+ 17%
+ 6%
+ 45%
- 12%
Impaired Water Segments
Number, and Percent Change
by Regional Water Quality Control Board
2002- 2006
35
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
0% * Note: Region does not include
data for all counties within region
Source: California Association of Realtors
20%
10%
Q1 03 Q2 03 Q3 03 Q4 03 Q1 04 Q2 04 Q3 04 Q4 04 Q1 05 Q2 05 Q3 05 Q4 05 Q1 06 Q2 06 Q3 06
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY/ BURDEN
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
The affordability of housing affects a region’s ability to maintain a
viable economy and high quality of life. Lack of affordable housing
in a region leads to longer commutes, which in turn diminish
productivity, curtail family time and increase traffic congestion. Lack
of affordable housing also restricts the ability of crucial service providers
and others— such as teachers, registered nurses and police officers—
to live in the communities in which they work. Housing affordability
is a function of housing supply and variety, as well as incomes. Long
commutes also add to increase in percent of income spent on
transportation costs.
We examine two measures of affordability. Housing “ burden” is the
proportion of household income that is used for housing expenses
( either mortgage or rent). The higher the percentage of income
required, the higher the burden. The other measure is the percentage
of households that can afford a median- priced home in the region.
This provides an indication of how accessible home ownership is to
people living and working in the region. Measuring housing affordability
in rural regions has been more of a challenge, as county- level data are
often not available.
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
Percent of First Time Buyers that Can Afford
to Purchase a Median- Priced Home
Across all regions, housing affordability trends have been in accord—
fewer first- time buyers could afford to purchase a median- priced
home in 2006 than in 2003. In the time period for which there are
data, housing affordability was on the decline until late 2004, when
several regions became slightly more affordable until the first quarter
of 2005, when they resumed their downward trend. Data from the
latest quarter available ( 3rd Quarter 2006) shows that some regions
are again beginning to slow or stop this downward trend.
Percent of Renter and Owner Households
with Housing Costs Greater than 35% of Income
For renters, housing has been expensive throughout all of the regions
for which there is data. In every region but one, more than 40% of
renters have housing costs in excess of 35% of their income. In four
regions, more than 45% do. Housing also proved to be expensive for
owners, although somewhat less costly than for renters. In every
region, more than 30% of owners have housing costs in excess of
35% of their income. In three regions, more than 45% do. Some
regions have comparatively low burdens for one group ( e. g., renters
in the Bay Area, homeowners in Butte), while much higher burdens
for the other groups. While there are substantial variations across
California’s regions, every region exceeds the national average of 26%
of income dedicated to housing costs.
Housing Affordability
Percent of First Time Buyers that Can Afford to Purchase a Median Priced Home
2003- 2006
San Luis Obispo
San Diego
San Joaquin Valley *
Bay Area *
Monterey Bay *
Southern California *
Sacramento Area *
Santa Barbara
36
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 50%
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005
* Note: Does not include data for
all counties within region
35% 40% 45%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
San Joaquin Valley* SJV
REGIONAL VIEW: San Diego
Housing Affordability
Excerpt from: SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
“ To find affordable housing, many workers are moving far from their
jobs, often outside San Diego County or across the international border.
A recent survey indicates that 29,000 south western Riverside County
residents commute into San Diego County for work, and workers even
move as far away as Imperial County to find homes they can afford. An
estimated 40,000 workers cross the border from Mexico each day for
jobs in the San Diego region and many are U. S. citizens ( Caltrans Traffic
Census). This imbalance between jobs and housing is leading to a
tremendous strain on our roads, freeways, infrastructure, and environment,
as well as a strain on the quality of life for those commuters.”
North Coast* NC
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra* NS
Butte BU
Sacramento Area* SA
Bay Area* BA
Monterey Bay* MB
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
Housing Affordability
Percent of Households with Housing Costs Greater than 35% of Income
2005
Renters
Owners
REGIONAL VIEW: Rural California
Housing Affordability
Excerpt from: 2007 Rural Economic and Health Vitality Policy Agenda, CCRL
“ There is a housing affordability crisis throughout Rural California – 	
a shared challenge with the State’s urban areas – affecting almost all
income levels. This problem is compounded for low income families,
many of whom are the working poor who are increasingly “ locked out”
of the ability to own a home, the primary source of asset development.
The high cost of housing is also affecting renters. Overcrowding is a
major problem for many rural counties, especially in the Central Valley,
parts of the Central Coast, and Imperial County. Farm workers and their
families suffer from poor housing conditions disproportionately.”
San Luis Obispo SLO
37
SJV SD SC BA SA MB SLO BU SH SB NS SS NC NSV
40
43
44
45
Increase in Jobs
Increase in Per Capita Income
Increase in Net Business Formation – with Employees
Increase in Net Business Formation – without Employees
Prosperity indicators encompass fundamental measures of employment, income, and innovation.
