Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 7.2 Sustainable Land Use Scenarios
~~~~ Off' nU~~~ /ii ~ 111 L~~ - ~ ~~~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #430-50 February 7, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers ~~ Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~' Sustainable Communities Strategy Alternative Land Use Scenarios Prepared by Marnie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy for the nine-county Bay Area region in accordance with Senate Bill 375. The Sustainable Community Strategy is a 25 year land use strategy for the Bay Area that identifies areas to accommodate all of the region's population, including all income groups, and forecasts a land use pattern that when integrated with the transportation system reduces greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. To date, five land use scenarios have been development and measured against two transportation networks and 10 performance targets. ABAG and MTC are soliciting comments from local jurisdictions on the five land use scenarios. Each scenario includes housing and employment distribution patterns across the region to support equitable and sustainable development. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact at this time. Future implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy could have financial impacts which are not known at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and direct Staff to provide comments to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~a~..~ ~~°. ., _ ~.~_ Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 11 ITEM NO. 7.2 DESCRIPTION: Background Senate Bill 375 became law in 2008 and calls for the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for all metropolitan regions of California. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have been charged with preparing the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the nine-county Bay Area region. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a land use strategy that will attempt to coordinate land use with the transportation network in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. To that end, housing and jobs will be concentrated in areas with easy access to transit. The SCS land use strategy will also influence the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) which is a key component of the General Plan Housing Element. The Sustainable Communities Strategy will be adopted in 2013 as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Initial Vision Scenario On May 17, 2011, Staff presented a report to the City Council on the Initial Vision Scenario (Attachments 1 and 2). The Initial Vision Scenario was the first attempt to create a regional land use plan for the Sustainable Communities Strategy based on projected growth rates in the Bay Area of 2 million people and 900,000 housing units by 2035. The Initial Vision Scenario focused on concentrating the projected 900,000 housing units within designated Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The City of Dublin has three PDAs: 1) Dublin Town Center; 2) Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings; and 3) Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area (Attachments 3-5). The Initial Vision Scenario also included job growth projections. According to ABAG, Dublin is one of the major East Bay job centers in the Tri-Valley along with Pleasanton, Livermore and San Ramon and continues to attract a range of businesses. According to the Initial Vision Scenario, job growth in Dublin was projected to increase 85% by 2035. The distribution of jobs was to be further analyzed by ABAG and MTC in the Detailed Scenario which was to be the next phase in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy. At the City Council's direction, comments were provided to ABAG and MTC on the Initial Vision Scenario and included concerns over the distribution of household growth in each of Dublin's Priority Development Areas. Staff requested that the projected household growth in the SCS align with current Planning documents (Attachment 6). Detailed Scenario Renamed Alternative Scenarios In July 2011, based on feedback received from local jurisdictions on the Initial Vision Scenario, ABAG and MTC approved the framework for 4 additional scenarios known as the Alternative Scenarios. These Scenarios were developed in lieu of the Detailed Scenario and will be used to inform the development of the Preferred Scenario which will be adopted as part of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Alternative Scenarios include: 1) Core Concentration Unconstrained; 2) Focused Growth; 3) Core Concentration Constrained; and, 4) Outer Bay Area Growth (Attachment 7). Page 2 of 11 To date, five land use scenarios have been developed, the Initial Vision Scenario and the four Alternative Scenarios. The Initial Vision Scenario and the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario are based on unconstrained growth and assume a very strong employment growth as well as unprecedented funding to support housing affordability. These two scenarios accommodate the revised projected housing need for over 1 million households by 2040. The remaining three land use scenarios (Focused Growth, Core Concentration Constrained and Outer Bay Area Growth) are "constrained" scenarios and are based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility and more reasonable planning strategies. These three scenarios reflect the expected housing production of 770,000 housing units but fall short of meeting the projected future housing need of over 1 million units by 2040. All five land use scenarios are summarized as follows: • Initial Vision Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) based on input from local jurisdictions on the level of growth they can reasonably accommodate given resources, local plans and community support. • Core Concentration Unconstrained: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area. • Focused Growth: Recognizes the potential of PDAs throughout the region with an emphasis on major transit corridors. • Core Concentration Constrained: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area. • Outward Growth (formerly Outer Bay Area): Higher levels of growth in the inland areas of the Bay Area; closer to past development trends. Scenario Analysis To analyze the impacts of the five land use scenarios ABAG and MTC paired them with one of two transportation networks and then measured the five land use scenarios against 10 specific performance targets related to the economy, environment and social equity (Attachment 8). The performance targets are summarized as follows: 1) Reduce C02 emissions per person from cars and light-duty trucks. 2) House projected regional growth. 3) (a) Reduce premature deaths from exposure to fine particulate emissions. (b) Reduce coarse particulate emissions. (c) Achieve greater particulate emissions reduction in highly-impacted areas. 4) Reduce injuries and fatalities from all collisions. 5) Increase the average daily time walking or biking per person. 6) Direct new non-agricultural development within urban footprint. Page 3 of 11 7) Reduce housing and transportation costs as share of low-income household's budgets. 8) Increase Gross Regional Product (GRP) 9) (a) Increase non-auto mode share. (b) Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person. 10) (a) Improve local road pavement condition index (PCI). (b) Reduce share of distressed state highway lane-miles. (c) Reduce share of transit assets exceeding their useful life. The results of the Scenario Analysis were released on December 9, 2011 at a joint meeting of the MTC Planning Committee and ABAG Administrative Committee (Attachment 9). Of the five land use scenarios, there was not one scenario that performed significantly better than any other. All five land use scenarios exceeded the targets established for reducing premature deaths from exposure to fine particulate emissions (Target 3a) and increasing the Gross Regional Product (Target 8); however, in the other categories, all five scenarios fell short of meeting the established targets. In a handful of instances, the performance results worsened. For example, rather than reducing injuries and fatalities from all collisions by 50% (Target 4), they increased 18-26% across all 5 land use scenarios. Equity Analysis In addition to the Scenario Analysis, an Equity Analysis was performed to see how the five land use scenarios performed against five specific equity measures (Attachment 10). The equity measures are summarized as follows: 1) Share of income spent on housing and transportation costs. 2) Share of today's overburdened-renter households at risk for displacement based on future growth patterns. 3) Average daily miles of vehicle travel per square kilometer in residential and commercial areas near major roadways. 4) Average travel time in minutes for shopping, visiting, recreation, etc. 5) Average commute travel time in minutes. The results of the Equity Analysis were released on December 9, 2011 concurrently with the Scenario Analysis. The Equity Analysis focused on the impacts the five land use scenarios would have on communities of concern compared to the remainder of the region (Attachment 11). Similar to the Scenario Analysis, there was not one scenario that performed significantly better than any other. Staff has reviewed the household and job growth projections for all five Scenarios and prepared a response letter to ABAG and MTC (Attachment 12). Page 4 of 11 ANALYSIS: Household Growth Projections All five land use scenarios include projected household growth Citywide and by Priority Development Area. The Initial Vision Scenario and the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario assume 1 million additional households across the region by 2040 while the remaining three Scenarios assume 770,000 additional households. As noted above, 1 million housing units is the projected housing need while the 770,000 housing units reflects projected housing production. Table 1 below provides a comparison of ABAG's 2040 household growth estimates across all five land use scenarios. Table 1. ABAG 2040 Household Growth Estimates by Land Use Scenario (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Initial Core Focused Core Outward Vision Concentration Scenario Concentration Growth Scenario Unconstrained Constrained Scenario Scenario Scenario Downtown Dublin Specific 2,309 1,643 1,822 1,262 2,127 Plan Area PDA Town Center PDA 7,120 7,503 5,895 5,895 6,460 Transit Center PDA 2,454 3,736 3,204 3,204 3,970 Total In PDAs 11,883 12,882 10,921 10,361 12,557 Total Outside PDAs 23,247 20,794 17,803 15,452 18,134 Citywide Total 35,130 33,676 28,724 25,813 30,691 Table 2 below provides a comparison of the City's 2040 household growth estimates based on current Planning documents and projects which are currently in process (i.e. SunCal/Camp Parks) and ABAG's 2040 household growth estimates. The City Estimates have been refined since the Initial Vision Scenario and reflect the most current household growth projections. For example, 334 existing housing units within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA were previously not accounted for and the number of proposed housing units for the SunCal/Camp Parks project has increased from 1,500 units to 1,600 units. The data presented in Table 2 for each of the five land use scenarios reflects the difference between the City's estimates and ABAG's estimates shown above in Table 1. For example, a positive number reflects an overestimation by ABAG and a negative number reflects an underestimation when compared to the City's estimates. Page 5 of 11 Table 2. City of Dublin 2040 Household Growth Estimates versus ABAG 2040 Household Growth Estimates by Land Use Scenario City (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Estimates Initial Core Focused Core Outward Vision Concentration Scenario Concentration Growth Scenario Unconstrained Constrained Scenario Scenario Scenario Downtown Dublin 1,634 +675 +9 +188 -372 +493 Specific Plan Area PDA Town Center PDA 5,949' +1,171 +1,554 -54 -54 +511 Transit Center PDA 3,400 -946 +336 -196 -196 +570 Total In PDAs 10,983 +900 +1,899 -62 -622 +1,574 Total Outside PDAs 17,718' +5,529 +3,076 +85 -2,266 +416 Citywide Total 28,701 +6,429 +4,975 +23 -2,888 +1,990 X334 existing units as of 2011; 1,300 new units per the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 2Based on approved entitlements and units remaining per the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 385 units could be added if the Area GPublic/Semi-Public site is converted to residential 41,800 units at the Dublin Transit Center and 1,600 units at Camp Parks/SunCal 52,021 units could be added if the following are entitled: Doolan Canyon (1,990), Positano Public/Semi-Public (12) and Area FPublic/Semi- Public (19) Staff has analyzed the household growth estimates for each of the five land use scenarios. Below is a summary of how each scenario performed when compared to the City's estimates. The City's estimates are based on current Planning documents including the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Any additional housing units, above and beyond what is currently planned for in these documents, would require amendments to the General Plan and/or applicable Specific Plan, environmental review and an evaluation of infrastructure needs. In some cases, the amount of land available for development may not be able to accommodate the number of units allocated in certain scenarios. Initial Vision Scenario Household growth estimates for the Initial Vision Scenario were released in May 2011. At ABAG's request and the City Council's direction, Staff submitted comments on the Initial Vision Scenario (see Attachment 6). The estimates have been revised slightly by ABAG and, as described above, the City's estimates have also been further refined by Staff; however, the estimates in the Initial Vision Scenario still do not align with the City's current Planning documents. Housing units are overestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (675 units) and Town Center PDA (1,171 units) and are underestimated in the Transit Center PDA (946 units). Citywide, housing units are overestimated by almost 6,500 units. While the goal of the Initial Vision Scenario is to concentrate housing and job growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) based on input from local jurisdictions on the level of growth they can reasonably accommodate given resources, local plans and community support, it does not appear that the comments previously provided by Staff were incorporated into the revised household growth estimates for the Initial Vision Scenario. Staff has incorporated this comment into the draft letter to ABAG and MTC (see Attachment 12). Page 6 of 11 Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario Household growth estimates for the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario are overestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (9 units), Town Center PDA (1,554 units) and Transit Center PDA (336 units). Citywide, housing units are overestimated by almost 5,000 units. While the goal of the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario is to concentrate housing and job growth at selected PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area, it appears based on the overestimation of housing units that additional growth was allocated to Dublin's PDAs and Citywide even though Dublin is not located in the Inner Bay Area. Focused Scenario Household growth estimates for the Focused Scenario are relatively close to aligning with the City's estimates across all PDAs and Citywide but overestimate housing growth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (188 units) and underestimate housing growth in the Town Center PDA (54 units) and Transit Center PDA (196 units). Citywide, the Focused Scenario only slightly overestimates total housing units (23 units). The Focused Scenario reflects the potential of PDAs throughout the region with an emphasis on major transit corridors. With the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA, the allocation of housing units in this Scenario is generally consistent with current Planning documents for each PDA as well as Citywide. Core Concentration Constrained Scenario Household growth estimates for the Core Concentration Constrained Scenario are also relatively close to aligning with the City's estimates across all PDAs and Citywide but underestimate housing growth in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (372 units), Town Center PDA (54 units), and, Transit Center PDA (196 units). Citywide, the Core Concentration Constrained Scenario underestimates total housing units by almost 3,000 units. The Core Concentration Constrained Scenario reflects a concentration of housing and job growth at selected PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area. This supports the underestimation of housing units in all PDAs and Citywide as growth is shifted from outlying areas of the region to the urban core. Outward Growth Scenario Household growth estimates for the Outward Growth Scenario are overestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (493 units), Town Center PDA (511 units), and, Transit Center PDA (570 units). Citywide, housing units are overestimated by almost 2,000 units. The Outward Growth Scenario reflects higher levels of growth in the inland areas of the Bay Area and is intended to align closer with past development trends. However, this Scenario overestimates housing growth in all of Dublin's PDAs and Citywide. Page 7 of 11 Based on the analysis of household growth projections, the Core Concentration Constrained Scenario most closely aligns with the City's current Planning documents (the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan). This Scenario concentrates housing growth at select PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area and shifts growth from the outlying areas of the region to the urban core. Employment Growth Projections All five land use scenarios include projected employment growth Citywide and by Priority Development Area. The Initial Vision Scenario and the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario assume nearly 1.5 million additional jobs across the region by 2040 while the remaining three Scenarios assume nearly 1 million additional jobs across the region by 2040 with ajobs-to-household ratio of 1.3. Table 3 below provides a comparison of ABAG's 2040 employment growth estimates across all five land use scenarios. Table 3. ABAG 2040 Employment Growth Estimates by Land Use Scenario (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Initial Core Focused Core Outward Vision Concentration Scenario Concentration Growth Scenario Unconstrained Constrained Scenario Scenario Scenario Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA Town Center PDA Transit Center PDA Total In PDAs Total Outside PDAs Citywide Total 14,189 9, 505 5, 749 5, 644 6, 018 2,387 765 548 545 593 1,735 204 171 161 204 18,311 10,474 6,468 6,350 6,815 18,169 22,045 16,592 16,083 20,554 36,480 32,519 23,060 22,433 27,369 Table 4 below provides a comparison of the City's 2040 employment growth estimates based on current Planning documents including the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and ABAG's 2040 employment growth estimates. The data presented in Table 4 for each of the five land use scenarios reflects the difference between the City's estimates and ABAG's estimates shown above in Table 3. For example, a positive number reflects an overestimation by ABAG and a negative number reflects an underestimation when compared to the City's estimates. Page 8 of 11 Table 4. City of Dublin 2040 Employment Growth Estimates versus ABAG 2040 Employment Growth Estimates by Land Use Scenario City (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Estimates Initial Core Focused Core Outward Vision Concentration Scenario Concentration Growth Scenario Unconstrained Constrained Scenario Scenario Scenario Downtown Dublin 5,952 +8,237 +3,553 -203 -308 +66 Specific Plan Area PDA Town Center PDA 3,014 -627 -2,249 -2,466 -2,469 -2,421 Transit Center PDA 9,028 -7,293 -8,824 -8,857 -8,867 -8,824 Total In PDAs 17,994 +317 -7,520 -11,526 -11,644 -11,179 Total Outside PDAs 26,907 -8,738 -4,862 -10,315 -10,824 -6,353 Citywide Total 44,901 -8,421 -12,382 -21,841 -22,468 -17,532 Staff has analyzed the employment growth estimates for each of the five land use scenarios. Below is a summary of how each Scenario performed when compared to the City's estimates. The underestimation of employment growth appears to assert that jobs would be directed to the urban core leaving commercial property in Dublin vacant or assumed to be converted to residential use. Initial Vision Scenario Employment growth estimates for the Initial Vision Scenario are overestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (8,237 jobs), underestimated in the Town Center PDA (627 jobs) and underestimated in the Transit Center PDA (7,293 jobs). Citywide, employment growth is underestimated by almost 8,500 jobs. The goal of the Initial Vision Scenario is to concentrate housing and job growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) based on input from local jurisdictions on the level of growth they can reasonably accommodate given resources, local plans and community support. Staff has incorporated comments in the draft letter to ABAG and MTC (see Attachment 12) based on the City's estimates which are derived from current Planning documents. Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario Employment growth estimates for the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario are overestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (3,553 jobs) and underestimated in the Town Center PDA (2,249 jobs) and Transit Center PDA (8,824 jobs). Citywide, employment growth is underestimated by over 12,000 jobs. The goal of the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario is to concentrate housing and job growth at selected PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area. This could explain the underestimation of jobs in the Town Center PDA and Transit Center PDA as jobs are shifted to the urban core. Focused Scenario Employment growth estimates for the Focused Scenario are underestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (203 jobs), the Town Center PDA (2,466 jobs) and Page 9 of 11 Transit Center PDA (8,857). Citywide, employment growth is underestimated by almost 22,000 jobs. The Focused Scenario reflects the potential of PDAs throughout the region with an emphasis on major transit corridors. Based on the underestimation of jobs in all three PDAs and Citywide this scenario appears to direct job growth away from outlying areas such as Dublin. Core Concentration Constrained Scenario Employment growth estimates for the Core Concentration Constrained Scenario are underestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (308 jobs), the Town Center PDA (2,469 jobs) and Transit Center PDA (8,867). Citywide, employment growth is underestimated by almost 22,500 jobs. The Core Concentration Constrained Scenario reflects a concentration of housing and job growth at selected PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area. Similar to the Focused Scenario, this Scenario underestimates job growth in all PDAs and Citywide which reflects the shift in jobs from outlying areas of the region to the urban core. Outward Growth Scenario Employment growth estimates for the Outward Growth Scenario are overestimated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA (66 jobs) and underestimated in the Town Center PDA (2,421 jobs) and Transit Center PDA (8,824). Citywide, employment growth is underestimated by over 17,500 jobs. The Outward Growth Scenario reflects higher levels of growth in the inland areas of the Bay Area and is intended to align closer with past development trends. Staff has prepared a draft letter to ABAG and MTC with comments on all five land use scenarios (see Attachment 12). The next phase in the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is the preparation of the Preferred Scenario which is anticipated to be released in March 2012. The Preferred Scenario will be the land use scenario that is adopted as part of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: This is an informational report to the City Council at the request of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to receive input from elected officials on the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy. An informational report is not subject to a public hearing and therefore a public notice is not required. As the lead agencies, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have been conducting public outreach in the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. A public workshop for residents and stakeholders in Alameda County was held on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 5:45pm at the Dublin Civic Center. Staff from ABAG and MTC provided an overview of the Sustainable Communities Strategy and solicited input from attendees on transportation trade-offs and the quality of complete communities. The transportation trade-offs focused on various transportation investments and workshop participants were asked to rank which were most important to them Page 10 of 11 (i.e. increase the number of carpool lanes, maintain existing roads, provide more frequent bus service, etc.). The quality of complete communities focused on the location of jobs and housing and workshop participants were asked to identify which community benefits were most important to them (i.e. safer neighborhoods, increased open space, better schools, etc.). ABAG and MTC will use the input they received at the public workshop as well as input from elected officials to inform the Preferred Scenario. Additionally, ABAG and MTC have solicited input from local jurisdictions through an optional on- line survey. Staff completed the survey which was due on January 20, 2012. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated May 17, 2011 with attachments. 2. City Council Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2011. 3. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Priority Development Area Map. 4. The Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area Map. 5. Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings Priority Development Area Map. 6. Letter dated May 20, 2011 to MTC and ABAG regarding the Initial Vision Scenario. 7. Sustainable Communities Strategy Alternative Land Use Scenarios revised September 1, 2011. 8. The Plan Bay Area Scenario Analysis. 9. Plan Bay Area Draft Scenarios Assessment Results memorandum dated December 2, 2011. 10. The Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis Overview. 11. MTC Communities of Concern 2011 Map. 12. Draft letter dated February 8, 2012 to MTC and ABAG regarding the Alternative Scenarios. Page 11 of 11 G~~~ OF~DU~~~ 19r ~-'_~ 82 ~~~~~/~ 04LI~~~~ STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^®®®-®~ DATE: May 17, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJECT: Sustainable Communities Strategy Initial Vision Scenario Report prepared by Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner MP- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy for the nine-county Bay Area region in accordance with Senate Bill 375 and are soliciting comments from local jurisdictions on the distribution of housing units to accommodate the region's population growth over the next 25 years as well as projected job growth. The proposed allocation of housing units and job growth to the City of Dublin is not consistent with current Planning policies. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. Future implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy could have financial impacts which are not known at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and direct Staff to provide comments to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on the Initial Vision Scenario. bmit ed B Community Development Director F _ Review y Assistant City Manager Pa e 1 of 7 ITEM NO. ~ . 9 DESCRIPTION: Background Senate Bill 375 became law in 2008 and calls for the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy for all metropolitan regions of California. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have been charged with preparing the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the nine-county Bay Area region. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a land use strategy that will attempt to coordinate land use with the trahsportation network in order to reduce green house gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. To that end, housing and jobs will be concentrated in areas with easy access to transit. The SCS land use strategy will also influence the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The State of California estimates that the Bay Area will grow by over 2 million people by the year 2035 resulting in a need for over 900,000 new housing units. The SCS will identify areas within the Bay Area where the region's population can be accommodated over the next 25 years including housing for all income levels. The Sustainable Communities Strategy will be adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan and funding for local projects will be tied to conformance with the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Initial Vision Scenario is the first attempt to create a regional land use plan for the Sustainable Communities Strategy and to accommodate the projected 900,000. new housing units throughout the nine-county Bay Area region. ~On March 11, 2010 the Initial Vision Scenario (Attachment 1) was released at a joint meeting of the MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee. The Initial Vision Scenario focuses on concentrating the projected 900,000 housing units within designated Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The City of Dublin has three PDAs: 1) Dublin Town Center; 2) Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings; and, 3) Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area (Attachments 2-4). The Initial Vision Scenario also includes job growth projections. According to ABAG, Dublin is one of the major East Bay job centers in the Tri-Valley along with Pleasanton, Livermore and San Ramon and continues to attract a range of businesses. According to the Initial Vision Scenario, job growth in Dublin is projected to increase 85% by 2035. The distribution of jobs will be further analyzed by ABAG and MTC in the Detailed Scenario which is the next phase in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy. ABAG and MTC have been soliciting input from local jurisdictions through a variety of forums since the release of the Initial Vision Scenario. An East County Elected Officials meeting was held on March 24, 2011 at the Dublin Library and presentations have been made to the Alameda County Planning Directors and the Alameda County Technical Advisory Working Group which was formed to provide input on the Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan. ABAG and MTC are also requesting that input be obtained from local elected officials through a presentation to the City Council. J Page 2 of 7 n The analysis below describes the proposed allocation of housing units to Dublin's three PDAs and the 2035 job growth projections; draft responses to questions being asked by ABAG and MTC are also provided below. Staff has some concerns with the allocation of housing units to Dublin's three PDAs. As described in further detail below, the allocation of housing units to the Dublin Town Center and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan PDAs exceed what is planned for in these areas and the allocation of housing units to the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA is lower than what is currently planned or anticipated. Staff has also reviewed the Initial Vision Scenario job growth projections and, assuming ultimate build out in 2035, estimates more total- jobs than the Initial Vision Scenario. ANALYSIS: Initial Vision Scenario The State of California anticipates an additional 900,000 housing units throughout the nine- county Bay Area Region over the next 25 years. The Initial Vision Scenario attempts to concentrate that growth within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) (Attachment 5). Housing units have been allocated to PDAs based on the characteristics of the PDA and to take advantage of significant existing and planned transit investments. Place Type Designation ABAG and MTC have created Place Types which define each PDA based on the specific characteristics of the PDA. All of Dublin's PDAs are designated Suburban Centers. A Suburban Center is defined as follows: Suburban Centers contain a mix of residential, employment, retail, and entertainment uses, usually at slightly lower intensifies than Regional Centers, but similar to City Centers. Suburban Centers can act as both origin and destination settings for commuters, with a mix of transit service connected to the regional network. Development in Suburban Centers is often more recent than City Centers, and there are more single-use areas in Suburban Centers. Suburban Centers are served by multiple transit options, often including BART, LRT, or some other fixed-rail transit, but potentially including high volume bus or Bus Rapid Transit, as well as local bus routes. Intensities in Suburban Centers are usually noticeably greater within a % mile radius of the transit station than within the 1/2 -mile radius. Examples of Suburban Centers include Pleasant Hill and Dublin/P/easanton. Housing Unit Allocation Table 1 below compares the allocation of housing units in the Initial Vision Scenario to the development potential anticipated by the City of Dublin. The "PDA Housing Unit Number" includes the number of units originally anticipated by the City at the time of designating each PDA and was derived from existing Planning documents such as the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The "Revised PDA Housing Unit Number" represents the development potential currently anticipated by the City for each PDA based on actual development projects and current land use regulations as further discussed below. The "IVS Housing Unit Number" was derived by Page 3 of 7 ABAG as part of the Initial Vision Scenario and represents the proposed allocation of housing units to Dublin's PDAs to meet the region's 2035 housing needs. Table 1. Housin Unit Allocation b Priori Develo ment Area PDA Revised PDA IVS Priority Development Housing Unif Housing Unit Housing Unit Difference Area (PDA) Number Ci Num'ber Ci Number ABAG Dublin Town Center 4,108 6,072 6,672 +600 Dublin Transit Center/ 3 796 3,300 2,541 -759 Dublin Crossin s , Downtown Dublin 541 1,300 2,156 +856 S ecific Plan Totals 8,445 10,672 11,369 +697 The following is a discussion of the housing unit allocation for each of Dublin's 3 PDAs. Dublin Town Center Dublin Town Center is a Planning Subarea within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. This area is largely built out with a variety of newly constructed units including single family and multi-family dwellings and at ultimate build out will have approximately 6,072 units. Existing vacant housing sites include Medium/High and High Density residential on Dublin Land Company's property and Medium and Medium/High Density residential on the Lin's property in Area B (Attachment 6). These vacant sites are included in the 6,072 units anticipated at ultimate build out. In order to accommodate the additional 600 units the Initial Vision Scenario allocates to this PDA, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would need to be amended and additional environmental review completed and infrastructure needs evaluated included water, sewer and roadway capacity. Assuming an additional 600 housing units by 2035 within this PDA is not realistic as the age of the housing stock will still be relatively young and the amount of vacant residential land available cannot reasonably accommodate this many units. Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings Dublin Transit Center has been approved for up to 1,800 housing units and in 2004, Dublin Crossings (i.e. Camp Parks) was proposed to have up to 1,996 housing units based on the Alternative 5 Land Use Plan. Based on recent discussions with the developer of the Dublin Crossings project (SunCal) it is anticipated that this number may be closer to 1,500 units due to current market demand. Therefore, the maximum development potential within the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA is currently estimated to be 3,300 units. The Initial Vision Scenario underestimates the development potential within this PDA by 759 housing units. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan was in the process of being developed when it was approved as a Priority Development Area and therefore the PDA only reflected the number of housing units planned for in the former West Dublin BART Specific Plan area (541 units). Since adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific. Plan, this PDA has been approved for up to 1,300 housing units. The Initial Vision Scenario estimates 856 more housing units within this PDA then what is currently approved in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Additional development Page 4 of 7 potential within this PDA would require that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan be amended and an environmental document prepared. Job Growth In addition to housing unit allocations, the Initial Vision Scenario includes projected job growth throughout the region. The Initial Vision Scenario` projects City-wide job growth in Dublin to increase by 85% between 2010 and 2035 from 18,058 jobs to 33,400 jobs. Staff estimates 44,901 jobs at ultimate build out with approximately 17,994 of those jobs being within PDAs. The location of employment centers and its relationship to housing and transit will be further analyzed by ABAG and MTC in the next phase of the Sustainable Communities Strategy process, the Detailed Scenario. Response to ABAG ABAG and MTC are currently soliciting comments from local elected officials on the Initial Vision Scenario. The following is a list of questions posed by' ABAG and MTC along with the City's proposed responses (in italics) which will be provided in the form of a letter (Attachment 7). 1) Is the proposed place type appropriate for your Priority Development Area(s)? Given the availability of resources, is the proposed urban scale, mix of uses, and expected household growth appropriate? All of the City of Dublin's PDAs have a Place Type designation of "Suburban Center". The City feels that this is the most appropriate Place Type designation based on the characteristics of Dublin's 3 PDAs (Dublin Town Center, Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area). The City does not believe that the Initial Vision Scenario's expected household growth rate is appropriate and recommends that the allocation of housing units be adjusted to align with the City's current Planning documents for each PDA. This would include 6, 072 housing units in the Dublin Town Center PDA; 3, 300 housing units in the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossing PDA; and 1,300 housing units in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan PDA. 2) What transportation improvements would help to support those Priority Development Area(s) in your jurisdiction? Transportation and infrastructure has been sized to accommodate the development potential anticipated by the City of Dublin. The allocation of housing units within the Initial Vision Scenario exceeds what is planned and likely to occur within the Dublin Town Center and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs. Therefore additional analysis would need to be done. Street improvements and pedestrian enhancements within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA would help support and encourage planned transit oriented development within this PDA by making streets and sidewalks more pedestrian friendly. Improvements to the Iron Horse Trail from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard and the widening of Dougherty Road to accommodate transit and bicyclists would encourage and facilitate greater pedestrian and bicycle access to the Dublin Transit .Center/Dublin Crossings PDA. Additionally, a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing along the Iron Horse Trail at Dougherty Road and at Dublin Boulevard would increase pedestrian and bicycle safety at these roadway crossings. Page 5 of 7 3) What additional funding would be,needed to support housing growth? The City does not believe that the Initial Vision Scenario's expected household growth rate is appropriate and recommends that the allocation of housing units be adjusted to align with current City of Dublin Planning documents for each PDA. 4) If the Initial Vision Scenario growth estimate is too high, should some of the growth be shifted to another part of your jurisdiction, elsewhere in the County or elsewhere in the region? The City of Dublin feels that the Initial Vision Scenario growth estimate exceeds what is planned for the Dublin Town Center and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs and is lower than what is planned or anticipated far the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA. Some of the development potential could be shifted from the Dublin Town Center and/or Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs to the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA; however Dublin's PDAs are not planned to accommodate all of the housing units the Initial vision Scenario allocates. The City of Dublin believes the job growth identified in the Initial Vision Scenario falls short of the actual potential growth. The City estimated 44, 901 jobs at ultimate build out with approximately 17, 994 of those jobs being within PDAs. 5) What are the challenges for your local jurisdiction to attract and retain jobs that match your local workforce? The physical layout of Dublin, as a linear community primarily along the 1-580, lends itself to being attractive for retail uses, thus retail jobs. This is in stark contrast to the housing stock and real estate prices in Dublin, which attract a skilled, high wage workforce that exceeds what the market can provide in retail-oriented jobs. With respect to the market for office development, Dublin sits between two of the largest business parks in Northern California with ample space to accommodate users. However, Dublin has found a niche with a limited amount of campus office and corporate office for businesses wanting visibility that comes with being located along 1-580. When it comes to industrial lands, the land values and development fees are generally too high to support construction of large scale industrial development. Next Steps At the City Council's direction, Staff will send a letter to ABAG and MTC in response to their request for input from local elected officials on the Initial Vision Scenario. The input will be used by ABAG and MTC as they prepare the Detailed Scenario which is the next step in the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Detailed Scenario will be released in June/July 2011 and will be followed by a Locally Preferred Scenario in August/September 2011; the Locally Preferred Scenario will become the land use plan that is adopted as part of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Page 6 of 7 The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) has also been soliciting input from Staff to inform the Detailed Scenario in an effort to coordinate the Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan with the Sustainable Communities Strategy. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: This is an informational report to the City Council at the request of the Association of Bay Area Governments to receive input from elected officials on the Sustainable Communities Strategy Initial Vision Scenario. An informational report is not subject to a public hearing and therefore a public notice is not required. As the lead agencies, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission have been conducting public outreach in the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Initial Vision Scenario for Public Discussion dated March 11, 2011. 2. Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area Map. 3: Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings Priority Development .. Area Map: , . 4. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Priority Development Area Map: 5. Bay Area Priority Development Area Map. 6. Vacant Housing Sites within the Dublin Town Center PDA. 7. Draft Response letter to ABAG and MTC. G:ISCS- Sustainnble Communities StrntegylCCSR'sICCMtg 05.17.IIICCSR SCS IVS 05.17JLdoc Page 7 of 7 l o-~ ~~ _~~ _. ;~ ,, ,t r ~,.~.. ~- ~ r ~ r ~, t ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~~ ~ n-~, _ h j ,' , , 1, ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ li ~ ~~_, ~ ,~,~ ~i~' ~~ `- I ,~l r f1 0 _ t ~ ' E ~ Y l~ ~~ r--____~~--~,.,.. ~~ 'I 11 ~ ~~ ~~ ~,~~ ~ `ll ~ ~~~ h~ II I~ r~i ~~ i,~l o for ~'ui~~ic Dis~uSSion ice' ~ , 1.-.~nia~,,,,i u1- ~ ~,-, ~ ..._ _ ,~ It.i ~, 1r=.: 1, ~.: cr ri i,. ~'i11. .~~~ A'~'~'A~lE~ivl[]EN~' 1 `~rc~. Initial Vision Scenario for Public Discussion March 11, 2011 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT:ITION COiuINtISSION Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700. 510.817.5700 tel 510.817.5848 fax 510.817.5769 tty/tdd ~8y ~$ ~afl+~~li Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 8~h Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 510.464.7900 tel 510.464-7985 fax info@onebayarea.gov a-mail www.onebayarea.gov web 3®~- ~ o~ .r+~ Executive Summary of the Initial Vision Scenario In 2008, Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg) was enacted. The state law requires that our Regional Transportation Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy that integrates land-use planning and transportation planning. For the 25-year.period covered by the Regional Transportation Plan, the Sustainable Communities Strategy must identify areas within the nine- county Bay Area sufficient to house all of the region's population, including all economic segments of the population. It.must also attempt to coordinate the resulting land-use pattern with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from personal- use vehicles (automobiles and light trucks). The Initial Vision Scenario for Plan Bay Area is a first-cut proposal that identifies the areas where the growth in the region's population might be housed. This proposal builds upon a rich legacy of integrative planning in the Bay Area. For over a decade, the region and its local governments have been working together to locate new housing in compact forms near jobs, close to services and amenities, and adjacent to transit so that the need to travel long distances by personal vehicle is reduced. Compact development within the existing urban footprint also takes development pressure off the region's open space and agricultural lands. We have referred to this type of efficient development as "focused growth," and the regional program that supports it is called FOCUS. Planning for New Housing and Supporting Infrastructure The Initial Vision Scenario is constructed by looking first at the Bay Arca's regional housing needs over the next 25 years. This analysis was performed using demographic projections of household growth. It is not a forecast of the region, and does not take into account many factors that, constrain the region's supply of new housing units, such as limitations in supporting infrastructure, affordable housing subsidies, and market factors. The principal purpose of the Initial Vision Scenario is to articulate how the region could potentially grow over time in a sustainable manner, and to orient policy and program development to achieve the first phases of implementation. Under the assumptions of the Initial Vision Scenario, the Bay Area is anticipated to grow by over 2 million people, from about 7,350,000 today to about 9,430,000 by the year 2035. This population growth would require around 902,000 new housing units. The Initial Vision Scenario proposes where these new units might be accommodated. In a departure from previous regional growth scenarios, this Initial Vision Scenario is designed around places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. These places are defined by their character, scale, density, and the expected housing units to be built over the long term. Using "place types," areas with similar characteristics and physical and social qualities, ABAG asked local governments to identify general development aspirations for areas within their jurisdictions These places were mostly the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) already identified through the Initial Vision Scenario Page 1 FOCUS program. They also included additional Growth Opportunity Areas, some similar to PDAs and others with different sustainability criteria. Based on local visions, plans and growth estimates, regional agencies distributed housing growth across the region, focusing on PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. ABAG in some cases supplemented the local forecast with additional units based on the typical characteristics. ofthe relevant locally-selected place type. ABAG also distributed additional units to take advantage of significant existing and planned transit investment,~and it assigned some units to locally identified areas that present regionally significant development opportunities for greater density. The Initial Vision Scenario accommodates 97 percent of new households within the existing urban footprint. Only 3 percent of the forecasted new homes require "greenfield development" (building on previously undeveloped lands). Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas contain about 70 percent of the total growth (743,000 households). Among counties, three take the lion's share of growth: Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa absorb a little over two-thirds of the total. These same counties also are anticipated to take the majority of the region's job growth (64 percent). The region's three major cities do a lot of the heavy lifting. Thirty-two percent of the forecast and proposed housing growth occurs in San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland. Seventeen percent goes to medium-sized cities like Fremont, Santa Rosa, Berkeley, Hayward, Concord, and Santa Clara. The analysis embodied in the Initial Vision Scenario is founded on the location of housing. Employment forecasting and distribution in this Scenario is not directly related to land use policy. Employment location can have a powerful influence on travel demand, vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. In light of these factors and considering economic competitiveness, transit sustainability, and a balanced relationship between employment and housing, regional agencies will be embarking, with local partners, on further analysis regarding appropriate employment locations in relation to future housing growth and the transportation network. This will inform the development of the Detailed Scenarios. The Initial Visiori Scenario reflects the transportation investments from MTC's current Regional Transportation Plan (known as the Transportation 2035 Plan) with an Express Lane backbone system. It also includes some proposed improvements to the region's transit network. These include increased frequencies on over 70 local bus and several express bus routes, improved rail headways on BART, eBART, Caltrain, Muni Metro, VTA light-rail, and Altamont Commuter Express, and more dedicated bus lanes in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, all resulting in overall growth in transit capacity. However, the Bay Area's transit system is financially unsustainable with operators unable to afford to run the current service levels into-the future, much less expanded headways contemplated under the Initial Vision Scenario. MT'C's Transit Sustainability Project will propose a more sustainable transit system for inclusion in the Detailed Scenarios to be tested. Measuring Performance Against Targets The Initial Vision Scenario results in a 12 percent per, capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction from personal-use vehicles in 2035, compared to a 2005 base year. This reduction falls short of Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 2 ~~~ i a ~. the region's state-mandated 15 percent per capita greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. It's clear that additional strategies will need to be employed if we want to attain the greenhouse gas targets, and other targets previously adopted by ABAG and MTC. MTC and ABAG have adopted a set of Plan Bay Area performance targets to describe in specific, measureable terms the region's commitment and progress toward to the "three E" principles of sustainability (Economy, Environment, and Equity). The Initial Vision Scenario meets several regional targets, including accommodating all the projected housing need by income level (in other words, no more in-commuting by workers who live in other regions); reducing the financial burden of housing and transportation on low-income households by providing more affordable housing; and housing the majority of new development within the existing urban core. Also, more residents are projected to ride transit, walk and bike more than existing residents because much of the new housing is located close to services, amenities and. jobs, and adjacent to transit in complete communities. The Initial Vision Scenario brings more residents into the region, thus increasing the total amount of travel. Some residents will still drive for some trips. Even though vehicle miles traveled per capita in the Bay Area are projected to be lower in the Initial Vision Scenario than it is today, total miles driven within the region is projected to increase. With more Bay Area Residents and more miles driven within the region, we can also expect an increase in the total number of injuries and fatalities. Health impacts from exposure to particulate emissions from automobiles and trucks are likewise projected to worsen with more driving; however, state and federal efforts to clean up heavy duty truck engines will more than off-set the increases from automobiles, resulting in overall reductions sooty particulate pollution. Finally, it must be said ,that while bringing more people into the Bay Area will increase the amount of driving and collisions within the region, it is still a net win in the larger sense. The amount of overall driving and greenhouse gas emissions statewide is certainly less than if the new residents were commuting to Bay Area jobs from communities in neighboring regions- that do not offer such amenities. Next Steps The Initial Vision Scenario is offered as basis for discussion with local governments, stakeholders, and the general public about how the Bay Area can accommodate all its population growth over the next quarter century. It is by no means a fait accompli. Over the next several months we will seek input through elected official briefings, local government staff discussions, and public workshops. The .comments received will assist ABAG and MTC in developing a range of Detailed Scenarios and testing feasible land-use/transportation alternatives that achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. . The purpose of the SCS is to forge consensus in the Bay Area on a preferred long-term regionwide growth pattern. Under SB 375, ].Deal governments are explicitly not required to update their general plans in accordance with the SCS. The SCS does not carry'the same authority as Regional Housing Needs Allocation but it will inform the distribution of housing at the local level. The adopted SCS land development pattern will help guide regional policies and investments that are made pursuant to the Regional Transportation Plan. These regional policies Initial Vision Scenario Page 3 and investments are' intended to create financial and other incentives to implement the adopted land pattern in the SCS. ABAG is currently working with its Housing Methodology Committee to develop a methodology for distributing regional eight-year housing targets to Bay Area local jurisdictions; the methodology will be adopted by ABAG later this year. The Initial Vision Scenario kicks off atwo-year conversation among local jurisdictions and regional agencies on what ultimately will become the forecasted Sustainable Communities Strategy, as a part of Plan Bay Area. During that time, the regional agencies will engage local agencies and the public to help identify and assess several detailed Sustainable Communities Strategy scenarios that demonstrate ways that land=use strategies, transportation investments, pricing and other strategies could achieve our adopted goals and targets. The scenarios also will need to address how the Bay Area's land use plans can assist adaptation to climate change. The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to coordinate regional agencies' initiatives and requirements related to sea-level rise, air quality, and other climate change related issues. These Detailed Scenarios will lead to selection of a preferred scenario early next year that would include an integrated transportation investment and land-use plan; this plan would also undergo a detailed environmental impact review that local agencies could use to streamline environmental assessments of their own local development projects as provided for in SB 375. Finally, the ABAG and MTC boards would be asked to adopt the complete Plan Bay Area, including a Sustainable Communities Strategy, by April 2013. This report includes five major sections. First, the introduction describes the development rationale for the Initial Vision Scenario and regional and local challenges. Second, the regional growth section describes the overall population, household, and employment growth, household distribution under the Initial Vision Scenario, the performance of this scenario against targets, and the preliminary results of an equity analysis. Third, the regional growth analysis is developed into narratives for each county. Fourth, the key priorities and potential strategies section describes the preliminary tools to be considered for the implementation of the proposed development. Fifth, the next steps section describes the process of interaction with local jurisdictions and stakeholders and the analytical tasks for the Detailed Scenarios. The appendix includes a glossary that defines the terms used throughout the report and a table describing the place types. Initial Vision Scenario Page 4 ,~~~o~ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................:............................................................:.............................. 8 1.1 Coordination of regional strategies ............................................................................... .. 9 1.2 Initial Vision Scenario Rationale .........:....................................................... ................. 10 1.3 . Meeting local and regional challenges .......................................................................... 19 2. REG IONAL. GROWTH BY 2035 ............:.............................:............................................. 25 2.1 Historical Trends and Current Regional Plans Forecast ............................................... 26 2.2 Housing Distribution by 2035 ....:...................................................:....:......................... 28 2.3 Employment Distribution by 2035 ....................................................:........................... 34 2.4 Evaluation of Initial Vision Scenario .......:.................................................................... 39 2.4.1 Performance Targets ............................................................................................. 39 2.4.2 Equity Assessment .....................................................................:.......................... 42 3. COUNTY VISION SCENARIOS ........................................................................................ 44 4. KEY PRIORITIES AND POTENTIAL STRATEGIES ...................................................... 81 4.1 Key Priorities ................................................................................................................ 81 4.2 Potential Strategies .....................:..........:......................:................................................ 82 5. SCS NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................... 84 5.1 Initial Vision Scenario Outreach Process ..................................................................... 84 5.2 Development of Detailed Scenarios .............................................................................. 86 6. APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................:........87 6.1 Glossary of Terms ...........................................................................................:............. 87 6.2 MTC Station Area Planning Manual Place Type Identification Matrix ....................... 94 LIST OF TABLES, MAPS, AND FIGURES. Tables Table 2.1: Initial Vision Scenario -Regional Growth 2010-203 ............................................ 2~ Table 2.2: Initial Vision Scenario -Total Households and Household Growth by County ..... 29 Table 2.3: Initial Vision Scenario -Total Jobs and Job Growth by County ............................. 35 Table 2.4: Initial Vision Scenario -Household and Job Totals and Growth by Jurisdiction ... 36 Table 2.5: Performance Target Results for the Initial Vision Scenario ..................................... 41 Table 2.6: Results of Equity Analysis of Performance Targets for the Initial Vision Scenario. 42 Table 3.1: Initial Vision Scenario -Total Households and Household Growth by County and Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ............... 44 Initial Vision Scenario Page 5 Table 3.2: Alameda County Initial Vision Scenario Hozsehold Growth 2010-203.5 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction ...... ..48 Table 3.3: Contra Costa County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction ....... ..53 Table 3.4: Marro County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction ....... ..57 Table 3.5: Napa County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas by Jurisdiction ........................................................... ..60 Table 3.6: San Francisco City and County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-203.5 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ....... .. 63 Table 3.7: San Mateo County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-203.5 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction ......... 67 Table 3.8: Santa Clara County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-203.5 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction ......... 71 Table 3.9: Solano Cozznty Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction ......... 76 Table 3.1 D: Sonoma County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction .........80 Maps Map 2.1: .Place types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas in the San Francisco Bay Area .....................................30 Map 3.1: Alameda County PlaceTypes for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ........................................................:.......................47 Map 3.2: Contra Costa County Place Types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ................................................................................52 Map 3.3: Marro County Place Types for Priority Development.Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas .................. ..........................56 .................................... Map 3.4: Napa County Priority Development Area Place Type ..............................................~9 Map 3.5: San Francisco City and County Place Types for Priority Development Areas .:................................................................................... 62 Map 3.6: San Mateo County Place Types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ................................................................................66 Map 3.7: Santa Clara County Place Types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ..............................................:................................ 70 Map 3.8: Solano County Place Types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ....................................:........................................... 7~ Initial Vision Scenario Page 6 Map 3.9: Sonoma County Place Types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas ..................................................... Figures Figure 2.1: Regional Household Growth 1990-2035.. Figure 2.2: Regional Job Growth 1990-2035 .............. Figure 5.1: SCS Planning Process and Timeline......... Initial Vision Scenario ........... 79 .27 .27 .85 Page 7 1®o ~` t t`~ ~ 1. INTRODUCTION Senate Bill 375, passed in 2008, calls upon the San Francisco Bay Area and other regions throughout California to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that identifies a land use pattern into the federally-mandated 25-year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2013 RTP will be the Bay Area's first plan that is subject to SB 375 and is referred to by ABAG and MTC as Plan Bay Area. The SCS seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide housing for the region's future population by integrating the forecasted development pattern with the regional transportation network and policies. The greenhouse gas reduction target for the Bay Area is a 7 percent per capita reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035. SB 375 also synchronizes the legal requirement known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process with the RTP process and streamlines California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for housing and mixed-use projects that meet specified criteria outlined in the bill. The Initial Vision Scenario identifies a land use pattern to meet the Bay Area's housing targets established under SB 375. This Scenario provides a rationale for a sustainable development vision based on the character, scale, and quality of diverse places in the region, and is measured for environmental, social, and economic performance. It builds upon the work done by local communities to identify Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) through the FOCUS program. The proposed distribution of housing focuses on areas identified by local jurisdictions that are pedestrian and transit accessible. This focused growth reduces development pressure from the urban periphery and ensures the retention of open space and agricultural land in the Bay Area. The .Initial Vision Scenario assumes a strong economy and a substantial public investment in affordable housing, public infrastructure, and high quality transit. The operating assumption of the Initial Vision Scenario is that all issues that prevent growth from occurring in the urbanized core are substantially resolved,~including adequate public infrastructure, appropriate management of hazards and risks, sufficient transit headways, redevelopment and affordable housing funding, quality schools, fiscal solvency, and the removal of market barriers to private development. With these assumptions, the Initial Vision Scenario proposes to meet the housing needs of the Bay Area in locations that are appropriate both for local governments and for sustainable development. The release of this Initial Vision Scenario report represents the first step in the Sustainable Communities Strategy process, as regional agencies seek specific input from local elected officials and other stakeholders about the future growth pattern in the Bay Area. Input on the Initial Vision Scenario will be gathered through multiple local and regional forums through May 2011. This input will inform the range of development options to be considered in the Detailed Scenarios. Further public engagement will be sought on the results of this analysis which will lead to the release of a Preferred Scenario for the SCS by January 2012. The SCS Preferred Scenario will be adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan by 2013. Initial Vision Scenario Page 8 The purpose of the SCS is to forge consensus in the Bay Area regarding the long-term growth pattern and identify the issues associated with its implementation. The Sustainable Communities Strategy, when eventually adopted by the regional agencies, will not impose a binding land use authority on local governments. Under SB 375, local governments are explicitly not required to update their general plans in accordarice with the SCS. nor use the SCS as part of their cumulative CEQA analysis of development projects. -The SCS does not carry the same authority as RHNA, but it will inform the distribution of housing at the local level. The adopted SCS land development pattern will help guide regional policies and investments that are made pursuant to the Regional Transportation Plan. These regional policies and investments are intended to create financial and other incentives to implement the adopted land pattern in the SCS. Five major sections organize the content of this report. This introduction section includes the rationale for the development of the scenario and the regional challenges and,needs associated with it. The second section focuses on regional growth. It describes the overall population, household, and employment growth; the distribution of housing and employment at the county, city, and place level; and the evaluation of this scenario against adopted targets and results of the- preliminary equity analysis. The third section takes the regional growth analysis as the basis for a narrative of the Initial Vision Scenario in each county. The fourth section describes the key priorities and potential strategies to be considered for the implementation of the proposed development. The fifth section outlines the next steps in the process of interaction with local jurisdictions and stakeholders and the analytical tasks for the development of the Detailed Scenarios. The appendix includes a glossary that defines the terms used throughout the report and the MTC Station Area Planning Manual Place Type Development Guidelines Table. 1.1 Coordination of regional strategies Since, by federal law the RTP must be internally consistent, the over $200 billion of transportation investment typically included in the RTP must align with and support the adopted SCS land use pattern. The transportation investment strategy included in this Initial Vision Scenario relies primarily on the Transportation 2035 Plan with some improvements in the level of service provided by transit. Regional agencies will work closely with the Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), transit agencies, and local jurisdictions, along with stakeholders and members of the public to define transportation projects that may better serve the development pattern of the Initial Vision Scenario. The project performance assessment, a qualitative and quantitative assessment of projects proposed for inclusion in the RTP, will help determine which transportation projects are included in the Detailed Scenarios. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by ABAG must be consistent with the SCS. Both the SCS and RHNA require consideration of housing needs by income group. , RHNA, however, must meet specific legal equity and housing type requirements including a shift towards a more equitable distribution oflow-income housing and a mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties. This Initial Vision Scenario provides a point of reference to the housing needs for the RHNA. Additional demographic and housing analysis will inform the specific forecast for RHNA and the Detailed Scenarios. This Initial Vision Scenario assumes the availability of tools, resources, and mitigation strategies that address the impacts of the CEQA thresholds and guidelines recently approved by the Bay Initial Vision Scenario Page 9 i2o ~' ~~~ Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the policy recommendations encompassed in the Bay Plan prepared by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). In the Initial Vision Scenario, neither of these agencies' guidelines were used to constrain growth in the urbanized core of the Bay Area. 1.2 Initial Vision Scenario Rationale The Initial Vision Scenario identifies a land use pattern to meet the housing target adopted by ABAG and MTC. To support the projected level of future growth, this scenario assumes strong regional economic performance-and sufficient funding for affordable housing, transportation and the planning and infrastructure dollars needed to support transit-oriented and infill development in the Bay Area. In a departure from previous regional growth scenarios, this Initial Vision Scenario is designed around places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. These places are organized into place types that are defined by their character, scale, density, and the housing units expected over the long term. The Initial Vision Scenario supports cities that are choosing to advance local goals and to improve quality of life by providing affordable housing and transportation choices that help to reduce automobile dependency. It connects local neighborhood priorities in creating high quality places to live and work with regional objectives and resources. Initial Vision Scenario Objectives In addition to the regionally adopted performance targets listed on page 32, the following objectives guide the Initial Vision Scenario. Strengthening the character of places through sustainable development The Bay Area encompasses a wide range of places that vary in character, scale, activities, population, and access. The Initial Vision Scenario pursues a sustainable development pattern that enhances the qualities of each place and provides diverse housing types and transportation choices as defined by each community. This scenario proposes to strengthen the physical, social, and economic qualities of various neighborhoods and centers according to each area's selected place type. 2. Accommodating affordable housing and employment centers within the urban footprint The Initial Vision Scenario proposes growth within the region's urban footprint around the regional transportation network. This approach builds upon previous and current efforts developed by local jurisdictions and regional agencies to enhance the qualities of selected urban centers, towns, neighborhoods, or transit corridors. _ This approach recognizes the need to produce affordable housing, maximize the use of existing , infrastructure, and reduce the use of the automobile. In contrast to previous trends, greenfield development is minimized to retain the open space and agricultural land of the region. 3. Location offisture housing and jobs next to transit; amenities, and services The development of "complete communities" in the Initial Vision Scenario assumes access to services and amenities at the appropriate urban scale. Schools, shops, parks, Initial Vision Scenario Page 10 health services, and restaurants close to residents and workers increase walking, biking, and transit while reducing driving. This location pattern strengthens the identity and diversity of places and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 4.. Strengthening regional transit corridors to provide access to jobs and services The Initial Vision Scenario emphasizes growth along transit corridors to increase transportation options, improve mobility, and expand access to jobs and services. The distribution of growth recognizes the complementary functions of different nodes along the corridor, and the importance of cultivating and connecting diverse place types that provide a unique urban quality with a particular mix of shops, services, or amenities. 5. Preservation of land for open space and agriculture The Bay Area's greenbelt of agricultural, natural resource, and open space lands is a treasured asset that contributes to the region's quality of life, and supports economic development. The Initial Vision Scenario supports.the retention of these lands by directing nearly all non-agricultural development within the urban footprint and by supporting the continuation of agricultural activities in rural communities. The Initial Vision Scenario builds upon existing efforts in many Bay Area jurisdictions to encourage more focused and_compact growth that reflects the unique characteristics of the region's communities and neighborhoods. Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are urban neighborhoods or centers that can accommodate future housing close to transit. They are designated by local jurisdictions and adopted by ABAG. PDAs cover a wide range of areas from downtown Cloverdale, to the EI Camino Real transit corridor on the Peninsula, to downtown San Jose: Growth Opportunity Areas are places that might be PDAs in the future or have different criteria to pursue sustainability focused on employment or town center characteristics. They have been proposed by local jurisdictions for inclusion in the Initial Vision Scenario. Concentration of growth in these areas also supports retention of Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), locally identified regionally significanf near term conservation priorities adopted by ABAG in 2008. Input from Local Jurisdictions Many Bay Area jurisdictions have worked in partnership with MTC and ABAG to plan and advance the implementation of Priority.Development Areas as complete communities in recent years.. The planning processes for these key infil 1, transit-oriented neighborhoods are often painstaking and involve a complex range of issues. The Initial Vision Scenario is structured to serve as a tool to advance dialogue around a more sustainable regional growth pattern that recognizes local aspirations and the unique characteristics of our region's neighborhoods and communities: In November 2010, MTC and ABAG requested that local jurisdictions provide input regarding the capacity for sustainable growth in PDAs or new Growth Opportunity Areas. This information supplemented the extensive PDA Assessment undertaken by ABAG and MTC in the prior year. Most local jurisdictions provided input on place types and levels of growth. Regional agencies have used local estimates of growth and adopted local plans to meet the housing target to the extent possible. However, for discussion purposes, some.Priority Development Areas or Initial Vision Scenario ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page I I .T ~ ~ ~~D ~ new Growth Opportunity Areas have been allocated some additional housing units in this scenario. Transportation Network Assumptions In defining the transportation component of the Initial Vision Scenario, MTC first examined the change in the population forecasts between the Initial Vision Scenario and the Current Regional Plans Forecast. In areas of growth, transit frequencies were increased. MTC also solicited input from the Bay Area Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), receiving detailed information regarding transit improvements from San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties. Projects received from the CMAs that were consistent with the Initial Vision Scenario's land use patterns were included. Relative to the Current Regional Plans Forecast transportation network, the Initial Vision Scenario network includes: Improved headways on over 70 local bus routes and several express bus routes; Improved headways on BART, eBART, Caltrain, Muni Metro, VTA light rail, and Altamont Commuter Express; and, Sixty miles of dedicated bus lanes in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. Housing Distribution To determine how much growth an area could accommodate, regional staff evaluated a Priority Development Area's or Growth Opportunity Area's location in the region, access to employment, proximity to transit or major transit corridors, and overall size and development intensity. This evaluation was framed by the characteristics of the place type selected by the local jurisdiction. A place type groups neighborhoods or centers with similar sus'tainability characteristics and physical and social qualities, such as the scale of housing and commercial buildings, frequency and type of transit, quality of the streets, concentration of jobs, and range of services. Transit investments and the regional role of a given area were also considered in the distribution of housing. The following criteria were used to distribute housing growth throughout the Bay Area: 1. Locally identified growth in existing Priority Development Area or new Growth Opportunity Area 2.. Additional housing units based upon the identified characteristics of the locally selected place type for an area 3. Greater housing density proximate to significant transit investment (Existing Transit and Resolution 3434) 4. Major mixed-use corridors with high potential for transit-served infill development. Initial Vision Scenario Page 12 ,,.~~: Place Type Framework i.~~ ~~~ Local jurisdictions used the place types developed by the Center for Transit Oriented Development for Priority Development Area planning purposesl (Station Area Planning Manual 2007). For the Initial Vision Scenario, place types are a tool for local-regional exchange to identify places and policies for sustainable development. Place types help local governments . describe appropriate levels of growth in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The place types are based upon national standards for transit-oriented neighborhoods and corridors. They offer local governments a way to identify their vision for the future of an area, based on building characteristics related to the scale of the place, type. of transit,.the mix of land uses, the intensity of development, retail characteristics, amenities, design guidelines, and major planning and development challenges. These place type characteristics outline a proposed mix of housing types, targets for total housing units and jobs, net densities for new housing, and minimum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for new employment development. (See Appendix 6.2) While the place types emphasize the specific context of a particular place, they also take into account the network oftransit-served areas in the region. In this way, the place types provide a common language for a regional policy framework that relates to planning and implementation occurring at the local level. Local jurisdictions have identified place types for their Priority Development Areas and for new Growth Opportunity Areas. Most local jurisdictions selected place types from the Station Area Planning Manual. A few local jurisdictions proposed alternative place types to better describe their area's vision. The place types included in the Initial Vision Scenario are summarized below. Place Types from Station Area Planning Manual Regional Center -,~ u~~ ~ ~ ~,- I ~ ~~s~ ill P t f ~ ~ ~ i pit i ~.- i, H ~ 1 ; li ~- ~~i y..~~ ~~~a h ~ ~ ~ ,I ~ I~ii~ti` ~ ~ '~ i yy h is ,F +~ +,~i~ i 1;~1 ~ G~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~,,, a. ~' _ ~~~~ ~ ~. j +~ r s -~ -~° __ ~~ +' ff ~` . ~r y _~ ~ ~ . .~_._~_ 1 The entire manual can be downloaded from the MTC website at http://www.mtc.ca.~ov/planning/smart growth/stations/Station Area plannine Manual Nov07.pdf Initial Vision Scenario Page 13 Regional centers are primary centers of economic and cultural activity for the region. They have a dense mix of employment, housing, retail and entertainment. They are served by a rich mix of transit modes and types and local-serving bus networks. Examples of regional centers include the downtown areas in San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland. City Center ~.. ~=~ ~; T r 7 ~c~ j':: ~r-: t ~~ ~ --- - ~ ~ 'a ~ ~~~_ _ ~ ~' i City centers contain a mix of residential, employment, retail, and entertainment uses. They are magnets for surrounding areas while also serving as commuter hubs to the region. They retain their historic character in the structure of their street networks and buildings. They are served by multiple transit options including high volume bus or Bus Rapid Transit, as well as local bus routes. Examples of city centers include the downtowns of Fremont, Berkeley, Redwood City, and Santa Rosa. Suburban Center _ , ~~ T:~~a-r fi r ~~, - ~ ~ _ .~ v %. o a ~,~E ~ ~ es' _ ,3'~d ~L _ ++fi Suburban centers are similar to city centers but currently have lower densities, less transit, and more parking. These places also include areas that are adding new housing and services to predominantly single-use employment areas. Suburban centers envision a mix of residential, Initial Vision Scenario Page 14 s. ,.~~~:~~ employment, retail, and entertainment uses. They are both origin and destination settings for commuters, with a mix of transit service connected to the regional network. Examples of suburban centers include West Downtown Walnut Creek, Downtown Dublin, and Hacienda in Pleasanton. Transit Town Center ,. . <:. - --- --_ _ _ . ~ .w:. x r~~,/fir ~rN**y ~;=7w~~, ~.._ ~ ;.~ S~ ~ '.. a-~ ~.: . ,~~t "~~ ^ ,. ~ ~ ~' r' ~ ~' ~~_, . _4 ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ Py J ' _. ' r. 1F Y n S `_. ~ _ ~~ _. __, 7~F w~. -. t~ ~~ - n ~ Transit town centers are local-serving centers of economic and community activity. A variety of transit options serve transit town centers, with a mix of origin and destination trips, focusing primarily on commuter service to major employment centers. Examples of transit town centers are the Hercules Waterfront District, the Suisun City Downtown and Waterfront, and Downtown South San Francisco. Urban Neighborhood s ~~ cI _~ J r e, ~ _ _ ,~, ~ ~~ - :~ , ~,~.- ,., .- ~ ~ J of ~. .~ •w_~ ~ ~ r, ~ j .. ~_ -- Urban neighborhoods are primarily residential areas that are well-connected to regional or city centers. They have moderate-to-high densities, and usually feature local-serving retail mixed in Initial Vision Scenario Page 15 LS~~ fl ~ ,. with housing. Commercial and other employment is often limited to small businesses or historically industrial uses. Examples of urban neighborhoods include the Fruitvale District in Oakland, the Woodland/Willow Neighborhood in East Palo Alto, and Mission Bay in San Francisco. Transit Neighborhood f~_ -----~ - - -~ ~ ~ - ~ -~_ -, , s .. n ~~~ y s ~ ril' f ~ ~cx ~ r '^l ~'1- ` ~~ ~ ~~} _ rS 71 { ~ W•~ ~ ~ F jl~l-~ ~~~ r ~_ ~'~ 1 ~~ ~~ ''f ~ i .