Employment change is measured overall, and in key industry sectors or clusters. Income is measured
on a per capita basis, and for households where the data are available. Innovation is measured
in terms of net new business formation— one of the important outcomes of business and technological
innovation in California. These indicators, while primarily related to prosperity, are also clearly
linked to people and place. Together, place, prosperity, and people measures are reflective of
important dimensions of California’s quality of life.
prosperity
Prosperity ( economy)
North Coast
Shasta
Northeast Sierra
Butte
Sacramento Area
Southeast Sierra
Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
Monterey Bay
San Luis Obispo
San Diego
Southern California
No. Sacramento Valley
Santa Barbara
Page
Region Has Made Progress on This Measure
Region Has Not Made Progress on This Measure
No Data Available/ Not Applicable
Employment Change
Income
Innovation
38
WHY ARE THESE INDICATORS IMPORTANT?
Job gains are a basic measure of economic health. We examine all
non- farm employment— including all other industry and government
jobs. This provides a measure of progress in terms of job quantity,
but not necessarily job quality. Thus, we examine employment in
key sectors or clusters, many of which pay higher than average wages
in their regions. We also measure if job increases are helping raise
incomes. Per capita and median household income are important
measures in this regard. They help answer the question if the job mix
and growth of a region is providing enough for people to make real
economic progress ( that is, adjusted for inflation). Focusing on per
capita and median household income helps us understand how broadly
gains are distributed, as these measures are less likely to be skewed by
a small percentage of very high income earning households. The
median household income is the income value at which half the
region’s households earn more and half earn less.
The third measure is innovation— a primary catalyst for economic
growth. As an indicator, we focus on new business creation, as
evidence of entrepreneurs bringing innovations to market. This
measure is, of course, only one dimension of innovation, as existing
companies also regularly introduce new products and adopt new
processes that produce wealth. Some of the impact of those innovations
is picked up in gains in jobs and incomes. In terms of new business
creation, we examine two kinds of firms to gain a more complete
accounting of net start- up growth. We focus on companies with
employees as well as firms run by one or more co- owners, but without
any employees. The latter is a rapidly growing share of all firms, and
so is important to measure here.
REGIONAL VIEW: San Diego
Globalization and Economic Opportunity
Excerpt from: SANDAG, Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region
“[ San Diego’s] economy functions within a regional and global economic
setting. The San Diego- Baja California binational region faces increasing
domestic and global competition. Many people are aware of
globalization; however, few understand that regionalization or the
increasing importance of regional economies is the other side of the
coin. In economic terms, [ the San Diego] region is directly connected
to the greater Los Angeles area and Baja California, Mexico, which are
gateways to the domestic and international marketplaces. Access to
international markets is critical for the economic prosperity of the region.
To the south, [ San Diego] depend[ s] on Baja California for an important
part of [ its] labor pool. Southwestern Riverside County also is becoming
an increasingly important source of labor and an alternative housing
choice for many.” 39
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 30%
Source: California Employment Development Department, 1997- 2005
25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
WHAT PROGRESS ARE
REGIONS MAKING?
Every region has experienced a net
gain in jobs in non- farm sectors in
recent years. Although some
regions have experienced economic
turbulence, with major job gains
and losses and restructuring towards
some industries and away from
others, the net change in
employment between 1997 and
2005 was positive for every region.
For most regions, the net change
was more than 10%. In five
regions, net new jobs grew more
than 20%. The Bay Area’s relatively
low rate of employment growth
during this time period makes it
apparent that the region was clearly
hit hardest by the recession. Regions
with higher percentage increases are
often a mix of higher and lower
county growth rates, such as
Southern California, where growth
was strong in Orange County and
the Inland Empire and lagged in
Los Angeles County.
REGIONAL VIEW: Southern California
Goods Movement and Economic Opportunity
“ In 2005, More than 80 percent of the cargo ( tonnage) in the state of
California went through the ports of Los Angeles/ Long Beach. Hence,
the logistics sector ( including transportation, warehousing and
wholesale trade) has become increasingly prominent in the Southern
California Region. In 2005, it provided about 600,000 jobs, or one in
twelve jobs in the region. Due to the significance increase in foreign
trade, total jobs in the logistics sector in the region are estimated to
increase another 120,000 over the next ten years. In addition, jobs in
the logistics sector offer wages higher than the overall average and
enable upward economic mobility particularly for those without a
college education.”
– Southern California Association of Governments
North Coast NC
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra NS
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Southeast Sierra SS
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
Monterey Bay MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
Employment Growth
Percent Change in Total Nonfarm
1997- 2005 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE
40
A growing number of regions have begun to re- examine
their economies, identifying “ clusters of opportunity”—
groups of growing export- oriented industries and
population- driven sectors which also provide job
opportunities with good career potential for 	
regional residents.
The Fresno Regional Jobs Initiative assessed its clusters
of opportunity, set a goal of creating thousands of
new jobs in those sectors, and launched a
comprehensive, 5- year strategy of economic and
workforce development to achieve the goal. They
have measured their progress on a regular basis,
having reduced their unemployment rate 31%, with
three- quarters of all non- farm job growth generated
by the targeted clusters. For more information, see
www. fresnorji. com
The North Coast region has just completed an analysis
of its clusters of opportunity, which showed a major
economic restructuring and emergence of growing
sectors with good career potential. They identified
specific occupations at the entry, mid, and high levels
by cluster, and are now organizing to focus their
economic and workforce development efforts on
these clusters. 	 	 	 	
For more information, see www. humboldtwib. com
R e g i o n a l H i g h l i g h t
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
( 0.5)
- 6% - 4% - 2% 0 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Buildings & Systems
Construction
& Maintenance
Specialty Agriculture
Food & Beverage
Investment Support Services
Diversified
Health Care
Management
& Innovation
Services
Niche
Manufacturing
North Coast Targets of Opportunity
Concentration ( 1.0 = State Average)
Food Chain
Construction
Manufacturing Value Chain
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Basic Information Services
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Prof. Sci. Tech & Mgmt. Services
Health Sciences & Services
Entertainment & Tourism
Other Services
All Government
Source: California Regional Economies Project, California Economic Base Report, 2006
Average Annual Growth Rate 1990- 2004
Targets of Opportunity in the Central Valley and North Coast
Central Coast
San Joaquin Valley
Northern California
No. Sacramento Valley
Added Employment
Did Not Add Employment
Not a Major Cluster
Greater Sacramento
Bay Area
Central Sierra
Southern California
Southern Border
Employment Growth in Major Clusters/ Industry Sectors
2001- 2004
WHAT PROGRESS ARE REGIONS MAKING?
A closer examination of key industry sectors and
clusters at the regional level also suggests progress.
This table is a summary of region- by- region
economic base reports published by the California
Regional Economies Project of the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency’s
Economic Strategy Panel. The sectors and
clusters shown represent major employment
sectors in regions somewhat different than the
regions used in this Report. While not directly
comparable and sometimes incomplete, these
results do show areas of progress that align with
part or all of individual regions in this Report.
Overall, it reinforces the conclusion that regions
have been adding jobs, including jobs in one or
more sectors important because of their export
orientation, higher- than- median wages, and/ or
share of jobs in the economy. These are broad
categories; many regions and sub- regions have
developed their own more focused industry
cluster or “ clusters of opportunity” analysis ( e. g.,
see the Regional Highlight, above, on the Central
Valley and North Coast).
41
$ 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 70,000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2005
60,000
$ 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
- 7%
+ 16%
+ 5%
+ 13%
+ 1%
+ 2.2%
+ 3%
—
—
+ 7%
—
—
—
Note: Regional median household income is derived by averaging
each county’s median household income in every region.
INCOME
Real Median Household Income and Real Per Capita Income
Every region but three ( where data are available) has enjoyed real
increases in per capita income. In fact, the ten regions with the lowest
per capita income in the state all experienced real gains between 2000
and 2004.
North Coast NC
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra NS
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
Monterey Bay MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
Real Median Household Income
2005 ( Dollars) and 2000- 2005 Percent Change
Many regions have also made progress in raising median household
income. Between 2000 and 2005, six of seven regions ( in which data
are available) experienced real increases in their median household
income. San Joaquin Valley, the region with the fourth lowest median
household income, recorded a 7% increase between 2000 and 2005.
Southern California also experienced a 2.2% gain, starting from a
higher base in 2000. The Monterey region, with the second highest
median household income, increased by a substantial 16%.
California State
42
Source: Per Capita Personal Income by County, California, 1994- 2004 ( Residence Adjusted), 	 	
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
$ 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
- 7%
+ 6%
+ 2%
- 1%
- 3%
+ 7%
+ 1%
+. 1%
+ 8%
+ 2%
+ 4%
+ 3%
+ 2%
$ 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
+ 7%
+ 6%
Real Per Capita Income
2004 ( Dollars) and 2000- 2004 Percent Change
North Coast NC
Shasta SH
Northeast Sierra NS
Butte BU
Sacramento Area SA
Bay Area BA
San Joaquin Valley SJV
Monterey Bay MB
San Luis Obispo SLO
Santa Barbara SB
San Diego SD
Southern California SC
California State
No. Sacramento Valley NSV
Southeast Sierra SS
43
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 500,000 600,000
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division
+ 17