~. F~~. I~ ~ ~~ ~ E ~ ,µ ' f 1. ~' ' ~~~ - ~ l ~ ~ ~ . - ~ , y~ ~~ a Transit neighborhoods are primarily residential areas that are served by rail service or multiple bus lines that connect at one location. They have low-to-moderate densities, and the transit stations are often a minor focus of activity. They usually do not have enough residential density to support large retail, but have nodes of retail activity. Examples of transit neighborhoods include Whisman Station in Mountain View, The Cannery in Hayward, Central Hercules, and Berryessa Station in San Jose. Mixed-Use Corridor ~. ~~ ~. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~. , ~. ,; r. ,~ ,. . ~, ~„~ i 5 f ~~ - ~ n ,. l ~; ~. _ T ~ _ _.. ~ _ .~, v ~ ~ _i~. ~.~, t~ ~ .: _ ~~ ~ ~ '~ Initial Vision Scenario Page 16 I~o~io~ Streetcars, light rail,-bus rapid transit, or high-volume bus corridors can serve Mixed-Use Corridors. These encompass a mix of amoderate-density buildings housing services, retail, employment, and civic or cultural uses. Existing mixed-use corridors include Telegraph Avenue- International Boulevard-Mission Boulevard in Alameda County, San Pablo Avenue in the-East Bay, Mission-San Jose Corridor in San Francisco, and EI Camino Real on the San Francisco Peninsula: Other Place Types Recently Identified by Local Jurisdictions: Employment Center W'' n~,r~ .,_ia. r - ~ _ - ~y ,,,,r,.~ .. 4A ~.~1 i -~ 111 r"'°.~~ Yy1: J t -" _ - r~'~ 11F r It a ~.~~ ~, ~y~ t~ ~ ... ~ ,~ _ ~_ r.=~ elf ~y~.ao~ ~-~ r~ z i '_I L. R~ ~ hem r ~ y ~.~ t r _.-. ~ u _ ~r ~..,~~- _ ~ .~iCL ~ ~ Ypu~~ - - - y k ~ a FY'I'. ,l...w Employment centers are significant centers of economic activity that do not have a mix of housing integrated in the area. These areas are served by: a variety of transit options for commuters and can be enhanced by local-serving retail. Examples of employment centers .include the Sunnyvale Moffett Park and the North Concord BART Adjacent Growth Opportunity Areas. Rural Town Center ,~ ~. ~ .. ~~ - ,1 ~ ~ ~~~~ E _ f2t~. i` .~ .~ ~~- _ ~. _. __ .r~ ,; ~~ -~ ~ ~ '~~Y I~~~ ~~ ~j F Initial Vision Scenario Page 17 ~oo~~ s `~ Rural town centers are local centers of economic and community activity surrounded by agricultural lands. They have the opportunity to integrate moderate-density housing and supporting local-serving retail while retaining scale and improving bicycle and pedestrian access. The Sonoma County Penngrove Urban Service Area Growth Opportunity Areas is an example of a rural town center. Rural Mixed-Use Corridor ~ ~ ~ i ~ - ,: ._ - _. _ - - ~ ~~ i - -- u ,g , - I_ ~~. i Y T '~~ ~. 1 f~ ~~~~ Rural mixed-use corridors have a local focus of economic and community activity surrounded by agricultural lands: They integrate a mix of uses and provide access to transit and ability to walk or bike along the corridor. The.Springs Growth Opportunity Area in Sonoma County is an example of a rural mixed-use corridor. The place t~ ~~, ~i~~~~n~a, h to Ji~tribution of liousmg~growth Fin video v~~ ~ iun~~ible hen~~l its to~thc 1~>~n Aroma: • ~ ~.uncen~rates ~~io~~th in andrevitalizes exisun~z~~~u~munifies Limits ~reenGeld development _ Reduces de~elopmcnt pressure unPrioiit~~C:onservati~n ~A~eas PreSer~°es character~of exis~in~, lower density re :i,l~~ntial'nei<~hborh~ I, l~til~izes esistin~~ transit infrastructure ~~ • Strengthens'planned transit° roes aiid corridors •. Provides for rapid growth in senior population • Levera~~es and improves existing water, se~~er_andcapital infr~istructure _ • Lo~~~ers per capita water use due°to ~devclopment footprinfand location of~rovwth Impro~~es alignment heL~~een employ menrcenters.~h~~usin~ and reiunal tr~~n~ it '`` • Prov +e, fr~,°~ an impr~~~~d rc~-i~n~leconom~~ I Initial Vision Scenario Page 18 These Place types define the growth pattern encompassed in the.Initial Vision Scenario, which represents an acceleration of the shift in recent years toward infill development in existing communities rather than Greenfield development and a very different regional growth pattern than the historical trends of the last 25 years.. 1.3 Meeting local and regional challenges Bay Area cities and counties, along with regional agencies1 have.identifed numerous challenges to creating sustainable development. This section summarizes those challenges around a number of themes. Many of the challenges identified do not fall under the purview of ABAG or MTC, however they provide an important context for developing the SCS and will need to be addressed if this region is to achieve a sustainable development pattern. Economic Recovery and Vitality: The recent recession has severely impacted leading industries and triggered a high number of mortgage foreclosures in the Bay Area. The region lost about 200,000 jobs in the last few years, which will likely not be fully recovered until close to 2016. Under the Initial Vision Scenario, the region is expected to produce an average of almost 50,000 jobs per year over the 25-year planning period. This is much higher than the job growth average over the previous 20 years, which was closer to 10,000 jobs per year. Economic restructuring and regional competitiveness are often cited as the reasons for anemic job growth in the Bay Area. The slow economic recovery is compounded by long commutes for many of the Bay Area's workers who travel from locations where the market provided moderate-income housing at affordable levels prior to the current recession. Still, the Bay Area is one of the most successful metropolitan areas in the world, and employment growth will be revived. The Bay Area's innovative industries include key exporting industries and services (technology, life sciences, professional and financial services, tourism, etc) as well as critical assets that keep them competitive (universities, research labs, some outstanding public and private schools). Additionally, the region's diverse population and unique mix of entrepreneurial culture and innovation allows for risk-taking, innovative financing, and the adaptive re-allocation of our resources (facilities, workforce, and capital). The SCS should consider a sustainable economic development strategy that accompanies land use and transportation planning. Building on initiatives that have been undertaken throughout the Bay Area, the SCS seeks to enhance the region's prosperity and job production while at the same time improving its environmental integrity and quality of life. Connecting people to work, school, recreation, and commerce is a key aspect of ahigh-functioning Sustainable Communities Strategy. The SCS should link the .Bay Area's existing and projected employment patterns (by industry, occupation, and income level) with housing markets and affordability in order to effectively reduce GHG emissions and increase the stock of affordable housing. Some areas of the region have established "Green Corridors" or "Emerald Cities'' where a variety of economic development initiatives are underway. These initiatives cluster and support "clean tech" businesses that supply energy- or resource-efficient products or services. Economic development strategies should include assisting these firms with space needs and investment capital, as well as job development and support for local entrepreneurship. Programs such as these connect green and clean tech businesses with underserved communities and assist low- and Initial Vision Scenario Page 19 2~n~ ~~~ moderate-income employees and residents with money-saving efficiencies in housing and transport. A regional economic development strategy could support the land uses included in the SCS and bring more economic vitality to these areas. Another important economic development strategy that needs to be addressed in the SCS is the support of goods movement in the Bay Area. Industrial land supply for goods movement businesses has been concentrated along the major transportation corridors that ring the central parts of San Francisco Bay, and some of these locations are proximate to PDAs that are expected to accommodate housing growth. Industrial land supply in the inner :Bay Area is declining while goods movement industries and their demand for central locations are growing. Shortages of industrial land result in the outward dispersion of industrial activities. Due to the region's geography and freeway system, the demand shifting outward will be heavily focused on industrial locations with access into the central Bay Area markets they serve via Interstate 580, Interstate 80, and U.S. Highway 101. SCS policies should take into account these trends and find policy incentives to support the retention of existing industrial land. Restoration of Housing Markets: The Bay Area was impacted by the mortgage lending crisis and there are numerous areas where foreclosure activity will continue at much higher than historical rates. Foreclosures suppress the housing construction market and impact the willingness of potential new buyers to invest in purchasing new units. The foreclosure crisis significantly impacted many of the jurisdictions in the eastern part of the region. These steep value declines in many parts of the .Bay Area essentially stopped most housing production. The foreclosure crisis dropped home values in many neighborhoods and drastically decreased the funding available for new housing-for both families and developers. Most local jurisdictions will probably not experience a regular flow of housing project permits for several years. The steep decline of the housing market has severely impacted the cities, counties, and special districts that are responsible for the implementation of the SCS. Many cities have been forced to reduce staff in planning and economic development departments. In the short term, public agencies will be stretched to implement local plans when the market begins to recover and projects are once again under way. Despite the challenges to the current housing market, the demographic trends and likelihood for economic growth in the Bay Area mean that over the long haul, housing markets will return to health. Demand for housing is expected to be particularly high in areas that are pedestrian- and transit-oriented, which will facilitate future growth in P:DAs. Climate Adaptation: The SCS also will need to address how the Bay Area's land use plans can assist adaptation to climate change. Much of the region's key infrastructure, including airports and key expanses of highways close to the Bay are subject to sea-level rise. Our region will need to protect this vital infrastructure, and be prepared to address some of the other byproducts of climate change, such as worsening air quality, drinking water shortages and greater likelihood of events like the Oakland Hills firestorm. Supporting Infrastructure: To support the increased housing, the Initial Vision Scenario reflects the transportation investments from the Transportation 2035 Plan with an -Express Lane backbone system. It also includes some initial proposals to improve the region's transit network, Initial Vision Scenario Page 20 ~~o~i~~ all resulting in overall growth in transits capacity. However, the Bay Area's transit system is financially unsustainable with operators unable to afford to run the current service levels into the future, much less expanded services. MTC's Transit Sustainability Project will propose a more sustainable transit system for inclusion in the Detailed Scenarios to be tested. Changing Demographics: By 2035,.our senior population will represent an increasing share of the overall population. Growth in the 65-and-over population accounts for almost half of the overall Bay Area population growth. This growth has major implications since many people in this population group have limited incomes and a smaller household size, typically one or two people, lowering the regional household size average down to 2.6 persons per household. The increasing diversity of our region also presents a different set of housing needs. Over the last two decades, Latino and Asian populations have increased by more than a third, while the proportion of whites have decreased. This trend has implications on the need for housing that can accommodate multigenerational.families and on the location around specific services and cultural nodes. The relocation of the African-American population from inner, transit-served cities to more suburban locations represents a different challenge. While some of this relocation relates to choices, a portion relates to displacement and poor neighborhood qualities. These demographic challenges are compounded by the increasing polarization of our economy between high and low-wage workers and the suburbanization of poverty. The SCS focus on existing neighborhoods could help create a community context for addressing some of these challenges. Economic development, job opportunities and better public health outcomes could result from strengthening the urban core with new development. By capturing the market that exists for infill housing, services can be delivered more efficiently and with greater community resources. Both the senior population and younger knowledge-based workers seek safe, walkable, and. diverse environments that are intended to be built using the principles of complete community planning in PDAs. Funding Affordable Housing Production: While its economic strength and quality of life has made the Bay Area attractive for many people, it also has increased the cost of housing for our diverse population. Our region faces a major challenge in the production of.housing for all life stages, ethnic groups, and income levels. Between 1999 and 2006, the Bay Area as a whole produced only SS percent of the needed housing units for low and very low income residents, and only 37 percent of the units needed for moderate-income residents, in contrast with the 153 percent for the above-moderate-income group. This affordable housing challenge is particularly critical in transit-oriented areas and established neighborhoods with high land value and complex planning processes. For low-income households earning less than $35,000 per year, the combined cost of housing and transportation places the vast majority of Bay Area municipalities beyond their reach and makes the Bay Area the most expensive region in the country. Local governments with Planned PDAs have identified a need for $2.42 billion to support their affordable housing goals in the short-term. Redevelopment agencies, in particular; have played a key role in helping to develop affordable housing in the region over the last 25 years, as redevelopment financing has provided subsidies that support construction of affordable housing. Presently, the existence of redevelopment agencies is threatened by state legislative action in response to the current budget crisis. The loss Initial Vision Scenario Page 21 ~~~~~~ ~ of redevelopment agencies would affect the flow of dollars for affordable housing production. One of the key issues the SCS needs to address is how to target PDAs for the efficient production of affordable housing at all levels. Improving Neighborhood. Services: The production of housing by itself will not address sustainability unless it is accompanied by the development of complete communities with well- defined destinations. A sustainable approach requires the development of complete communities connected by transit service. Many jurisdictions, however, lack the infrastructure that invites walking, biking and transit use; sidewalks, bike lanes, bus service, retail and entertainment are limited or missing. They also lack good neighborhood services, such as clean parks, good schools and grocery stores. Because schools are a critical housing-choice consideration for households with children, the quality of schools is closely correlated with the potential for market rate housing production. In the Bay Area, we have a wide range of school districts. The region is home to some of the highest-performing public and private schools in the nation, but there are also many poor performing schools in urban communities where the PDAs would accommodate much of the growth in the Initial Vision Scenario. Access to high-quality schools is a primary motivator for families choosing where to live, and schools account for 12 percent of all trips made in the Bay Area. An investment in improvements for urban schools, both in the surrounding neighborhood and in the school itself would reap benefits at the regional scale. Schools that offer innovative, rigorous and supportive programs for a wide range of students, from diverse backgrounds and income levels, are a cornerstone of complete communities. For example, new programs increasing standardized test scores and higher graduation rates at several Bay Area high schools, including Oakland Technical High School, Berkeley High School, and Carlmont :High School (Belmont), have made them magnets for families. The SCS can further the achievements of urban schools by investing in safer streets and housing for the surrounding neighborhoods. Effective Planning, Permitting, and Design Tools: The focus on complete communities near transit defines major planning and implementation challenges for local jurisdictions. Beyond the basic planning needs for the development of complete communities, all jurisdictions have highlighted the high. cost and time requirements of the environmental review process for new development. The cost of a neighborhood plan Environmental Impact Report can range from $200,000 to $3 million. In addition, designing buildings and public spaces that enhance the quality and character of the neighborhood requires resources and expertise beyond most local jurisdictions capabilities. Given the increase in density, taller buildings, and mix of activities. in the development of PDAs, these design resources become essential to create places that meet community expectations. Given the complexity for local government to plan PDAs, planning funding is a critical need. Increasing the number of Planned PDAs that result in complete communities with streamlined permitting is a high priority for the SCS. Existing programs to assist local governments in these efforts.could and should be expanded. Regulatory Framework. The mix of local, regional, state, and federal regulations that govern housing, commercial, and infrastructure project delivery makes progress toward compact Initial Vision Scenario Page 22 ~~~ ~ o ~ development both expensive and time-consuming. Rules and policies adopted by various levels of government such as storm water runoff, air quality, sea level rise, regional traffic impacts, and mitigations under CEQA can each cost a single project hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct and indirect costs. The coordination of as many rules as possible to facilitate development consistent with the final SCS will be critical for any meaningful implementation to occur. A key indicator for success of the SCS would be to resolve governmental policy conflicts with a mitigation package that will eliminate this key barrier. ' Water Supply and Distribution: Future water supply is severely constrained. Many, water sources in the state are already significantly over-appropriated, and traditional storage developments may not be fiscally or environmentally feasible. Accommodating projected growth largely within the current water supply can be done, but it will require overcoming barriers in existing infrastructure to move and store reclaimed water, better use of storm water, and an increase in public acceptance ofalternative-source water supplies. While many local water agencies are making strides toward meeting these outcomes, regional policy alignment is needed so that these efforts are widely pursued around the region and conflicting public policy over recycled and storm water source and use is minimized. The Bay Area's growth potential will need to be supported by an environmentally sustainable and reliable water supply. The compact growth pattern envisioned in the SCS will help to minimize the need for new long-term supply; urban core areas use less water per capita than does greenfield development. To achieve a sustainable water supply, new housing units will need to be built with state-of--the-art water conservation systems and landscaping. New units will also need to be developed within a framework which improves resiliency from more frequent climate-driven droughts and recognizes the potential for major supply disruptions from earthquake and/or levee failure in the Delta. Agricultural Lands, Open Space, Habitat Preservation: Given continued population and job growth and a decrease in programs that support the preservation and retention of agricultural lands, pressure to develop farmland and open space will increase. The preservation of. farmland and open space can ensure that Bay Area lands will provide clean water, local food, diverse habitats to support a variety of native plants and animals, and recreational opportunities. It further presents an opportunity to. remain economically viable by attracting businesses, workers, and visitors that value these lands for their contribution to the quality of life in the Bay Area and to support climate and adaptation strategies by providing places for species to migrate, water to rise, and land for crop diversification. To support the goal of open space and agricultural preservation, the growth pattern in the Initial Vision Scenario maximizes development in the urban footprint, with the benefit of decreasing development pressure on these lands. Hazards and Risks:. Our entire region is subject to a variety of natural hazards. The majority of the housing in the SCS would be located primarily along the inner Bay corridors, where there are substantial short- and long-term risks from sea level rise and earthquake shaking and `liquefaction. These hazards will result in damage to housing, infrastructure, and loss of economic power. Much progress has already been achieved by retrofitting major infrastructure. Major investments have upgraded the region's toll bridges and freeway overpasses. BART has strengthened its elevated tracks, 20 stations, and the Transbay Tube. Major seismic Initial Vision Scenario Page 23 improvements have been made to the Hetch-Hetchy and Mokelumne aqueduct systems as well as a number of dams and water treatment plants within the region. Local governments have retrofitted or replaced many of their city halls and critical facilities. Additional work to retrofit the region's significant older housing stock, plan for our long-term post-disaster recovery, and develop a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy will help ensure that the region realizes its vision for a sustainable future. Efficient Resource Management: The Sustainable Communities Strategy's emphasis on infill development encourages aresource-efficient economy that utilizes innovative programs within the materials management cycle to produce and consume less toxic and more recyclable products. Programs such as these improve our individual health and reduce our collective environmental impact. Recycling through existing collection systems creates processing jobs and encourages development of local industries that use recovered materials. Urban infill and high density projects are much more energy- and water-efficient than low-density development, thereby increasing economic resilience against future energy price shocks. Initial Vision Scenario Page 24 ~~.~~ o~ 2. REGIONAL GROWTH BY 2035 The Initial Vision Scenario proposes a regional growth pattern to accommodate all the future population~of the region. The Initial Vision Scenario assumes that there will be a sufficient number of homes to accommodate future population growth and to provide people coming to work in the Bay Area with a home in the region. It assumes that there is adequate funding for affordable housirig. The forecast of future population'and household growth is based on fertility rates, life expectancy, net migration, household formation rates, and employment growth. The doubling of the number of people .aged 65 and older means that more people will be living in small households, living singly or as couples rather than families. Without assuming increases in the share ofmulti-generational and non-family households, this demographic shift will result in more households and a smaller average household size. Employment is expected to grow at a higher rate than that of the nation-and of the Bay Area in previous decades. The rationale and optimism for this higher growth rate is that the Bay Area economic base is concentrated in sectors likely to lead the nation in job growth, such as professional services and research activities. Additionally, housing all the region's population is assumed to have an impact on employment levels; it will result in both incremental construction employment and incremental employment from consumer spending by the households that are no longer in-commuting from outside the region. Based on these assumptions, the total regional number of households by 2035 is estimated at approximately 3.6 million, or 903,000 additional households. The total number of jobs that are forecasted in the region by 2035 is approximately 4.5 million; an increase of approximately 1.2 million from today. Table 2.1: Initial Vision Scenario -Regional Growth 2010-2035 2010 2035 2010-2035 Growth- Households 2,669,800 3,572,300 902,600 Po ulation 7,348,300 9,429,900 2,081,600 Em to ed Residents 3,152,400 4,199,000 1,046,600 Jobs 3,271,300 4,493,300 1,222,000 The distribution of new households focuses on Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Growth Opportunity Areas, and transit corridors. PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas accommodate about 70 percent of the total regional household growth. About 97 percent of the total households are within the urban footprint. At the county level, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa are absorbing a major share of total increase in the number of households, 621,000 out of the 903,000 total: Compared to these counties, San Mateo adds a smaller number of households but grows at a similar rate, at approximately 36 percent. Slightly more than half of the region's job growth is expected in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 25 ~~~~-iD~ This spatial pattern of growth pursues a development path that builds. upon recent planning efforts and goals of our local jurisdictions. This path, however, presents an approach that differs from previous development trends and previous forecasts. 2.1 Historical Trends and Current Regional Plans Forecast When compared with historical trends and the Current Regional Plans Forecast, the Initial Vision Scenario shifts the growth of population toward the transportation network, increasing the ` density and enhancing the qualities of existing cities and towns. The main regional planning approach in this scenario is the definition of character and scale of places by local jurisdictions. Between 1980 and 2010, the region saw a major share of its population growth in newly developed greenfield areas. In the Initial Vision Scenario, 70 percent of the housing is expected to be accommodated in the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas located close to transit, and only five percent is expected to be developed outside the urban footprint. In contrast to the recent past, when single-family housing development predominated, it is expected that nearly all of the housing within the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas will be multi-family housing, and that some percentage of housing accommodated in areas outside the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas will be multi-family as well. Studies of recent demographic and social trends in various regions across the country and beyond indicate that younger generations prioritize urban amenities over single-family homes in their choices of places to live.. Access to cafes, restaurants, services, and cultural events around transit has more weight in thcir choices than do large houses with garages and automobile access. To be clear, suburban development of large houses has not and will not disappear in the immediate future. since our diverse population expects a wide range of housing possibilities. However, it should be noted that this choice is not as prevalent as it was in previous decades in the Bay Area. Given the 903,000 households that must be accommodated by 2035, the Initial Vision Scenario assumes a higher production of housing than the region has experienced in previous decades, when the region produced an average of 21,OOO,units per year. The Initial Vision Scenario assumes that we will produce about 36,000 units per year, which represents 100 percent of the needed housing. Employment in the Initial Vision Scenario is projected to grow an average of 50,000 jobs per year over the next 25 years. This is a higher job growth rate than the average over the previous 20 years of approximately 10,000 jobs per year, but it is a lower rate than expected prior to the recession. Between 1980 and 2010, the region added 740,000 jobs with most of the growth occurring before 1990. Between 2010 and 2035, the Initial Vision Scenario projects an increase of 1.2 million jobs. This recovers the almost half-million jobslost in the past decade and adds an additional 740,000 jobs. While the regional population and the regional economy have both grown, regional employment has kept a much slower pace, and has had major periods of decline over the past two decades, especially during the recent recession. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show historical, Current Regional Plans Forecast, and Initial Vision Scenario regional household and job growth. Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 26 Figure 2.7: Regional Household Growth 1990-2035 5 0 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -Historical Trends (ABAG) °----Current Regional Plans Forecast -Initial Vision Scenario Figure 2:2: Regional.7ob Growth 1990-2035 5 0 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030. 2035 -Historical Trends (department of Finance} --~-Historical Trends (ABAG) Current Regional Plans Forecast -~°Initial Vision Scenario * The difference between the Historical Trends (Department of Finance) and the Historical Trends (ABAG) reflects certain adjustments between Department of Finance employment figures and thoseused for regional modeling purposes, such as for self-employed jobs. Initial Vision Scenario Page 27 3D o ~- l ~ ~- 2.2. Housing Distribution by 2035 The distribution of housing in the Initial Vision Scenario maximizes development within the Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas along the existing transportation network, three significant inner Bay Area arterial corridors, and three planned rail corridors. This approach is intended to help support transit use and leverage past and future investments.in transit and infill. The existing, extensive transportation network in the Bay Area provides a strong foundation upon which to distribute future growth. Many of the region's PDAs, where infill growth is already being planned, are based around the stations of the major heavy- and light-rail systems BART, Caltrain, Amtrak, SF Muni, and VTA. The PDAs along these transit corridors serve as nodes that will connect the majority of the region's housing and jobs by 2035. Additionally, three state arterial highways in the Bay Area-State Routes 185, 82 and 123, known locally as Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-Mission Boulevard, E1 Camino Real, and San Pablo Avenue-are closely linked to the established transit system, and have high potential for infill housing development. Improved bus service (Bus Rapid Transit) is"planned along these spines, so development of housing along these corridors will leverage the existing transit network to provide better access to job centers around the region, and help to transform auto-oriented corridors into walkable communities. Three planned heavy rail expansion projects -BART to Silicon Valley, BART to Antioch ("eBART"), and Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) -provide an opportunity to more efficiently link residents to the region's major job centers. Development of housing along these new corridors will help to ease the Bay Area's chronic housing shortage, improve the cost- effectiveness of the expansions, and help preserve regional open space. Many of the communities along these future transit corridors are already planning for a signif cant amount of new housing at the future stations. Napa County is the only county without existing or planned commuter rail service. Growth in Napa County will be primarily accommodated in the American Canyon PDA and within city centers that utilize local and regional bus service. At the county level, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties will take the largest shares of new households, at 28 percent and 24 percent of the region's total household growth, respectively. San Mateo, San Francisco, and Contra Costa Counties collectively take on an additional 338,000 new households, or 37 percent of the region's growth. Table 2.2 summarizes the distribution of household growth at the county level. The distribution of household growth along corridors and nodes is described more specifically below. Map 2.1 shows the Initial Vision Scenario Place type distribution across the region. Initial Vision Scenario Page 28 ~~-(~ 1~~ Table 2.2: Initial Vision Scenario -Total Households and Household Growth by County 'I .:county 2010 2`035 Household- ,Households Households _ Growth 'Percent Ghan e Alameda 557,700 770,400 212,700 38.2% Contra Costa 392,700 546,700 154,000 39.2% Marin 106,400 117,100 10,700 10.0% Na a 51,300 56,100 4,800 ~ 9.4% San Francisco 346,700 436,800 90,100 26.0% San Mateo 264,500 358,300 93,800 35.5% Santa Clara 613,900 867,800 253,900 41.3% Solano 148,200 187,800 39,600 26.7% Sonoma 188,400 231,400 42,900 22.8% Regional Total ~, 2,66,9,800;', .3,572,300 902,600', 33.8% Between 2010 and 2035, regional centers continue to lead the growth in households in the region. San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland will add 286,000 households, almost one third of the regional total In each of these cities' downtown areas, this level of growth represents a major change in scale and character, a shift towards high-rise residential buildings, and in outer neighborhoods, higher-density development along transit corridors. At the same time, medium size cities that range from city centers to transit town centers are also assuming major growth responsibilities. Fremont, Santa Rosa, Berkeley, Hayward, Richmond, Concord, and Santa Clara, for example, are adding between 10,000 to 20,000 households. See jurisdiction tables at the end of Section 2.3 for more details about city-wide growth. Growth Along Existing Transportation Network San Francisco is an appropriate location for a significant portion of the region's future housing. It has reliable, frequent BART and Caltrain service, Muni light rail and bus lines, ferry service, future high-speed rail service, as well as considerable existing commercial and retail density. In 2035, San Francisco as a whole is expected to have 436,800 households, an increase of 90,100 households. Eighty-one percent of these new households will be in the city's varied PDAs. The Downtown-Van Ness-Geary P:DA, a regional center, will take on the greatest share of growth at 19,000 households, while the Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point PDA, an urban neighborhood, will contribute 11,200 households. Treasure Island will add 7,200 households, and new 4,100 households are expected in the Transbay Terminal PDA. Along the Peninsula; Caltrain, BART, and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) rail systems connect numerous communities, as well as the region's two biggest employment centers, San Francisco and San Jose. Many of these systems' stations are within walking distance from EI Camino Real, or the planned "Grand Boulevard" corridor, which crosses through and connects numerous PDAs around. the downtowns and commercial streets along the Peninsula, from South San Francisco in the north, to San Jose in the south. SamTrans and VTA provide frequent bus service along this corridor. Initial Vision Scenario Page 29 Map 2.1: Place Types for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas in the San Francisco Bay Area +' ,. ,. ,~~ :_, ._; .~, ~ , ., t~ ~~~ ~y ~ ~'~, _ - 1 ~, ~-, ~~,~~ ., ? ~`~ i : µ, CaaauaCti~ a ~ L:.,1as ~ _. i _.~ , ~, .._ ~ Si,l;u,~> ~ ~ ~.~ C't>txa~G~' t '~ .. !" ''~. 3 ~~ `~ ~ ,~ -r_.. t a__ _:_.._ S ~-. ~~ ~~ ~ i i , _. ._ ~~ _ ~~_ _ 1~i43'131 - S Y~ounrt -`'~-~ ,`;- '° c`<~,~1, ~ <~.>sr.~ ~'~'1 L iril All4' i ` ,. ~~ 1~ ~\ .'j <. '" ~ tip'. ~ .. ..=. ~ ~~a ~ S;itt ' ® F'i:ruciu•n ~- ~ _,`~ b. ... ~'~~ l~ulvn C~' ~ l ~~~,,.. ,~ i .,._~ ~~ \~:`` ~_ .. _ .._~- r--'. ' ° r __ .o...,-.-... ` Y ( ~ _ i i ~~ ,~ j~~ ~. _ l ~. .. ~... ,4 1 .. t ~\. ~l . 1 •.` 1. I _ ~t . r. _.'..... ~l. ` ~4` w. ~~.. -.. n.y '\~~ P1~.ce ~`~~e;,COY P~~~~rit~ ~eveY~Fa~ent Axes .° _- ~° ~utc~ ~'gavvth ®g~~oct~~~bty areas ,~~,~: Initial Vision Scenario Page 30 3 3 °~~ ~ yr In San Mateo County, Daly City, Redwood City, San Mateo and South San Francisco are expected to take on the largest shares of the county's total. growth, totaling 55 percent, or 51,500 new households. Forty=three percent of this growth will be accommodated by these cities' PDAs, ranging from city centers to transit town centers. In Redwood City, new Growth Opportunity Areas could accommodate an additiona12,560 households. In Santa Clara County, the PDAs along the Caltrain, EI Camino Real, and VTA corridors are expected to add about 110,500 new households by 2035, while new Growth Opportunity Areas in the county could accommodate an additiona165,000 households. This combined growth would account for around 69 percent of the county's total growth, greatly improving residents' transit access to major Silicon Valley and Peninsula employment centers. San Jose, a major node along this corridor, is expected to take on the largest share of any city (15 percent) of the region's total growth. In the inner East Bay, BART connects the communities of Richmond, El Cerrito, Berkeley, . Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, and Fremont. In close proximity to this transit spine are two mixed-use corridors, San Pablo Avenue and Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-Mission Boulevard, which further link these inner East Bay communities as far north in Contra Costa as Hercules and Rodeo. AC Transit, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) currently provide transit service to these communities, and Bus Rapid Tratisit is expected to be developed in the future along the San Pablo Avenue and Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-Mission Boulevard corridors. The PDAs along the San Pablo Avenue corridor in Contra Costa County are expected to have nearly 45,000 new households, approximately one-third of the household growth projected for Contra Costa County. The Richmond and El Cerrito PDAs, with a total of 22,000 new units collectively, will be the largest nodes of growth along this corridor. With forecasted growth of over 25,500 households, Richmond is expected to add the most households in Contra Costa County between 2010 and 2035. It will be the second-largest city in the county, after Concord. In Alameda County, Oakland, the East Bay's largest employment and transit hub, will take on 30 percent of the county's total growth-the largest share of any jurisdiction. The approximately 65,500 new households in Oakland will be distributed primarily among the city's seven Priority Development Areas. Oakland's Downtown & JackLondon Square PDA; a Regional Center, will take on approximately 17,000 new households, while the nearby West Oakland PDA will grow by about 8,200 households. Berkeley and Emeryville, two major employment centers, will collectively take on over 10 percent of the county's household growth. These cities' PDAs, which account for a majority of their growth, are already well-established, higher-density mixed-use neighborhoods. In particular, the Downtown Berkeley PDA will grow by almost 4,900 households, while the Emeryville Mixed-Use Core PDA will have approximately 7,300 new households. Alameda County's inner East Bay corridor, from San Leandro to Fremont, is expected to add over 75,000 new households by 2035. After Oakland, Fremont will take on the largest share (13 percent) of the county's growth. Its three PDAs plus its two new Growth Opportunity Areas will Initial Vision Scenario Page 31 3 40~ `~ `~ account for nearly 8,500 new households. The four cities of Hayward, Newark, San Leandro, and Union City will have nearly 147,000 households by 2035, growing by 35,000. The majority of the growth in these cities is centered on their PDAs, most of which have existing or planned heavy-rail transit service. The 14 Growth Opportunity Areas in Alameda County's inner East Bay communities are expected to take on approximately 9,400 new households by 2035. The Tri-Valley communities are linked to the rest of the region via BART to Dublin, ACE rail service, and Central Contra Costa Transit Authority County Connection bus service. The four major cities in the Tri-Valley-Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and Dublin-are all major East Bay job centers. These communities are expected to grow by nearly 54,000 households by 2035, each expecting to add between 9,700 and 16,700 new households. The eight PDAs in these communities will accommodate 35 percent ofthese expected new households. Central Contra Costa County-consisting of the major employment centers of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord, as well as the smaller communities of Moraga, Lafayette, Orinda, and Martinez-is expected'to take on 22 percent of Contra Costa County's total household growth. All ofthese communities are connected via the BART to Pittsburg line, with the exception of Martinez, which has Amtrak Capitol Corridor service, and Moraga, with County Connection local bus service. With forecasted growth of over 19,000 households, Concord is expected to take on the second largest share of growth in Contra Costa County between 2010 and 2035. The bulk of this growth will occur in the Los Medanos (Concord Naval Weapons Station) PDA, a new regional center, as well as new Growth Opportunity Area in the existing downtown commercial core.. Walnut Creek's West Downtown PDA will account for about four percent of the county's growth. The city's overall level of growth remains low compared with other major employment centers throughout the region. The PDAs in Pleasant Hill, Martinez, and the "Lamorinda" communities are forecasted to collectively take on four percent of the county's growth. Solano County is linked to the rest of the Bay Area and the Sacramento region by Amtrak Capitol Corridor service. In 2035, Solano County is expected to have about 188,000 households-an increase of about 40,000 from 2010. The cities expected to add the most households are Fairfield. (16,400), Vacaville (9,200), and Vallejo (5,800). These cities have identified several suburban centers, transit town centers, and mixed-use corridors where growth will be accommodated. Nearly all of the growth in Fairfield will be in one of the city's four PDAs, which encompass the downtown, the Fairfield-Vacaville Amtrak station, and several of the city's major mixed-use corridors. Growth is also planned in Downtown Benicia, a transit neighborhood, and in the Downtown and Waterfront area near the Amtrak station in Suisun City, a transit town center. For Solano County as a whole, almost 60 percent of household growth over the next 25 years will occur in a Priority Development Area or Growth Opportunity Area. Although Napa County has no rail service, the Napa VINE provides connections between the cities in Napa County and the Vallejo ferry terminal where riders can connect to San Francisco. Napa County is projected to add approximately 4,800 households over the next 25 years, for a total of approximately 56,000 in 2035. Approximately half (54 percent) of this growth will occur Initial Vision Scenario Page 32 ~- ~d~ in the city of Napa, which accounts for 57 percent of the county's total households in 2035. American Canyon is expected to add more than 1,600 households between 2010 and 2035-34 percent of the county's forecasted growth. All of this growth will be in the city's PDA, the Highway 29 Mixed-Use Corridor. Growth Along Future Transit Corridors The planned BART to Silicon Valley extension will connect Santa Clara County residents to the existing 104-mile BART system and the.major regional employment centers along the Peninsula, and in San Francisco, Oakland, and the East Bay. Stations are planned in Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, connecting to.the existing BART systemat Fremont. The extension of BART into Santa Clara County will enhance connections to Caltrain, VTA light rail and buses, Altamont Commuter Express, and Amtrak Capitol Corridor, with planned connections to Mineta San Jose International Airport and high-speed rail, significantly extending the reach of the regional transit network. , San Jose, the largest node along this corridor and the region's largest city, is expected to grow by 131,000 new households and will have approximately 436,000 households by 2035nearly half of Santa Clara County's total. The San Jose downtown area PDAs, where BART will connect at Diridon Station, along with the North San Jose PDA will take on 45 percent of this growth. The other PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas in San Jose are expected to add over 54,000 new households. These areas, outside of the core of San Jose, are linked to the larger Santa Clara County transit network via VTA. Milpitas and Santa Clara are expected to add approximately 44,000 new households, collectively. Twenty-five percent of this growth will occur in the PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas near the planned BART stations in these cities. Additionally, Growth Opportunity Areas . along bus and light-rail corridors in the city of Santa Clara are expected to take on 16,200 of these households. In Fremont, the Warm Springs station area is expected to grow by almost 800 households. Much of the growth in the North Bay counties of Sonoma and:Marin will be in the communities along the Sonoma-Mann Area Rail Transit (SMART) line and in the town centers of smaller communities. SMART will link the cities along the Highway 101 corridor, from Cloverdale in the north to Larkspur in the south, where riders can catch a ferry to San Francisco. The SMART stations in the bigger cities, such as Santa Rosa, San Rafael, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Windsor, are city centers or suburban centers, while the stations in smaller cities, such as Cloverdale and Cotati, are transit town centers. In Sonoma County, nearly half of projected growth will occur in Santa Rosa-by far the county's largest city with more than 83,000 households in 2035. Of the growth in Santa Rosa, 55 percent will occur near the city's two future SMART stations (in the Downtown/Railroad Square PDA and near the northern Santa Rosa station). Windsor and Rohnert Park are both expected to add almost 5,000 households over the next 25 years, while Petaluma will grow by about 2,900 households. Much of the rest of the projected household growth in Sonoma County will take place in rural and suburban areas in unincorporated Sonoma County. /"~~ Initial Vision Scenario Page 33 3~0~~®~ Marro County is expected to take on only one percent of the region's growth. Approximately half of Marin County's growth will occur in San Rafael -the county's largest city. San Rafael is expected to add just over 5,000 households, approximately 80 percent of which will be in one of the city's two Priority Development Areas. Unincorporated Marin County is expected to add about 2,700 households, much of which will be in the San Quentin Growth Opportunity Area and the Urbanized 101 Corridor PDA. Nearly 30 percent of Contra Costa County's household growth is expected to occur in east Contra Costa County. Much of this growth will be spurred by the development of eBART, the extension of the BART to Pittsburg line into eastern Contra Costa. The eBART line will have station stops in Pittsburg and Antioch, providing greater access to the larger Bay Area transit network for eastern county residents. Of the 41,800 new households forecast in this part of the county, one-third are expected to develop at the three station areas along the corridor - Pittsburg- Baypoint, Pittsburg-Railroad Avenue, and Antioch-Hillcrest. Citywide, Antioch and Pittsburg each will take on about 10 percent of the county's growth, accommodating a total of 29,000 new households, primarily within their PDAs. Oakley is expected to have 17,500 households by 2035, growth of approximately 6,600 new households. 2.3 Employment Distribution by 2035 Employment distribution among jurisdictions and the nine counties remains comparable to previous regional forecasts. Only the base numbers and growth rate for the region have changed to reflect recent changes in the economy. In the Initial Vision Scenario, the regional economy is expected to grow at a higher rate than the nation, building upon the region's concentration in high-growth industries. Growth is expected to continue in professional services, education and healthcare. The hospitality and entertainment sectors will also grow at a fast pace. Manufacturing and wholesale will grow at a slow pace and continue to relocate jobs outside of the region. However, light industries and services that support core industries will solidify and expand. New industries such as green technology will develop and expand jobs across research and manufacturing at selected locations. In terms of the distribution of job growth in the Initial Vision Scenario, the largest cities outpace the region, as existing employment centers and industry clusters continue to intensify development and add jobs. Employment in the 10 largest cities accounts for more than half of the growth in the region between 2010 and 2035. Slightly more than half of the region's job growth is expected in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. San Francisco, San Mateo, and Contra Costa Counties are also all expected to add more than 100,000 jobs each. Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Solano are expected to grow faster than other counties by 44, 41, and 40 percent, .respectively. The city of San Jose will absorb a higher share of jobs in the Silicon Valley. Walnut Creek and Concord. continue to add office jobs. Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon continue to attract a range of businesses. Santa Rosa strengthens its role as a major employment center in the North Bay. Low-density office parks add more jobs and in some cases housing, while providing transit access. Initial Vision Scenario Page 34 ._:y.: Table 2.3: Initial Vision Scenario -Total Jobs and Job Growth by County County '2010 Jobs 2035 Jobs Job Growth 'Percent Chan e' `' Alameda 675,600 925,400 249,900 37.0% Contra Costa 345,900 479,400 133,400 38.6% Marin 129,700 151,100 21,400 16.5% Na a 70,100 88,800 18,700 26.7% San Francisco 544,800 713,700 168,900 31.0% San Mateo 330,100 452,200 122,100 37.0% Santa Clara 858,400 1,238,400.. 380,000 44.3°!° Solano 126,300 176,700 50,400 39.9% Sonoma 190,400. 267,600 77.200 40.6% Re Tonal Total 3,271,300 4,493,300 1,222,000 374`io It is important to note that given the Bay Area's attractiveness for high-value employment and the region's very high housing costs over the last three to four decades, regional planning and related policies and investments have to date largely focused on housing as it relates to transit- oriented development. The current severe recession, global competition, job losses in key sectors of the regional economy, including technology and manufacturing, and deep fiscal challenges at the state and local levels arguably require a more comprehensive regional planning approach to advance a more competitive regional economy. Toward this end, the distribution of jobs will be further analyzed for the Detailed Scenarios. This analysis will assess whether additional investments in Priority Development Areas and new Growth Opportunity Areas will support additional job growth reflected in local plans, as well as policies such as how employer transportation demand management might shift commute patterns for jobs with quality transit access. Initial Vision Scenario Page 35 3~a~--~~ Table 2.4: Initial Vision Scenario -Household and Job Totals and Growth by Jurisdiction Households Jobs Alamcd.~ County 2010 2035 Growth Pcrccnt Chan e 2010 2035 Growth' Percent Chan e Alameda 31,774 39,873 8,099 25.5% 25,347 37,416 12,069 47.6% Alban 7,150 9,317 2,167 30.3% 4,476 4,974 498 11.1% Berkele 46,146 61,876 15,730 34.1% 69,782 78,575 8,794 12.6% Dublin 15,572 32,216 16,644 106.9% 18,058 33,400 15,342 85.0% Emer ville 5,770 13,260 7,490 129.8% 18,198 25,479 7,281 40.0% Fremont 71,004 98,564 27,560 38.8% 86,839 128,484 41,645 48.0% Hayward 46,300 61,283 14,982 32.4% 66,135 84,730 18,595 28.1% Livermore 28,662 40,801 12,138 42.3% 28,485 46,930 18,445 64.8% Newark 13,530 19,331 5,802 42.9% 19,049 21,799 2,750 14.4% Oakland 160,567 226,019 65,453 40.8% 187,328 254,846 67,518 36.0% Piedmont 3,810 3,820 10 0.3% 2,091 2,171 80 3.8% Pleasanton 24,034 . 33,819 9,785 40.7% 52,775 70,158 17,382 32.9% San Leandro 31,647 40,447 8,800 27.8% 38,532 51,606 13,074 33.9% Union Cit 20,420 25,900 5,480 26.8% 17,919 33,560 15,642 87.3% Alameda County Unincorporated 51,265 63,872 12,606 24.6% 40.576 51,320 10.744 26.5% ~~Count wide Total 557,651 770.397 21,746 38.2% 675,591 925,449 249,859 37.0%° Households Jobs Contra (,r~sta`County 2010 ' 2035. Growth Percent Chan e 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e Antioch 32,668 46,365 13,697 41.9% 18,529 37,530 19,001 102.5% Brentwood 18,250 24,284 6,034 33.1% 6,766 7,731 965 14.3% Cla ton 3,966 4,090 124 3.1% 874 1,158 284 32.5% Concord 46,296 65,624 19,328 41.7% 58,731 88,097 29,366 50.0% Danville 16,574 17,920 1,346 8.1% 12,837 13,610 772 6.0% EI Cerrito 10,422 20,905 10,483 100.6% 5,154 7,917 2,763 53.6% Hercules 8,361 17,431 9,070 108.5% 2,747 5,344 2,597 94.5% Lafa ette 9,589 11,068 1,479 15.4% 90,087 10,898 810 8.0% Martinez 14,769 16,156 1,387 9.4% 16,919 17,845 926 5.5% Mora a 5,811 6,995 1,184 20.4% 4,603 5,525 922 20.0% Oakle 10,835 17,508 6,673 61.6% 2,720 7,378 4,658 ,171.3% Orinda 6,868 8,788 1,920 28.0% 5,689 6,352 663 11.6% Pinole 7,336 12,623 5,287 72.1% 5,280 6,410 1,130 21.4% Pittsbur 20,849 36,261 15,412 73.9% 12,432 24,657 12,224 98.3% Pleasant Hill 15,247 17,861 2,614 17.1% 13,815 19,148 5,333 38.6% Richmond 37,897 63,439 25,542 67.4% 37,077 57,222 20,145 54.3% San Pablo 9,975 13,027 3,052 30.6% 5,403 8,025 2,622 48.5% San Ramon 22,061 36,682 14,621 66.3% 36,286 48,905 12,619 34.8% Walnut Creek 33,890 40,244 6,354 18.7% 49,309 56,967 7,659 15.5% Contra Costa County Unincor orated 61,016 69,382 8,366 13.7% 40,672 48,654 7,982 19.6% Coun wide Total 392;680 546;653 153.,973 39.2% 345,931 479;373 133,442 38.6%„ Initial Vision Scenario Page 36 ,.,,,,~.,....,,... ..n ,... _.. ~r`r 1~' r Households Jobs _ Maria County 2010 2035 Growth Pereenl Chan e' 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e Belvedere 949 969 20 2.1% 776 838 62 8.0% Corte Madera 3,948 4,721 773 19.6% 6,482 9,202 2,720 42.0% Fairfax 3,301 3,361 60 1.8% 1,642 1,923 281 17.1% Larks ur 8,036 8,377 341 4.2% 6,708 7,158 451 6.7% Mill Valle 6,267 6,631 364 5.8% 8,181 9,900 1,719 21.0% Novato 20,375 21,153 778 3.8% 25,385 30,753 5,368 21.1% Ross 780 790 10 1.3% 827 924 97 11.7% San Anselmo 5,310 5,370 60 1.1% 4,754 5,170 416 8.8% San Rafael 23,164 28,209 5,045 21.8% 43,649 50,324 6,676 '15.3% Sausalito 4,310 4,400 90 2.1% 6,543 7,740 1,198 18.3% Tiburon 3,844 4,242 398 10.4% 3,494 3,997 503 14.4% Maria County Unincorporated 26,162 28,900 2,738 10.5% 21.238 ~ 23,166 1.927 9.1% _ _ Coun "wide Total 106`447 117,124 10,670 10.0% 129,679 ' 151,097 21,418 16.5% - -- - -Households --- - 'Jobs Napa Cowity 2010 2035 Growth PercE~nt Chan e 2010 2035 Growth TFercent Chan e American Can on 5,761 7,392 1,632 28.3°!° 2,204 4,321 2,117 96.0% Calisto a 2,140 2,171 31 1.4% 2,748 3,243 495 18.0% Na a 29,440 32,019 2,579 8.8% 34,272 44,565 10,293 30.0% St. Helena ~ 2,440 2,533 93 3.8% 5,763 6,191 428 7.4% Yountville 1,110 1,230 120 10.8% 2,104 2,624 520 24.7% Napa County Unincor orated 10,370 10,716 346 3.3% 23,044 27,894 4,850 21.0% Coun wide Total 51.2.60 56,061 4,801' 9.4% 70,136 88.838 18,703 26.7% -Households Jobs San Francisco County 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e `' 2010 2035 ` Growth Pcrccnt Change San Francisco 346,680 436.794 9Q114 26.0% 54-4,755 713,651 168,897 31.0% Coun wide Total '346,680 436,794' 90.114 26.0%° 544,755 71.3,651 168,897 31 0%° Initial Vision Scenario Page 37 400°x`" ~~ `~ Households Jobs San Mateo County- 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan c Atherton 2,490 2,580 90 3.6% 2,485 2,632 147 5.9% .Belmont 10,740 12,759 2,01.9 18.8% 6,635 11,738 5,102 76.9% Brisbane 1,730 5,324 3,594 207.7% 7,991 17,402 9,411 117.8% Burlin ame 13,247 19,431 6,184 46.7% 21,905 26,728 4,823 22.0% Colma 460 1,372 912 198.3% 3,111 4,310 1,199 38.5% Dal Clt 31,261 43,095 11,834 37.9% 16,772 27,084 10,312 61.5% East Palo Alto 7,780 12,310 4,530 58.2% 2,105 6,484 4,379 208.1% FosterCit 12,210 13,767 1,557 12.8% 13,923 18,560 4,637 33.3% Half Moon Ba 4,440 4,730 290 6.5% 4,355 5,539 1,184 27.2% Hillsbor0u h 3,837 4,589 752 19.6% 1,624 2,277 653 40.2% Menlo Park 12,432 17,563 5,130 41.3% 25,145 29,501 4,356 17.3% Millbrae 8,308 12,910 4,602 55.4% 6,731 10,238 3,507 52.1% Pacifica 14,320 14,600 280 2.0% 6,051 7,467 1,415 23.4% Portola Valle 1,730 1,780 50 2.9% 1,686 1,888 202 12.0% Redwood Cit 29,620 41,032 11,412 38.5% 48,682 63,717 15,035 30.9% San Bruno 15,262 21,699 6,437 42.2% 13,537 17,938 4,401 32.5% San Carlos 11,909 15,707 3,798 31.9% 15,024 21,976 6,952 46.3% San Mateo 38,643 56,678 18,035 46.7% 43,337 58,896 15,559 35.9% South San Francisco 20,288 30,522 10,234 50.4% 41,328 54,485 13,157 31.8% Woodside 2,029 2,059 30 1.5% 2,381 2,498 117 4.9% San Mateo County Unincorporated 21,780 _23,830 2,050 9.4% 45,326 60,869 15,542 34.3% Count wide Total 264,516 358;337. 93,821 35.5% 330,135 452,226 122,091 37.0° Households Jobs 'Santa Clara County 2010 2035 .Growth Percent Chan e 2010 2.035 Growth Percent Chant ~~ Cam bell 16,892 21,002 4,110 24.3% 22,099 26,897 4,798 21.7% Cu ertino 19,830 21,588 1,758 8.9% 30,513 35,283 4,770 15.6% Gilro 14,330 22,118 7,788 54.3% 16,652 22,666 6,014 36.1% Los Altos 10,670 11,968 1,298 12.2% 10,250 11,511 1,261 12.3% Los Altos Hills 3,053 3,088 35 1.1% 1,845 1,937 ~ 93 5.0% Los Gatos 12,430 13,151 721 5.8% 18,275 20,700 2,425 13.3% Mil itas 19,030 38,758 19,728 103.7% 46,784 55,624 8,840 18.9% Monte Sereno 1,229 1,269 40 3.3% 400 532 132 33.1% Mor an Hiii 12,399 20,040 7,641 61.6% 12,698 20,806 8,109 63.9% Mountain View 32,114 50,348 18,234 ~ 56.8% 50,074 64,507 14,434 28.8% Palo Alto 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9% 73,303 78,163 4,860 6.6% San Jose 305,087 435,585 130,498 42.8% 342,799 593,219 250,420 73.1% Santa Clara 43,403 67,672 24,269 55.9% 103,186 138,386 35,200 34:1% Sarato a 11,000 11,118 118 1.1% _6,826 7,279 453 6.6% Sunn vale • 54,170 73,425 19,255 35.5% 72,392 96,408 24,016 33.2% Santa Clara County Unincor orated 31,604 37,991 6,386 20.2% 50.304 64.481 14,177 28.2% Coun wide Total 613;942; 867,813 253;866 41.3°ia ` '858,399 ' ,,,1,238,400 380;001 44.3% Initial Vision Scenario Page 38 .. ~ ~' Households Jobs Solano County 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e _ 2010 2035 __ _ Grovgth Fercenti' Ghan e Benicia 11,329 13,527 2,198 19.4% 14,043 17,485 3,442 24.5% Dixon 5,617 8,222 2,605 46.4% 4,330 7,239 2,909 67.2% Fairfield 36,061 52,476 16,415 45.5% 42,864 60,579 17,716 41.3% Rio Vista 3,540 4,737 1,197 33.8% 1,191 2,327 1,136 95.3% Suisun Cit 9,132 10,548 1,415 15.5% 3,210 •4,637 1,428 44.5% Vacaville 32,620 41,775 9,155 28.1% 23,422 35,030 11,608 49.6% Valle~o 42,043 ,47,814 5,771 13.7% 28,415 38,258 9,843 34.6% Solano County lJnincor orated 7,817 8,677 860 11.0% 8,853 11,156 2,302 26.0% Coun vide Total 148;7:60 187,776 39,616 26:7% ' ` 126,328 176;711-; 50,383 39.9% Households Jobs Sonoma County 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e 2010 2035 Growth Percent Chan e Cloverdale 3,211 4,639 1,428 44.5% 1,430 1,961 531 37.1% Cotati 2,832 3,387 555 19.6% 2,043 2,192 149 7.3% Healdsbur 4,390 5,284 894 20.4% 5,111 6,193 1,082 21.2% Petaluma 21,775 24,713 2,938 13.5% 26,968 34,870 7,902 29.3% Rohnert Park 15,718 20,395 4,677 29.8% 13,566 21,506 7,940 58.5% Santa Rosa 62,886 83,010 20,124 32.0% 72,324 11.7,005 44,680 61.8% Sebasto of 3,325 3,595 270 8.1% 4,753 5,333 581 12.2% Sonoma 4,476 5,036 560 12.5% 7,005 7,924 919 13.1% Windsor 8,884 13,809 4,925 55.4% 5,154 7,782 2,628 51.0% Sonoma County Unincor orated 60,933 67,505 6,572 10.8% 52,015 62,822 10,807 20.8% Coun wide Total 134.430 231,373 .42,943 22.4'' 190,369 267;58,3 77.219 40.6% 2.4 Evaluation of Initial Vision Scenario The Initial Vision Scenario has been evaluated against a set of performance targets and has also undergone a preliminary equity analysis. The performance targets were adopted by MTC and ABAG for the Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Regional Transportation Plan in January 2011. The equity indicators were discussed with the Regional Equity Working Group in February 2011. 2.4.1 Performance Targets The performance targets reflect a comprehensive set of goals for regional transportation and land use planning, including climate protection, adequate housing, healthy and safe communities, open space and agricultural preservation, equitable access, economic vitality, and transportation system effectiveness. Table 2.5 provides the results of the performance target analysis for the Initial Vision Scenario. Initial Vision Scenario ' Page 39 ~Zo~°~~ ~ Two of the performance targets (targets 1 and 2 below) are required by state legislation, while a third target is based on a federal standard (target 3 below): 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target: The California Air Resources Board (GARB) has set regional targets for each Metropolitan Planning Organization to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks for years 2020 and 2035. 2. Housin Target: SB 375 effectively requires each region to set target levels for 25 years of housing growth based on accommodating all population growth by income level. 3. Fine Particulate Matter (PM,_5): the US Environmental Protection Agency has designated the Bay Area as not meeting air quality standards for particulate matter less than micrometers PM2.5 and MTC must demonstrate the SCS/RTP conforms to the new standard. - This assessment provides a first overview of how household growth focused on selected place types and transit networks could meet regional goals. This Initial Vision Scenario outlines major progress toward the comprehensive sustainability and equity goals of the region, but remains short in some areas. The Initial Vision Scenario meets the housing goal as it is embedded as an assumption for this scenario. About 95 percent of the growth in housing units is distributed within the urban footprint; it is ass~uned that the remaining 5 percent outside the urban footprint will be very-low-density housing that is allowable under existing development rules of the respective jurisdictions. When compared to previous forecasts, this scenario introduces major improvements on climate protection, with an expected reduction 'of COZ emissions from cars and light trucks by 12 percent. However, it remains short ofthe official targets established by the California Air Resources Board by three percent. The performance of the Initial Vision Scenario with respect to the targets related to healthy and safe communities, equitable access, and transportation system effectiveness is mixed, indicating some improvements over previous trends and previous forecasts, but also the need for additional efforts and strategies. Relative to air quality, this scenario will reduce premature deaths by 25 percent, exceeding the target of 10 percent. This is primarily due to California Air Resources Board regulations that reduce emissions from diesel trucks. Overall, coarse particulate matter (PMlo) emissions-will be reduced by 10 percent, less than half of the target. Fatalities and severe injuries from collisions increase, rather than go down. This is connected to the fact that more people are walking and biking. The amount of time people spend walking and biking for transportation increases from 9 minutes per day to 11 minutes, but falls short of the target of 15 minutes per day. The Initial Vision Scenario meets the targeted reduction of housing and transportation costs for low-income residents; however, this reflects the assumption embedded in the scenario that the region's total demand for housing at all income levels is met. Similarly, the unconstrained financing assumption of the scenario means that the road repair and transit asset targets are also met. With the ninth target, average per-trip transit distance and time increases slightly under the Initial Vision Scenario, while the target proposes a reduction by 10 percent. However, this is the result of an increase. in the overall length of transit trips, as longer transit trips"become more convenient and more travelers switch from auto to transit for these trips. Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 40 ~+`}H Table 2.5: Performance Target Reszrlts for the Initial Vision Scenario i`C-~.®~°~° GOAL/OUTCOME # TARGET RESULT CLIMATE Reduce per-capita COZ emissions from cars and light-duty 1z% reduction PROTECTION 1 trucks by 15% ADEQUATE House 100% of the region's projected z5-year growth by 100% housing need ~ income level (very-low, low, moderate, above-moderate) HOUSING without displacing current low-income residents met • Premature Reduce remature deaths from ex osure to articulate P P P deaths reduced by z4%* emissions: e pM1o emissions 3 • Reduce premature deaths from exposure to fine o reduced by 10% particulates (PMz.S) by 10% • Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PM1o) by 30% Highly impacted HEALTHY & SAFE Achieve reater reductions in hi hl Im acted areas • g g y p area results not available at this COMMUNITIES time Reduce by 5o%the number of injuries and fatalities from all . 4 collisions (including bike and pedestrian) o 21/o increase Increase the average daily time walking or biking per person 5 fortransportation by 60% (for an average of 15 minutes per 11 minutes per day person per day) OPEN SPACE AND Direct all non-agricultural development within the urban 97% of households AGRICULTURAL 6 footprint (existing urban development and urban growth within urban PRESERVATION boundaries) footprint ow-income and lower- Decrease by 1o%the share of 3%decrease in share EQUITABLE ~ , middle-income residents' household income consumed by of income spent on ACCESS transportation and housing housing ECONOMIC Increase gross regional product (GRP) by 90% - an average Not available at this VITALITY 8 annual growth rate of approximately z% (in current dollars) time Decrease per-trip travel time by 10% • Non-auto trip- TRANSPORTATION • Decrease average per-trip travel time by 10% for non- time increase by SYSTEM g auto modes 7% (1 minute) EFFECTIVENESS • Decrease automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per • VMT per capita capita by 10% reduced by lo% *Preliminary results Initial Vision Scenario y~o~~~ `~ 2.4.2 Equity Assessment The equity analysis reveals whether the benefits and burdens forecast by the performance targets are equally distributed between low- and non-low-income households. Where possible, these outcomes are also compared with current conditions. The intent of this preliminary analysis is to identify potential negative regional equity results at the beginning of the planning process. Understanding where current disparities exist.for low-income households and how the Sustainable Communities Strategy might address them will be the subject of future analyses. Additional measures may include wages, existing school performance, and jobs/housing match. Table 2.6: Results of Equity Analysis of Performance Targets for the Initial Vision Scenario GOAL/OUTCOME TARGET CURRENT CONDITIONS 2035 RESULT CLIMATE PROTECTION D2Crease autamoblle Low-income households: Low-income vehicle miles traveled per g miles a day households: i4% capita byso%* reduction Non-low-income ~ Non-low-income households: z8 miles a households: 11% day reduction ADEQUATE HOUSING House loo%of the region's Not available Adequate housing for projected zs-yeargrowth by all projected residents, income level (very-low, low, based on scenario moderate, above-moderate) assumptions. without displacing current low-income residents HEALTHY AND SAFE COMMUNITIES Increase the average daily Low-income time walking orbiking per Low-income households: households: i3 person for transportation by Zi minutes a day minutes a day; 60 % (for an average of rs i t d m nu es per person per ay) Non-low-income Non low-income households: 9 minutes a households: io day minutes a day ECONOMIC ViTAUTY Average travel time per Low-income households: Low-income workorschool trip* 1g minutes households: ~% increase Non-low-income Non-low-income households: zo minutes households: z% ~ increase Average dailytravel costs* Low-income households: Low-income $z.79 pertypicalday households: i7% increase Non-low-income Non-low-income households: $4.59 per households: zl% Initial Vision Scenario Page 42 ~o ~-~ typical day increase TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Decrease average per-trip Low-income households: Low-income EFFECTIVENESS travel time byio% fornon- i4 minutes households: ~% auto modes increase Non-low-income Non-low-income households: z5 minutes households: 8% increase * These goats required a substitute target. Uata or methods of analysis are not avai/abte Jor all targets. Initial Vision Scenario Page 43 3. COUNTY VISION SCENARIOS The Initial Vision Scenario distributes growth in each Bay Area county based on the same overarching principle of concentrating development in transit-served areas to create more sustainable communities. However, since each county has its own unique characteristics, each county vision scenario was carefully shaped to reflect differences in history, geography, development patterns, and local planning efforts. The following narratives convey a vision of how growth over the next quarter century might transform each county's Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas. They also describe how residents might benefit from the increased housing and transportation choices, better access to jobs and services, and protection of natural resources that would result from a more focused growth pattern. Table 3.1: Initial Vision Scenario -Total Households and Household Growth by County and Priority Development Areas and Growth O ortunity Areas 2010 2035 Household Percent Count Households Households. Growth Chanc e Alameda 557,700 770,400 212,700 38% PDAs and Growth O ortunit Areas 161;100 293,700 132,600 82% Contra Costa 392,700 546,700 154,000 39% PDAs and Growth O ortunit Areas 35,100 135,700 100,600 287% Marin 106,400 117,100 10,700 10% PDAs and Growth O ortunit Areas 4,700 10,900 6,200 134% Napa 51,300 56,100 4,800 9% PDAs and Growth Opportunit Areas 300 1,900 1,600 618% San Francisco 346,700 436,800 90,100 26% PDAs and Growth O ortunit Areas 346,700 436,800 90,100 26% San Mateo 264,500 358,300 93,800 36% PDAs and Growth Opportunit Areas 87,400 162,700 75,300 86% Santa Clara 613,900 867,800 253,900 41% PDAs and Growth O ortunit Areas 78,300 .253,800 175,600 224% Solano 148,200 1.87,800 39,600 27% PDAs and Growth O ortunit Areas 4,100 26,600 22,500 543% Sonoma 188,400 231,400 42,900 23% PDAs and Growth Opportunit Areas 25,200 55,500 30,300 121% Regionwide 2,669,800 3,572,300 902,600 34% PDAs and Growth Opportunit Areas 742,800 1,377,700 634,800 85% Initial Vision Scenario Page 44 .~~~~~ ,~ ~ ~ -~~1 Alameda County Nestled between the hills of the Diablo Range to the east and the San Francisco Bay to the west, Alameda County attracts residents and businesses because of its central location, diverse economy, unique communities, and natural beauty. Alameda County has long been a hub of economic activity. Starting in the late 1880s, the railroads and seaport in Oakland drew manufacturing and industry that spread to other waterfront cities, including Berkeley, Alameda, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward. More jobs brought more residents, and new neighborhoods soon developed along major transportation routes, including rail and streetcar lines. The cities grew as construction of bridges, highways, and transit services enabled efficient access to San Francisco and the emerging job centers in Silicon Valley and the Peninsula. As cars became prevalent and roadways expanded, growth reached outward. The communities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and Fremont developed rapidly during the 1960s and 1970s. During the late 20th century, Alameda County residents became concerned about the rate at which growth was consuming open space. The hillsides, ridgelines, ranchlands, and waterfront that helped define the county's sense of place were threatened. A desire to protect these natural resources prompted a shift toward more compact development. County voters approved Measure D in 2000 establishing acounty-wide urban growth boundary and preventing the subdivision of ranchland. Salt ponds along the bay were transformed into a national wildlife refuge. The county also identified 19 Priority Conservation Areas, which included key wildlife habitats, scenic resources, trails and recreational areas. Protecting these spaces will ensure that visitors can continue to appreciate the dramatic views of the hills and bay and enjoy access to trails that provide an important connection to the natural environment. . The Initial Vision Scenario foresees Alameda County by 2035 as a network of compact downtowns, mixed-usc neighborhoods, and employment centers connected by high-quality transit service, including rail lines and buses. Directing new homes and jobs into neighborhoods along major transportation corridors will help it remain one of the drivers of the Bay Area economy. Downtown Oakland will be a vibrant regional center and the primary job center in the East Bay. It will have residential buildings, high-rise offices, and regional- and local-serving retail clustered around the 12th Street and 19th Street BART stations. The transit network will connect downtown to other job-rich neighborhoods, including West Oakland, Fruitvale/Dimond and the MacArthur Transit Village. Other transit-served locations. will also be county job centers, including the Emeryville, Fremont, and Berkeley city centers, as well as the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Transit improvements, such as the extension of.BART to Silicon Valley, will give county residents even greater access to job opportunities, and help attract new businesses. The Port of Oakland will remain one of the West Coast's busiest. Other industrial hubs that were at the heart of Alameda County's early growth will have been modernized. Areas such as West Berkeley, Emeryville, West Oakland, and Warm Springs in Fremont already are home to new light industries and services, especially in the clean-tech sector, which includes renewable energy, green building, and other sustainable industries. This trend is expected to continue. Other areas that no longer support industrial functions, such as Alameda Point, the Dumbarton in Initial Vision Scenario Page 45 Newark, and the Cannery neighborhood in Hayward, will have transitioned to transit town centers and transit neighborhoods that include a mix of residential, retail, and employment uses. By 2035, transit corridors, such as San Pablo Avenue in the north, Fremont Boulevard in the south, and the Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-Mission Boulevard corridor that extends from Berkeley to Union City, will provide essential connections among the city centers, transit town centers, urban neighborhoods, and transit neighborhoods that have experienced significant growth over the past several decades. Travel along these corridors will be fast and efficient. Bus Rapid Transit and local buses will offer links to BART, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and Amtrak Capitol Corridor train stations, providing flexible options for people to get around. The Ohlone Greenway, East Bay Greenway, Iron Horse Trail, and other trails will provide safe and enjoyable routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. Three- to six-story residential buildings along these mixed-use corridors will provide affordable housing choices for people of all ages and incomes, with stores, services, offices, parks, and public facilities clustered at key intersections and transit stops. These nodes will serve the daily, needs ofpeople living in nearby apartments, condominiums, and townhomes, as well as residents of surrounding lower-density neighborhoods. The inviting streetscapes and pedestrian scale will make it easy and safe for transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists to shop locally or travel to other destinations along the corridor. In the Tri-Valley, access to regional transit, such as BART and ACE, will have spurred higher- density development near the rail stations. Places that were once dominated by automobiles will have become pedestrian-oriented districts with a variety of housing choices and easy access to stores and services. Downtown Livermore residents will be able to walk to catch a show, see a movie, or dine out. In Pleasanton, Hacienda Business Park will redevelop as a mixed-use center. In nearby Dublin the downtown, Transit Center, and Town Center will have become focal points for community life. ' Initial Vision Scenario Page 46 Lti a~sd o«~uaoS uotsin j~i~tui ' "' ' ~ ; 1 ~~ ' `~ " ~ t) ~ i k 1 ~`~ c ~ ~ t a 3 }t " ~~ j t E, 1 y t. t ~t _ ~ l s ~~. 4 - O 4:~ [ ~' t i, ~~ . ,t _ ;f: ~ ~ t1 { i s { _. , ~ __ ^ ,... , t ` -~. ~ .5 o fir. ~ ':^ n. n '(; - t ai ~' - '. _ .. ~ ~ ~, . , _ .. ~ ~~ ~ ,. t , ~~ _ 1 __ ~r . ~ , ~ ~ ~ ,~ _ ~~ - > . ~" .. ! C `~ = ~ ~` ~ 3 F ~ ~ .~ {~ - 1 r ~ . , . ,. o , ~~ .. ~..~ ~ ~~ _ d '4 <~ ~, O, .~ a d - ~ ~ :f. ,. o .~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ J ~' c ~ c a U w 4' W ~ 7 .. G. ~. 7 `=. ~ r *~ y w t~ ~ a ~^~~~dbh O _~ q .~ O .~ Y h U <vj 5~n~~~`~ Table 3.2: Alameda County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction Ahmed County Households Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Alameda 31,774 39,873 8,099 25.5% Naval Air Station (PDA) Transit Town Center 761 4,851 4,090 537% Northern Waterfront (GOA) Albany ~ Transit Neighborhood 322 7,150 7, 303 9,317 981 2,167 305 % 30.3% San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 974 1,732 1,258 265% Berkeley 46,146 61, 876 15,730 34.1 Adeline Street (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 465 1,342 877 189% Downtown (PDA) City Center 1,894 6,772 4,878 258% San Pablo Avenue (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 798 4,081 3,283 411 South Shattuck (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 21 372 351 1644% Telegraph Avenue (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 444 1,816 1,372 309% University Avenue (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 987 3,120 2,132 216% Dublin 15,572 32,216 16,694 106.9% Downtown Specific Plan Area (PDA) Suburban Center 413 2,156 1,743 422% Town Center (PDA) Suburban Center ~ 4,052 6,672 2,620 65% Transit Center (PDA) Suburban Center 543 2,541 1,997 368% Emeryville 5,770 13,260 7,490 129.8% Mixed-Use Core (PDA) City Center 3,583 10,849 7,266 203% Fremont 71,004 98,564 27,560 38.8% Centerville (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 4,611 6,000 1,389 30% City Center (PDA) City Center 6,305 8,569 2,264 36% Irvington District (PDA) Transit Town Center 4,313 6,200 1,887 44% Ardenwood Business Park (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 0% Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 6, 076 8,119 2, 043 34% Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 143 281 138 96% South FremonUWarm Springs Suburban Center 4 759 755 18875% Hayward 46,300 61,283 14,982 324% Downtown City Center 2,031 4,945 2,914 143% South Hayward BART (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 745 1,680 935 - 125% South Hayward BART (PDA) The Cannery (PDA) Urban Neighborhood Transit Neighborhood 1,491 213 3,360 961 1,869 748 125% ' 350% Carlos Bee Quarry (GOAD Mission Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 23 474 575 1,446 552 972 2400% 205 % continued on next page Key: PDA -Priority Development Area, GOA -Growth Opportunity Area Initial Vision Scenario Page 48 51'a~~i0~-t Alameda County (continued) Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Households 2035 Growth % Change Livermore 28,662. 90,801 12,138 92.3% Downtown (PDA) Suburban Center 695 3,485 2,790 402% Vasco Road TOD (PDA) Suburban Center 232 914 682 294% Newark 13,530 19,331 5,802 42.9% Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development (PDA) Transit Town Center 9 _ 2,910 2,901 .33232% Old Town Mixed Use Area (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 283 1,474 1,190 420% Cedar Boulevard Transit (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 1 358 357 35778% Civic Center Re-Use Transit (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 63 212 149 236% Oakland 160, 567 226, 019 65, 453 40.8% Coliseum BART Station Area (PDA) Transit Town Center 2,903 6,913 4,010 138% Downtown & Jack London Square (PDA) Regional Center 8,054 25,146 17,092 212% Eastmont Town Center (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 3,877 6,113 2,236 58% Fruitvale & Dimond Areas (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 11,926 19,068 7,142 60% MacArthur Transit Village (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 8,100 12,302 4,202 52% Transit Oriented Development Corridors (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 60,360 78,945 18,585 31 West Oakland (PDA) Transit Town Center 8,905 17,147 8,242 93% Piedmont 3,810 3,820 10 0.3% Pleasanton 24,034 33,819 .9,785 40.7% Hacienda (PDA) Suburban Center 1,402 5,264 3,862 276% San Leandro 31,647 40,447 8,800 27.8% Bay Fair BART Transit Village (PDA) Transit Town Center 504 1,552 1,048 208% Downtown Transit Oriented Development (PDA) City Center 3,630 6,494 2,864 79% East 14th Street (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1,597 ~ 5,329 3,732 234% Union City 20,420 25,900 5,480 26.8% Intermodal Station District (PDA) City Center 601 2,723 2,122 353% Mission Boulevard (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2 152 150 - 7491 Old Alvarado (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 55 208 153 278% Alameda County Unincorporated 51,265 63,872 12,606 24.6% Castro I/alley BART (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 1,294 1, 967 673 52% East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 5,782. 6,982 1,200 27% Key: PDA -Priority Development Area, GOA -Growth Opportunity Area Contra Costa County Named "opposite coast" for its location across the bay from San Francisco and Marin County, Contra Costa County has grown to be one of the most populous areas in our region. Home to Mount Diablo, the second-tallest peak in the Bay Area, Contra Costa's natural beauty and strategic location between the San Francisco bay and Central Valley has long attracted residents and businesses. Early industrial activity sprouted up along the county's extensive shoreline on the bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. After World War II agricultural communities in central Contra Costa became rail depots serving surrounding farm lands. Post-war, auto-oriented growth continued through the end of the 20`" century pushing development eastward. Over one-third of Contra Costa County's most recent population explosion took place in East County. Concern about the effects of uncontrolled growth on mobility, open space, jobs, economic development, and quality of life came to a head in 2003. That's when county leaders, residents, and other stakeholders came together to develop Shaping Our Future, a vision and implementation strategy to guide future growth and development. The resulting Principles of Agreement -including growth management, land use and transportation connections, open space protection, infill investment, social equity, and economic development -has provided a framework to guide growth into a more sustainable development pattern. The Initial Vision Scenario projects a continued emphasis on.sustainable development. It envisions focused growth between now and 2035 in existing urban centers, built upon the extensive transit network that includes BART and Amtrak rail service, Bus Rapid Transit, ferry service, and local and sub-regional buses. Though the county will be the third most populous in the region, concentrated growth within this linked network will enhance communities' quality of life, while helping to protect significant open spaces, including "Lamorinda" (Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda) area ridgelines, coastal wetlands, agricultural areas, and the Los Medanos Hills. Many of these natural resources have been included in the 15 Priority Conservation Areas identified in the county. In West County, the San Pablo Avenue Corridor will take on a significant portion of the county's housing growth, reinforcing this area's urban character. As one of the East Bay's major thoroughfares, connecting city centers, employment centers, transit neighborhoods, and transit town centers in El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules, this mixed-use corridor is unique in size and scope. The Initial Vision Scenario foresees a linear community space offering residentsparks, recreation, walkable retail and entertainment destinations and equitable housing choices. Richmond is expected to add the most households and will surpass.Concord as Contra Costa's largest city. High-density residential and commercial nodes at the three BART stations in EI Cerrito and Richmond, and new Bus Rapid Transit service along San Pablo Avenue will have transformed this historically auto-dominated environment into a multi- purpose, sustainable; healthy, and livable corridor. The city of Concord will remain a major employment hub. By 2035, the Concord Naval Weapons Station will have been transformed into ahigh-density employment-focused regional Initial Vision Scenario Page 50 center anchored by the North Concord BART station. This center will be connected to lower- dcnsity transit neighborhoods through a network of new local transit, walkable streets, and biking corridors. This new community will provide a dynamic place to live, work and play while sustaining the quality of life. New mixed-use development within and surrounding the downtown will enhance the existing community by enriching the urban core. Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill will continue to be engines of economic activity, with mid-rise commercial and residential development clustered around the BART stations. The nearby Martinez and "Lamorinda" transit town centers and transit neighborhoods will retain their small- town characteristics, with ari increased mix of uses, including the addition of more housing, and a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment. In the Tri-Valley region, San Ramon will remain a suburban center with a high concentration of employment balanced by new housing and retail. By 2035 anew pattern of suburban development will have emerged in East County. The extension of BART to Pittsburg and Antioch will have fostered new growth, primarily within a more compact, transit-oriented configuration around existing downtowns. These suburban centers and transit town centers will provide a variety of transportation options that will improve access within East County and to regional centers throughout the Bay Area. New homes, stores, civic institutions, and community gathering places will transform the quality of life. Initial Vision Scenario Page 51 ZS a~~d oia~uaos uotsin j~r~ruj __ ~_ ~. y_ ~ 3 _ _ ~ u _ a - < = ~ 5 _ K 4`.q e V. ~ ~ ~yy~ r - ! -. - _ ~. ... n ~ .~ n ~ ~ i n h > ~Z{ f .._. _ . , ....._ -'..: ~ ; ' ,; ~ ' ~ ~ - -.. _ _ ~ ~ o r _ ~-, t ` \ ' .. ~ [; e. t _ ~ ~ ~ i ,. k ~ C '. ~ rij i ti 7 ~ r 4 ~f ~ ; ` N £ y ~ I r ~J w ~ Qs '~ ` Fni pv. ~' ~~ 0 _ ") .. r ~ q w ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ' yr r.. ~ r - - ~ ~ J. f ~ $ O ~ r ' ^^ V (~ Jet ` "1 " . . - ~ R . _ _ - ._ ~ Q, _. m. _ ~_. .r _ ( ~ ~ p) ~ . „. ~ S - i~ i ~ _. N .. ~ .. ,, U _ ~ ~,~ o : - ` n - nprl Y~ ~ J T =~~ r Il LL _ 1 ~ 1 ---~~' ~f is .~~. ,~0,~,-~ ~ ®~ . 5 Table 3.3: Contra Costa County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction - Contra Costa County Households lurisdicUoh or Area Name Place hype 2010 2035 =Growth /o Change Antioch 32,668 46,365 13,697 41.9% Hillcrest eBART Station (PDA) Suburban Center 1 4,852 4,851 500080% Rivertown Waterfront (PDA) Transit Town Center. 1,705 4,458 2,754 162% Brentwood 18,250 29,284 .6,034 33.1 Clayton 3, 966 9,090 124 3.1 Concord 46,296 65,629 19,328 41.7% Community Reuse Area (PDA) Regional Center 46 4,147 4,101 8881% Community Reuse Area (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 99 7,713 7,614 7664% Downtown BART Station Planning Area (GOA) City Center 7, 980 6, 400 4, 420 223% North Concord BART Adjacent Employment Center (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 0% West Downtown Planning Area (GOAD Mixed-Use Corridor 0 595 595 NA Danville 16,574 17,920 1,346 8.1 El Cerrito 10,422 20,905 10,983 100.6% San Pablo Avenue Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1,020 10,670 9,650 946% Hercules 8,361 17,431 9,070 108.5% Central Hercules (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 0 4,561 4,561 NA Waterfront District (PDA) Transit Town Center 174 2,853 2,679 1540% Lafayette 9,589 11,068. 1,479 15.4% Downtown (PDA) Transit Town Center 1,596 2,601 1,005 63% Martinez 19,769 16,156 1,387 9.4% Downtown (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 417 1,679 1,262 303% Moraga 5,811 6,995 1,184 20.4% Moraga Center (PDA) . Transit Town Center 175 803 628 360% Oakley 10,835 17,508 6,673 61.6% Downtown (PDA) Transit Town Center 741 1,892 1,151 155% Employment Area (PDA) Suburban Center 384 1,268 885 231% Potential Planning Area (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 424 1,653 1,228 290% Orinda 6,868 8,788 1,920 28.0% Downtown (PDA) Transit Town Center 154 1,459 1,305 846% Pino% 7,336 12, 623 5,287 72.1 Appian Way Corridor (PDA) Suburban Center 680 1,704 1,024 151 Old Town (PDA) Transit Town Center 951 4,417 3,466 364% Pittsburg 20,849 36,261 15,912 73.9% Downtown (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 1,540 3,492 1,952 127% Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station (PDA) Transit Town Center 0 .2,434 2,434 NA Railroad Avenue eBART Station (PDA) Transit Town Center 4,459 7,612 3,153 71% Pleasant Hill 15,247 17,861 2,619 17.1 Buskirk Avenue Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1,450 2,359 909 63% Diablo Valley College (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 488 1,703 1,215 249% continued on next page Initial Vision Scenario Page 53 Contra Costa County (continued) JUriSdiiiion i,r Area Nan,t~ f=iace TyNe 2010 Housetrofds 2035' Growth'' % Change Richmond 37,897 63,439 25,542 67.4% Central Richmond (PDA) City Center 485 7,859 7,374 1521% South Richmond (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 3,880 6,860 2,980 77% 23rd Street Mixed-Use Corridor 332 7, 799 867 267 San Pablo Avenue Corridor (GOA) Mixed Use Corridor 653 2, 057 1, 404 275% San Pablo 9,975 13,027 3,052 30.6% San Ramon 22,061 36,682 19,621 66.3% City Center (PDA) Suburban Center 388 4,042 3,654 942% North Camino Ramon (PDA) Transit Town Center 51 1,513 1,463 2883% Walnut Creek 33,890 90,249 6,354 18.7% West Downtown (PDA) Suburban Center 1,266 7,077 5,811 459% Contra Costa County Unincorporated 61,016 69,382 8,366 137% Contra Costa Centre (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2,674 3,050 377 14% Downtown EI Sobrante (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 574 2,033 1,459 .254% North Richmond (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 1,154 3,485 2,330 202% Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 710 4,540 3,830 539% West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor (PDA) 5,727 19,335 13,608 238% Key: PDA -Priority Development Area, GOA -Growth Opportunity Area Initial Vision Scenario . Page 54 Marin County ~~'7a'F"la~ Located north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge, Marin County.offers a retreat for urban dwellers. Marin is recognized for its natural and agricultural landscapes, which support local farming and ranching, tourism, recreation, wildlife habitat, and water supply. In fact, more than 50 percent of the county is protected open space, including renowned national treasures such as Muir Woods and Point Reyes National Seashore. The Marin Agricultural Larid Trust and the Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space have worked for decades to protect and preserve the county's iconic landscape. Marin's Priority Conservation Areas encompass a variety of natural resources, including agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and world-class scenery. Marin has worked hard to maintain the rural character of its western reaches and bay lands through city-centered growth policies and focused development along the urbanized U.S. Route 101 highway corridor. Golden Gate Transit bus service offers connections throughout the county and to surrounding areas, including San Francisco, Richmond, and Sonoma County. Ferry terminals in Sausalito, Tiburon, and Larkspur also connect residents to jobs in San Francisco. In the Initial Vision Scenario, Marin County in 2035 will have the same urban fabric, but existing communitieswill be more walkable and bikable, and they will support more transit infrastructure and.services. The large number of seniors expected to live in Marin County will be able to choose homes in city or town centers with easy access to the amenities they depend on. A more diverse housing. stock and expanded public transit will increase choices for people of all ages and backgrounds. Transit neighborhoods will be connected along the U.S. 101 Corridor by frequent bus service to local and regional centers. Many will have transitioned away from outdated shopping centers toward more sustainable mixed-use neighborhoods. Transit-oriented growth will include the introduction of planned Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) stations in Larkspur, San. Rafael, and Novato. Downtown San Rafael will be a vibrant city center and transit hub in Marin County, where residents and employees can take advantage of SMART rail service as well as buses. The Civic Center and North San Rafael area will be a transit town center focused around the SMART station. San Quentin will be a transit town center with connections to the commuter rail station and ferry terminal in Larkspur. These enhanced connections will help alleviate traffic congestion along U.S. 101 and local roads. Initial Vision Scenario Page 55 9S a~~d oi.~~uaos uois}A I~lhuI € ~ // r` .. ' M^, ~ - N •`i.. :~ G .., W p a ~ - ,<<,~ ~ a ~ .. e _ ~ ~ , = :. ~ ~ ~r - ate ~ ~ ~ ` ~ - .. - i F r. ~~' .. ~, ~ .. _. -_. -- i . . _ n ~ n = - •, C ~ ~ : ~ :.:J ~ ~ ~ { 7 m ~ r- ~^ ~. _ t /' ~. ~ } .L y ~~ U ~ ~ ~ M - J S4S ~' v ! - ;' J Y t ! (" 1a f~ ~++ r ` ~ _ J ~ ` " ~ U 0.r. - ~ _ c .'~ ~ Table 3.4: Marin County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 201 D-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction Marin County `' Households Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change Belvedere 999 969 20 2.1 Corte Madera 3,948 4,721 773 19.6% Fairfax 3,301 3,361 60 1.8% Larkspur 8,036 8,377 341. 4.2% Mill Valley 6,267 6,631 364 5.8% Novato 20,375 21,153 778 3.8% Ross 780 790 10 1.3% San Anselmo 5,310 5, 370 60 1.1 San Rafael 23,164 28,209 5,045 21.8% Civic Center/North Rafael Transit Town Center Town Center (PDA) Downtown (PDA) City Center 323 2,223 745 5,824 421 3,601 130% 162% Sausalito 4, 310 4, 400 90 2.1 Tiburon 3,844 4,242 398 10.4% Marin County Unincorporated 26,162 28,900 2,738 1Q 5% Urbanized 101 Corridor (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 2,046 2,756 710 35% San Quentin (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 80 1, 597 1, 517 1892% Key: PDA: Priority Development Area GOA: Growth Opportunity Area. f~oo~i~~ Napa County Napa County is internationally acclaimed for its winemaking; and the picturesque Napa Valley wine region is a major draw for Sari Francisco Bay Area visitors. The valley is bounded by mountains, and the Napa River empties into San Pablo Bay through the narrow Mare Island Strait. Napa County has strong policies to prioritize agricultural uses and to protect farmlands, watersheds, and open space. Consequently, more than 90 percent of unincorporated county falls within those designations. Ten Priority Conservation Areas encompass old-growth redwoods, watersheds, trails, and agricultural areas. Napa County residents' and local governments' farsighted thinking has protected natural resources, increased the amount of cropland, and supported city-centered growth. Most non- agricultural development is clustered in the four cities and one town connected by Highway 29, which parallels the Napa River in the western part of the county. In the Initial Vision Scenario Napa County will remain the Bay Area's most rural county. Its winemaking, agriculture, and recreation areas will continue to support tourism. The Land Trust of Napa County and Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District will have conserved more land and provided additional recreational opportunities. An area targeted for additional sustainable growth is the Highway 29 Priority Development Area. American Canyon will become the gateway to Napa County from .Highway 29, and it will have transitioned from an auto-centric environment to a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly mixed- use corridor. Frequent.regional and local bus service and an improved bicycle network will increase mobility throughout the county. The city of Napa will continue to be the largest population center; and it will be connected to other regional centers by efficient bus service. People will be able to shop, stroll by the Napa River, and enjoy other downtown amenities. Buses or a wine trairi will enable exploration of other destinations. Initial Vision Scenario Page 58 6S a~~d oi.[~uaos uoisin 1ei~iul ~:~ c~ _ t ~. ~4r~~ ~ ..;:f~. v ti 0 a q 0 .~ 0 U M LIZ d°~t© ~ Table 3.5: Napa County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas by Jurisdiction Na a Count ~~~ Households Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2035 Growth % Change American Canyon 5,761 _ 7,392 1,632' 28.3% ighway 29 Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 264 1,895 1;632 618% Calistoga 2,140 2,171 31 1.9% Napa 29,490 32,019 2,579 8.8% St. Helena 2,490 2,533 93 3.8% Yountville 1,110 1,230 120 10.8% Napa County Unincorporated (GOAD 10,370 10,716 346 3.3% Key: PDA: Priority Development Area GOA: Growth Opportunity Area Initial Vision Scenario Page 60 t, San. Francisco City and County Uniquely a city and county, San Francisco is one of California's largest cities and home to many historic landmarks. San Francisco city grew rapidly during the Gold Rush in the mid-1800s and became an international center of commerce. Its large port facilitated high volumes of domestic and oversees trade, and during World Wars I and II, its military installations grew to peak levels. Like many port cities, the convergence of various cultures resulted in a diverse population. Over time the city has emerged as a financial and cultural center, as well as a major tourist destination. As the city is surrounded on three sides by water, San Francisco has the highest residential and commercial densities in the region. It is one of the Bay Area's largest employment hubs, drawing nearly aquarter-million commuters each day, many of whom travel within, to and from the city using the region's most extensive public transit system. Although it is the most urbanized county in the Bay Area, with more than 90 percent of its acreage developed, San Francisco is home to some of the region's largest urban open spaces, and it has an extensive neighborhood parks system. Five Priority Conservation Areas identified within the city represent critical linkages in this open space network. In the Initial Vision Scenario, San Francisco by 2035 will have seen a great increase in new residents, businesses, and jobs. Its unique neighborhoods will have become even more distinct, finely-scaled and walkable. Downtown will continue to grow as a regional center, accommodating new and growing businesses that serve the local and global economies. There will be many more high-rise residential buildings, transforming the financial district into amixed-use neighborhood with shops, services, and amenities that cater to residents, employees, and visitors. The new Transbay Center will be home to 2,600 new households, a 5.4-acre rooftop park, and the Transit Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. This hub will anchor a new mixed-use neighborhood in the South of Market area. Urban neighborhoods in the southeastern part of the city, such as Hunter's Point and Candlestick Park, will be transformed by new homes, shops, and offices, as well as more parks and increased connections to the waterfront. Other urban neighborhoods, such as the Mission, SoMa, Chinatown, and Market & Octavia, will retain their existing character, but with a greater mix of features that can be accessed easily on foot, bicycle, or public transit. Small-scale infill buildings will have sprung up close to transit lines, especially in transit town centers, such as 19th Avenue and along the Mission-San Jose mixed-use corridor. The Presidio, Golden Gate Park, Mount Sutro, Twin Peaks, McLaren Park, Bayview Park, and Candlestick Point will be connected by a remarkable open space corridor. This green space will connect neighborhoods form a scenic route for bicyclists and pedestrians. Many major streets also will have been greened, resulting in new pocket parks, outdoor seating, community gardens, and communal plazas. San Francisco's transit network will include more reliable, frequent Muni lines and increased ferry service, as well as new transit services, including several bus rapid transit routes. The Transbay Center will be a hub for high speed trains to Los Angeles and other points in California, and it will connect BART, Caltrain, and Muni Metro service. Initial Vision Scenario Page 61 ~~ w - ~, ~ t :. ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ i1 ZJ ~ e ~ Q s -- ~ 0 n ~~ r~ ~. o ~ ~~ b ~r ~. t ~ ors b ~ a Q ~~- ~ ~` `~ ~ .. b ,~ F ~ ._ ~~ ~ 'y ~ ~~ - ...., .. C ?:l 'kl A ~ ~. ,.. -i f Initial Vision Scenario Page 62 a4f~i'f/t-•' Table 3.6: San Francisco City and County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas San Francisco Households Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2035 Growth °l° Change San Francisco 346,680 936,799 90,114 26.0% 19th Avenue (PDA) Transit Town Center 5,795 8,015 2,220 38% Balboa Park (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 1,461 3,286 1,826 125% BayviewlHunters Point Shipyard/ Candlestick Point (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 10,036 21,265 11,230 112°1° Downtown-Van Ness-Geary (PDA) Regional Center 89,975 109,031 19,056 21% Eastern Neighborhoods (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 29,030 34,386 5,356 18% Market & Octavia (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 10,932 16,605 5,672 52% Mission Bay (PDA) Urban Neighborhood 365 5,997 5,632 1543% Mission-San Jose Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 29,088 30,61-1 1,523 5% Port of San Francisco (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 611 2,904 2,293 375% San Francisco/San Mateo Bi- County Area (with City of Brisbane) (PDA)' Transit Neighborhood 1,569 8,127 6,558 418% Transbay Terminal (PDA) Regional Center 509 4,637 4,128 810% Treasure Island (PDA) Transit Town Center 460 7,704 7,244 1575% Citywide (GOA) 166,849 184,225 77,376 70% Key: PDA: Priority Development Area GOA: Growth Opportunity Area Initial Vision Scenario - ~ ~ Page 63 ~tod~--~~`~ San Mateo County For many decades, residents and businesses have been attracted to San Mateo County because of its strategic location between San Francisco and Silicon Valley, along the waterfront of San Francisco Bay. The Coast Range divides the county into two distinct parts: the bayside and coast. Ninety percent of development in the county is located on the bayside. Historically, the bayside communities developed as a series of "railroad suburbs" along the Caltrain line that runs parallel to EI Camino Real-the first automobile route through the Peninsula. In contrast, the coast is primarily agricultural, although some residential and office development has appeared in recent years. The seven Priority Conservation Areas in the county are located primarily on the coast side of the hills, and include areas with scenic vistas, agricultural uses, and the habitat of several endangered and threatened species. The downtowns of many of the county's cities, including South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, and Menlo Park, are clustered near a Caltrain station, often encompassing or bordering E1 Camino Real. San Mateo County residents also have access to BART through stations at Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport, and Millbrae. These downtown areas and transit-served neighborhoods have been the primary focus for growth in San Mateo County. Local governments along El Camino Real are working together to transform the corridor from an auto-oriented commercial strip into a "grand boulevard" that includes a mix of homes, stores, parks, and services, and links the transit town centers and city center nodes along its length. The downtown and transit corridor plans passed by nearly every city in past decades help to promote unique, interesting places, each with its own distinct sense of community. These cities' achievements have protected watershed lands, upper creek headwaters, coastal areas and scenic ridges from encroaching development-preserving natural resources for the region. With its central location, transit spine, job centers, and strong downtown areas and schools, San Mateo County will continue to be an important place in the region for sustainable development. Iri the Initial Vision Scenario; in 2035, El Camino Real will have achieved its potential as a~place for residents to work, live, shop, and play.2 It will be a mixed-use corridor with~mid-rise homes and townhouses that connects city centers, transit neighborhoods, and transit town centers to employment centers along the corridor and in San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Outdated strip malls will have been replaced with well-designed buildings on either side of the corridor that provide new homes and workplaces, as well as shops and restaurants that create an exciting street life. With new trees and improved sidewalks and crossings, E1 Camino will be safe for walking and bicycling. Pedestrian routes that cross the railroad tracks and U.S. 101 will make it possible for more people to bike and walk to work or school. Seniors will be-able to find homes in the city downtowns, with easy access to parks, libraries, and restaurants. An electrified Caltrain will provide more frequent service, with renovated stations that are the focal point for bustling downtowns. Other strategic transit investments, such as new Bus Rapid z brand Boulevard Vision Statement Initial Vision Scenario Page 64 Transit routes, expanded bus and ferry service, and high-speed rail stations will make it easy to travel within the county and to reach employment centers throughout the Bay Area. New homes and residents in transit-served areas will keep town centers growing and vibrant, with a wealth of new cultural activities and resources. San Mateo and Redwood City will be the largest city centers, anchoring the largest concentration of jobs and housing in the County. East of the Grand Boulevard, Brisbane and Daly City will create amulti-centered urban area with San Francisco around the Bayshore Caltrain station and Geneva Avenue. The concentration of growth in these bayside communities will have reduced growth pressures on the coast, allowing agricultural areas and seaside towns to thrive. .~ - ' ~ ~ ' M _ Y ~~~ Table 3.7: San Mateo County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction San,Mateo County Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Households 2035 Growth % Change Atherton 2,490 2,580 90 3.6% Belmont 10,740 12,759 2,019 18.8% Brisbane 1,730 5,324 -3,594 207.7% San Francisco/San Mateo Bi- County Area (with San Francisco) {PDA) Suburban Center 24 3,208 3,184 13129% Burlingame 13,297 19,431 6,184 96.7% Burlingame EI Camino Real (PDA) Transit Town Center 6,790 11,477 4,687 69% Colma 460 1,372 912 198.3% Daly City 31,261 43,095 11,839 37.9% Bayshore (PDA) . Transit Town Center 1,254 .3,317 2,062 164% Mission Boulevard (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1,500 2,543 1,043 70% Citywide 28, 041 34, 079 5, 978 21 East Palo Alto 7,780 12,310 4,530 58.2% Ravenswood (PDA) Transit Town Center 1,149 4,155 3,006 262% Woodland/Willow Urban Neighborhood Neighborhood (GOA) 1,833 2,550 777 39% Foster City 72,210 13,767 1,557 12.8% Half Moon Bay 4,490 4,730 290 6.5% Hillsborough 3,837 4,589 752 '19.6% Menlo Park 12,432 17,563 5,130 41.3% El Camino Real Corridor and Transit Town Center Downtown (PDA) 279 3,258 2,979 1068% Millbrae 8,308 12,910 4,602 55.4% Transit Station Area (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 176 2,473 2,297 1302% Pacifica 14,320 14,600 280 2.0% Portola Valley 1,730 1,780 50 2.9% Redwood City 29,620 41,032 11,412 38.5% Downtown (PDA) City Center 786 6,139 5,353 681% Broadway (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1, 962 2, 325 363 18% Middlefield (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2, 370 2, 757 387 16% Mixed Use Waterfront (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 876 1,916 1,090 119% Veterans Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 308 1, 076 768 299% San Bruno 15,262 21, 699 6, 937 42.2% Transit Corridors (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 3,458 7,556 4,099 119% San Carlos 11,909 15,'707 3,798 31.9% Railroad Corridor (PDA) Transit Town Center 1,022 3,194 2,173 213% San Mateo 38,643 56,678 18,035 96:7% Downtown (PDA) City Center 482 2,111 1,629 338% EI Camino Real (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 23 1,605 1,582 .6794% Rail Corridor (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 23 6,124 6,100 26204% Key: PDA -Priority Development Area GOA -Growth Opportunity Area ,, Santa Clara County Santa Clara County developed as a fertile agricultural region, and fruit processing grew into a major local industry and remained vital to the economy throughout the 1940s and 1950s. Through the 1970s and 1980s, aerospace and electronics manufacturing replaced the orchards and packing plants. Santa Clara County has since emerged as the birthplace and now global capital of the high-technology revolution, and is synonymous with "Silicon Valley." Today, with over 1.8 million residents and 900,000 jobs, Santa Clara County is the most populous and job- rich county in the San Francisco Bay Area. The communities within Santa Clara County represent the full spectrum of urban to rural places found around the Bay Area. From San Jose, with downtown high-rises surrounded by a string of transit-served,neighborhoods with village centers, to historic downtown Gilroy-and everything in between-each of these communities reflects a different history and character even as they grow and change. The cities and county have been coordinating together to manage Santa Clara County's explosive growth for over 40 years. County policies have required that development of land for urban uses occurs within cities, and that each city define an urban service area. Over the past decade, there has been an increased emphasis on transit-supportive land use planning and infrastructure improvements. Many communities in the county have promoted a more compact growth pattern through General Plan.updates, while other planning efforts have focused on Caltrain and future BART stations, downtowns, and the El Camino Real corridor. These policies have helped Santa Clara County maintain vital agricultural and habitat lands in the southern portion of the county and in the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range that frame Santa Clara Valley. Many of the 18 Priority Conservation Areas identified in the county encompass key wildlife areas in the foothills. In the Initial Vision Scenario, Santa Clara County in 2035 shows the dramatic results of community efforts to channel much of the future growth in the region into existing downtowns, major mixed-use transit corridors, and town and neighborhood centers. Existing neighborhoods will, retain their existing character, while providing residents.with new opportunities, access, and destinations. These areas will have become thriving communities for the next generation of entrepreneurs, keeping Silicon Valley at the epicenter of global innovation. They will also be attractive places for an increasing number of older residents, allowing them to stay active and independent while remaining >n their community. At the same time, the hills will remain largely undeveloped, providing a stunning backdrop from the Valley floor. Regional transit service along an electrified Caltrain corridor, the BART to Silicon Valley corridor, and the ACE and Amtrak Capitol Corridor rail lines will provide quick, convenient access to destinations throughout the region. Shuttle and bus service,.alorig with bicycle and pedestrian routes, will provide direct access from regional transit to the major employment centers in the county. San Jose is expected to add the most households and jobs of any jurisdiction in the region between 2010 and 2035. It will remain a regional center, and the heart of Silicon Valley. Growth Initial Vision Scenario Page 68 ~11~t0`~ in the city will be focused in the downtown and in North San Jose. San Jose's Diridon Station will be the regional portal for those entering Silicon Valley on the California Nigh Speed Rail system. North San Jose will be home to both major employers along the First Street corridor and a string of nearby residential communities and amenities. A large residential community in downtown San Jose will support a diverse array of evening shopping and entertainment destinations. Improvements to the light rail system and new jobs in downtown and North San Jose will have steadily increased the share of south San Jose transit commuters. Areas around the stations along the.BART to Silicon Valley extension, such as the Milpitas Transit Area, will have grown into vibrant residential communities with a mix of neighborhood- serving retail, parks, services, and other amenities. The transit town centers around the Caltrain stations in Gilroy and Morgan Hill will both be vibrant downtown communities that house new residents and also serve the surrounding neighborhoods and visitors with a rich array of shops and events. Central Campbell will continue to grow as an attractive destination for area residents, along with the revitalized Winchester Boulevard corridor. Areas devoted solely to low-intensity office and industrial uses, such as Moffett Field/NASA Ames and North Bayshore in Mountain View, will have been transformed into pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly districts with a mix of homes, stores, and parks as well as additional offices. From Palo Alto to San Jose, and including Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara, the E1 Camino Real corridor in Santa Clara County will have transformed into a truly grand boulevard, with quick, reliable bus service and improved bicycle and pedestrian connections linking numerous residential, office, and retail nodes along the entire route. New residents along the corridor will have easy access to Silicon Valley jobs, while Caltrain and light rail will link the major Silicon Valley employers to region-wide commuters. Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 69 OL a~~d ou~uaos uois~n j~i~~ui .~ _.. ~ ,.~.~a_ i ':~ ;`ice i __ o `' `~ r~`~ - .~ ~v i ~1 :~' \ \,. ,A3 ~ {»` ~'r"2 ",.'/ l !w / i" f- l. f; 1 .i ~~,_a . / ~} l~ ~ ., .r r ~i. ~ ~ ~~~~ ,).~ ~ ~.~~ _ /;_ ~~ a 1' ` > ,~ ,. i X G ~ _/ t ~ ~/ r' ~~ ~ ~ r, .W . . f { ,r. J ~; :yC ,~ ~ y ni .~ ~ ~rjr'~ _ _ _ ...:~ __._, _ _ . t,~= ~ ,~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J ~ ~~ ~,' ~`~ ~ ~o ,~ } c 4 ,.y ~' ~ ._ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ .:. ~ j, 7 U .~ C; f: G U ~ ~ a r „~,~ u: ? [ K w i. 0 c ~ ~ O ~„ .a ~~ ~" p~p~~ F~ Q" O 0 ~" ti q ~~ .~ .o _~ r~ U a U _~ ,~ ©, ~ -~' o Z ~- Table 3.8:.Santa Clara County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction Santa Clara County Households !urisdiction'or Area Name Place Type 2010 ?035 Growth `% Change.. Campbell 16,892 21,002 4,110 24.3% Central RedeveloprnentArea (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 965 2,909 1,944 201% Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 460 582 122 27% Cupertino 19,830 21,588 1,758 8.9% Gilroy 14,330 22,118 7,788 59.3% Downtown (PDA) Transit Town Center 235 2,911 2,677 1140% Los Altos 10,670. 11,968 1,298 12.2% El Camino Real Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 283 612 329 716% Los Altos Hills 3,053 3,088 35 1.1 Los Gatos - 12,430 13,151 721 5.8% Milpitas 19,030 38,758 19,728 103.7% Transit Area (PDA) Suburban Center 454 7,563 7,109 1566% Hammond Transit Neighborhood (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 2 397 395 19747% McCandless Transit Neighborhood (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 39 383 344 882% McCarthy Ranch Employment Center (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 NA Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 54 700 646 1197% Serra Center Mixed,-Use Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 0 0 0 NA Tasman Employment Center (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 - NA Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 0 750 750 NA Yosemite Employment Center (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 NA Monte Sereno 1,229 1,269 90 3.3% Morgan Hill 12,399 20,090 7,641 61.6% Downtown (PDA) Transit Town Center 195 2,911 2,716 1393% Mountain View 32,114 50,348 18,239 56.8% Whisman Station (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 0 1,220 1,220 NA Downtown (GOA) Transit Town Center 1,359 2,544 1, 785 87% East Whisman (GOA) Employment Center 104 203 99 95% El Camino Real Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2, 561 4,127 7, 560 61 Moffett Field/NASA Ames (GOA) Suburban Center 766 2,283 2, 778 7279% North eayshore (GOA) Suburban Center 278 2, 653 2, 375 853% San Antonio Center (GOA) Transit Town Center 1, 470 2, 732 1,262 86% Palo Alto 26,705 38,692 11,987 49.9% Palo Alto: California Avenue (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 922 2,889 1,967 213% Palo Alto: El Camino Real Corridor (GOA) Mixed Use Corridor 4,272 6, 776 7, 845 43% Palo Alto: UniversityAvenue/Downtown (GOA) Transit Town Center 2, 762 3,707 1,539 77% continued on next page Initial Vision Scenario Page 71 ~~~~~~f" Santa Clara County (continued) Jurisdiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 Households 2035 Growth % Change San Jose 305,087 435,585 130,498 42.8% Berryessa Station (PDA) Transit Nei hborhood 1,926 8,024 6,098 317% Communications Hill (PDA) Transit Town Center 2,423 5,198 2,775 115% Cottle Transit Village (PDA) Suburban Center 59 2,989 2,930 4952% Downtown "Frame" (PDA) City Center 5,799 24,458 18,659 322% East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2,306 6,396 4,090 177% Greater Downtown (PDA) Regional Center 3,217 10,117 6,900 215% North San Jose (PDA) Regional Center 9,488 42,128 32,640 344% West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 8,299 16,923 8,624 104% Bascom TOD Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 227 1, 627 1, 400 617% Bascom Urban Village (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1,089 7,889 800 73% Blossom Hill/Spell Urban Village (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 579 7, 679 7, 700 272% Camden Urban Village (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 346 7, 346 1, 000 289% Capitol Corridor Urban Villages (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 3,692 9,892 6,200 768% Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages (GOA) Suburban Center 7, 504 3, 754 2, 250 750% Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village (GOA) Suburban Center 2, 302 9, 802 7, 500 326% Saratoga TOD Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 7, 495 2, 595 1,100 74% Stevens Creek TOD Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1, 066 4, 966 3, 900 366% Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village (GOA) Suburban Center 559 3, 059 2, 500 447% Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2, 026 4, 026 2, 000 99% Santa Clara 43,403 67,672 24,269 55.9% Central Expressway Focus Area (GOA) City Center 0 4, 000 4, 000 NA El Camino Real Focus Area (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1,305 2, 783 878 67% Great America Parkway Focus Area (GOA) Urban Neighborhood 0 3, 400 3, 400 NA Lawrence Station Focus Area (GOAD Transit Neighborhood 0 6,194 6,194 NA Santa Clara Station Focus Area (GOA) City Center 167 3, 502 3, 335 7997% Tasman East Focus Area (GOA) Transit Neighborhood 0 1, 805 7, 805 NA Saratoga 1.1,000 11,118 118 1.1 continued on next page Initial Vision Scenario . Page 72 W ,..< 4. ,~_,,,. Santa Clara County (continued) Households Jurisdiction o~ Area Name Place~Type 2010 2035 Gro~r~[h );'Change Sunnyvale 59,170 73,425 19,255 35.5% Downtown & Caltrain Statiori (PDA) Transit Town Center 1,353 5,321 3,968 293% EI Camino Real Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 9,466 14,680 5,214 55°I° Lawrence Station Transit Village (PDA) Transit 1,465 2,354 888 61 Neighborhood East Sunnyvale /TR (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 1 .601 600 60000% Moffett Park (GOAD Employment Center 0 0 0 NA Peery Park (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 NA Reamwood Light Rail Station (GOA) Employment Center 0 0 0 NA Tasman Station lTR (GOA) Mixed-Use Corridor 202 805 603 299% Santa Clara County Unincorporated 31,604 37,991 6,386 20.2% Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, 72,190 219,983 147,793 205% Corridors, and Station Areas (estimate) (PDA) Key: PDA -Priority Development Area, GOA -Growth Opportunity Area "l (a o x--19 ~ , Solano County Solano County has the distinction of containing nearly half the San Francisco Bay Area's important farmland and more than half the region's wetlands, according to the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Sacramento River flows along the southeastern portion of Solano County emptying into the Sacramento-San. Joaquin River Delta, the largest estuary on the U.S.'s West Coast, and into the Suisun Bay. Solano County's historical growth was in part attributable.to military bases-Travis Air Force Base and Mare Island Naval Shipyard. The county's location between the metropolitan centers of San Francisco and Sacramento-and its lower land prices relative to other parts of the Bay Area made it an attractive place for increased housing development in response to the demand for lower cost housing in the region. Although this housing growth created competition to agricultural uses, residents and local governments in the Solano County value agricultural land protection and have adopted policies to ensure that agriculture remains. Solano County's Orderly Growth Initiative, adopted in 1994, encourages city-centered growth and supports the agricultural economy. This policy has focused jobs and commercial areas in and near the county's major urban areas. Vallejo continues its efforts to enhance their waterfront and downtown, and Fairfield, the county seat, has made strides to make the West Texas Street corridor a walkable and bikeable stretch with improved streetscape enhancements. Five Priority Conservation Areas have been identified to encourage protection of important natural resources such as the Blue Ridge Hills, Western Hills, and the greenbelt between Vacaville and Fairfield. As a result of these sustainability policies, the county remains predominantly rural, with valuable grazing and crop lands encompassing more than half of the land in Solano County. In the Initial Vision Scenario for Solano County, communities in 2035 will continue to have striking views of the bay and agricultural landscapes. These natural assets surround the county's cities, which have been redeveloped into thriving centers that are easily accessible by public transportation and' filled with places to walk and bike. The cities of Vallejo, Fairfield, and Vacaville will remain the most populous. Vallejo's downtown and waterfront will. be a great place to take in the beauty of the bay or explore the historic city center before or after catching a ferry to San Francisco. Residents of Fairfield who need to commute to Sacramento or to another Bay Area job destination on the Capitol Corridor train will be able to live in downtown and walk across a pedestrian bridge into Suisun City to the Fairfield/Suisun train station or in the new transit town center around the Fairfield/Vacaville train station, which will have a mix of housing types and retail services with scenic views of the area's striking landscape. Vacaville's downtown will retain its historic character with improved amenities for walking and biking. Overall, communities in Solano County will have improved transit connections within their jurisdictions, between jurisdictions, and to regional centers, allowing residents to access a variety of services, jobs, and entertainment. Initial Vision Scenario Page 74 ousuaas uoisin ~e~~rui ,~ _ - """'_ t I ~- .. a.. < t ,~ „~ ~~ ~, t - j ~. ~= t ~ ' ., _ r ~.., . .. ~ . ~ ..~ .~. r- t 4 , ~ .. __ ~_.__.-_. ~ ~__~ 1. `v.. . (~` ~ ~ ~ ' ;~., ~ ~y ~ ~, r ,_., i ~~ i ~ ,~ , ~" ~ j~f, ~ ~' - ~ y ~• ' ,~ O~ ' ~ ~ t . C ~ `! ~ / r ~ O ~ C ~ ~ _ _ ~ ., ~ .' '.' i'~_.. o .. - r - e - :. H. "' ~ ~e ..~ _ - - z ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~ . _ - ~~ ~- „~ ~ ~ y .. ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i" ? o ~ ~ .- - ~ ~ .~ ~_. P. ~ a ` c ~ [3r ~ ~~ " ~` ~ - _- r• i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .... ' ~' N i " :! O . ~~ _ - U .. ` c - ~' ~ ~~ ~ Q << r -~ ~ ... r _ . <. - ~ ~ L. ! a ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ off: a L`L ~~*;;, Table 3.9: Solano County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction Solano County Households Juri ;diction or,Area Name P,la._ce:TyPe 2010 2035 .Growth "~~:, Chanyc Benicia 11,329 13,527 2,198 19.4% Downtown (PDA) Transit Neighborhood 570 1 520 950 167% Northern Gateway (GOA) Suburban Center 0 756 756 NA Dixon 5,617 8,222 2,605 46.4% Fairfield 36,061 52,976 16,915 45.5% Downtown South (Jefferson Street) (PDA) - Suburban Center 142 3 669 3 528 2491% Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station (PDA) Transit Town Center 10 6 595 6 585 67891% North Texas Street Core (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 49 1 810 1 762 3633% West Texas Street Gateway (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 259 2784 2 525 974% Rio Vista 3,590 4,737 1,197 33.8% Suisun City 9,132 10 598 1415 15.5% Downtown & Waterfront (PDA) Transit Town Center 1 146 2 278 1 133 99% Vacaville 32, 620 91, 775 9,155 28.1 Allison Area (PDA) Suburban Center 593 802 209 35% Transit Town Downtown (PDA) Center 169 4 172 4 003 2372% Vallejo 42,043 47,814 5771 13.7% Waterfront & Downtown (PDA) Suburban Center 1 200 2 215 1 015 85% Solano County Unincorporated 7, 817 8, 677 860 11.0% Key: PDA -Priority Development Area, GOA -Growth Opportunity Area Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 76 .~,~~~. Sonoma County i~o~°~o Sonoma County is the,largest, northernmost county in the-San Francisco Bay Area and contains some of the region's most valuable agricultural land. The county has a diverse landscape that encompasses redwood forests and oak woodlands, rivers, wetlands and baylands, vineyards, grasslands,. and small farms. Many of these resource areas are included as part of one of the county's 15 Priority Conservation Areas. Urban development in Sonoma County is concentrated within cities along the U.S. 101 corridor, which has been supported by voter-approved urban growth boundaries and other policies that encourage separation between cities and scenic landscapes to maintain the county's rural character and economy. The existing bus service in the county will be enhanced by the introduction of Sonoma-Mann Area Rail Transit (SMART). The stations planned in Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Petaluma will provide improved connections among the cities in the county and to employment opportunities in San Francisco. In the Initial Vision Scenario for Sonoma County, by 2035, the area's agricultural economy and resource lands will be thriving as a result ofvoter-approved sales taxes to fund the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District's purchase of conservation and agricultural easements. Cities and towns in Sonoma County will have filled in while retaining their character, providing great places to live and work with access to daily needs within walking distance or an easy bike or transit ride. Downtown Santa Rosa is expected to take on significant population and employment growth, and will continue to be the major city center in the North Bay. This area will connect to Santa Rosa's historic railroad square area, which will have a thriving farmer's market for people to access local foods. Residents will have an easy commute on the rail line, bus line, or regional bicycle path. North of this station in Santa Rosa will be a new suburban center, where the improvements residents identified for the area will connect them to the mall and other key destinations. Santa Rosa residents and visitors. will also be able to get to and from these stations through a bus rapid transit system along Sebastopol Road, an east-west mixed-use corridor, and Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue, anorth-south mixed-use corridor. The cities and towns north and south of Santa Rosa will have retained their community character and have improved transit,. bicycle, and pedestrian connections. Commuters and tourists will be able to hop on the rail line and take it to Cloverdale's transit town center, which will provide an impressive greenway connection between its downtown and the station. Similar to Windsor's town green where residents and visitors can gather, Rohnert Park will have a suburban center at Sonoma Mountain Village, a star example of sustainability principles for the Bay Area and the world. People will be able to enjoy downtown Petaluma's historic character as they walk around taking in the amenities offered and the beauty of the Petaluma River. Sonoma County's rural and suburban areas will have become more complete communities with services and amenities within walking distance. The Airport and Larkfield Urban Service Area will be a suburban center with a mix. of residences and other services. Within the Sonoma Valley Urban Service Area, The Springs will be a rural mixed-use corridor where residents can safely Initial Vision Scenario 'Page .77 navigate Highway 12 and where traffic will have been reduced given the level of bus service through the area, and the Eighth Street Industrial Area will be an employment center with major industrial redevelopment to serve agricultural processing in the area, better transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The Penngrove Urban Service Area will have become a rural town center, with better transit service, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and increased retail and service uses. Initial Vision Scenario ~ ~ ~ Page 78 6L a~~d ~ oi.~~uaos uots~n j~T~~uI ~' rig m ' c ~:.. ~ < ~ ~. (..-.~ ..... Jt ~,, _'. . .- ~ _ r,4 1~ t' ,'~ ~. f _. ~. ^, !.. F ,~ ~ ~- ' ~._ _. i - i ~~ ~ iJ } ~} ~ ~ t ryt ~ a o ~ } ~ l~ ~ ~' ~ , -'r ~ `- ~.f~ r ~ .. ~ CS ~ p ~ ~ ~° ' _ a i ,... ..~ ~ v ~ v Q ~~ ~ ~ ., r~~ ~- ~ f ~zn~fl `~ Table 3.10: Sonoma County Initial Vision Scenario Household Growth 2010-2035 for Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by Jurisdiction Sonoma County Jurisdiction or Arca Name Placc Type 2010 Households 2035 :'Growth _ '% Chanqe Cloverdale 3,211 4,639 1,428 49.5% Downtown/SMART Transit Area (PDA) Transit Town Center 486 1 552 1,066 219% Cotati 2,832 3,387 555 19.6% Downtown and Cotati Depot (PDA) Transit Town Center 183 728 545 298% Healdsburq 4,390 5,284 894 20.4% Petaluma 21,775 24,713 2,938 13.5% Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach (PDA) Suburban Center 591 2,159 1,568 265% RohnertPark 15,718 20,395 4,677 29.8% Sonoma Mountain Village (PDA) Suburban Center 209 2 795 2 585 1235% Santa Rosa 62,886 83,010 20,124 32.0% Downtown Station Area (PDA) City Center 1,442 9 296 7 855 545% Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 6,391 11,068 4 677 73% Sebastopol Road Corridor (PDA) Mixed-Use Corridor 2,809 9 098 6,290 224°10 North Santa Rosa Station (GOA) Suburban Center 4, 433 7, 618 3,185 72% Sebastopol 3, 325 3, 595 270 8.1 Nexus Area (PDA) Transit Town Center 96 259 163 170% Sonoma 4, 476 5, 036 560 125% Windsor 8,884 13,809 9,925 55.4% Redevelopment Area (PDA) Suburban Center 611 4,459 3,848 630% Sonoma County Unincorporated 60,933 67,505 6,572 10.8% 8th Street East lndustrialArea (GOAD Employment Center - 0 0 0 NA Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area (GOA) Suburban Center 2, 903 3, 483 1, 080 45% Penngrove Urban Service Arca (GOA) Rural Town Center 312 958 646 207% Rural Mixed-Use The Springs (GOA) Corridor 6,167 7,414 .1,253 20% Key: PDA -Priority Development Area, GOA -Growth Opportunity Area Initial Vision Scenario Page 80 ®'~~~~ ~ 4. KEY PRIORITIES AND POTENTIAL STRATEGIES The Initial Vision Scenario supports the development of places that offer proximity to services and transit and accommodate the region's growth. This future land use pattern represents a clear shift towards decreased auto dependence and increased travel choice. Intensified land uses close to rail and ferry stations and high frequency bus corridors throughout the region will promote more regional and local transit trips, as well as an increase in local trips on foot and bike- enabling cost-effective and healthy travel patterns for future generations. This section outlines key priorities and potential strategies that regional agencies will need to pursue in order to support sustainable development and achieve the objectives set forth in SB375, given the rationale, growth assumptions, and local input into this Initial Vision Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. 4.1 Key Priorities Through the development of the Iriitial Vision Scenario, a number of key priorities for supporting implementation of the SCS have become clear. These priorities are based on an understanding of the policies and resources needed to support sustainable development in the full range oflocally-identified place types in the region, which define specific qualities and needs for the Priority Development Areas and new Growth Opportunity Areas. Elevating these priorities in the SCS will provide consistency in implementing sustainability strategies and making related investment decisions. At the core of these priorities are the alignment of transportation, housing and employment development in sustainable locations, transit and transit-supportive investments to 2035, and coordination among local, regional, state and federal agencies to address challenges and achieve co-benefits: 1. Develop an efficient, interconnected travel network that offers inviting walking, biking, and transit connections that serve a network of neighborhoods and allow residents and employees throughout the region to take shorter trips. 2. Plan for jobs-housing fit along subregional transit corridors in order to provide housing choices with easy access to job centers and reduce the percentage of long commutes. 3. Enhance transit access in PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas to integrate each area as part of a larger transit corridor; create destinations for surrounding lower density residential areas; and provide residents and employees in these areas with core services, amenities, and access to the rest of the region. 4. Align regional transportation funding with production of sustainable and affordable housing by connecting land use strategies and transit investments, increasing the feasibility of affordable housing production, and prioritizing transportation investments in places that are assuming major responsibilities on sustainability and affordability Initial Vision Scenario Page 81 5. invest in smart, green infrastructure by planning for air quality impacts at the neighborhood level, implementing urban stormwater standards for neighborhoods, and using appropriately-scaled municipal roads and utilities standards. 6. Coordinate regional plans and environmental regulations, including those related to air quality, water quality, and protection of the Bay in order to streamline CEQA review and clearance for land use plans in PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. 7. Initiate partnerships with key entities and special districts to address key challenges to sustainable development, including water supply and distribution, hazards and risk mitigation, regional economic development, school quality and access, and utility capacity. 4.2 Potential Strategies Local jurisdictions and stakeholders have provided the regional agencies with numerous suggestions as to what potential strategies could be adopted through the SCS. In an era of fiscal contraction for public agencies, funding for the SCS planning and implementation effort will be critical. While the Initial Vision Scenario will rely on the regional transportation plan for implementation funding, the region must also look for new funding opportunities and new partners to jointly fund SCS-related plans, projects, and programs in addition to affordable housing development. Looking further into the future, the following lists some of the strategies that will respond to the key priorities listed above. These strategies incorporate much of the input from local governments about what is needed for SCS implementation: 1. Develop an environmental impact report for the SCS that resolves regional policy conflicts, addresses major transportation and air quality issues, and provides coverage for local plans. 2. 'Maximize the use of the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) to streamline CEQA review for local development plans that achieve the goals of the SCS. 3. Identify transportation funding sources for additional and sustained planning money for cities planning for growth and complete communities. 4. Prioritize RTP funding for an efficient transit network that supports the core urbanized land pattern accommodating growth in the region, including transit investments, transit service expansion, parking pricing, and transportation demand management projects. 5. Expand the Bay Area Affordable TOD fund that will help make sites available for affordable housing development in key locations within PDAs, and develop appropriate mechanisms for land assembly and affordable housing production. 6. Develop a mechanism to fund land preservation and Priority Conservation Areas. Initial Vision Scenario Page 82 i . 6~o'~L E~ `-~ 7. Develop a structure for an infrastructure bank that will offer cities financing to expand utility capacity. 8. Develop regional advocacy for fiscal reform to support cities that are accommodating growth, including new redevelopment mechanisms. 9. Initiate planning for the region's resilience related to seismic hazards, and adaptation planning within the region for climate change, including potential flooding in areas proximate to the Bay and reduced water supply in the event of extended droughts. 10. Develop a structure for reserving water supply for PDAs and' Growth Opportunity Areas. 11. Foster improvements in school quality and access by facilitating dialogue between school districts, planning agencies, and transportation agencies and by identifying strategies and resources to meet the specific needs of local jurisdictions. 12. Develop an economic development strategy that maximizes the regional resources in terms of business performance, skilled labor, and iriternational networks. This strategy would need to be developed in coordination with various stakeholders and regional agencies. Initial Vision Scenario Page 83 ~~D~ 1 ~ "c 5. SCS NEXT STEPS Over the next several months, regional agencies will discuss the Initial Vision Scenario with local elected offcials, local staff, stakeholders and the public. The input received during these discussions will influence the analysis for the development of the Detailed Scenarios. This section describes the process for gathering feedback about the Initial Vision Scenario, as well as a preliminary set of analytical tasks that MTC and ABAG have identified for the development of the Detailed Scenarios. Figure 5.1 shows the process and timeline for completion and adoption of the SCS. 5.1 Initial Vision Scenario Outreach Process MTC and ABAG are embarking on amulti-tiered approach to interact with local jurisdictions and other stakeholders. As part of this effort, ABAG and MTC staff are coordinating the efforts listed below: Briefings for local elected officials. in each county -Meetings are scheduled in all nine counties during March and early Apri12011, to engage with elected officials and discuss issues pertaining to the communities they represent and the SCS process. City managers and County administrators will be invited to participate. A tool kit is also being prepared for elected offcials who wish to conduct meetings in their communities. City Council /Board of Supervisors presentations - At the local level, planning and community development directors will be presenting the Initial Vision Scenario before their city councils or the board of supervisors. MTC and ABAG will provide a report, PowerPoint presentation and a jurisdictional comment form that will guide the discussion and provide consistency for the collection of input from local elected officials. Planner-to planner briefings Regional planning staff will organize a Planning Directors' Forum in each county to provide technical briefings with key local planning staff to discuss the results of the Initial Vision Scenario analysis. Stakeholders meetings - In addition to the input gathered from multiple stakeholders at the Regional Advisory Working Group meetings, ABAG and MTC will schedule meetings focused on selected tasks to discuss the scenario analysis and strategies. Countywide workshops -Regional planning staff, in coordination with CMAs and local staff, will conduct public workshops in all nine counties to facilitate a discussion on the development of county visions and priorities for transportation projects. Partnerships with community organizations -MTC and ABAG are partnering with community and faith-based organizations, as well as local nonprofits, to involve low-income communities and communities of color in development of the SCS planning scenarios. Other outreach efforts- Later this spring we will conduct a telephone survey of Bay Area residents on topics such as housing and development patterns, and their views on a range of Initial Vision Scenario Page 84 k\~ strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, ahigh=profile, interactive web presence, electronic newsletters, and social media are planned to keep those interested up to date and engaged in the development of Plan Bay Area. Figure 5.1: SCS Planning Process and Timeline .:_ i~r~- ti ~r~. __ r ~i r1~- ~~, current Rayional Ptans _~. ~~~ & Iniiial~ision GHG Perforrnancc 5,-?I?a.r4~.~ ~ ~~ Tar~~ets TargcJ~ Analysis,, o ,~±ember ' N ~ January ~ .: ,nary March N Project Call for Transportation Policy & performance -Projects 'o `Investment Discussions ~ "'"~ "' " '~ Assessment .Detailed Scenarios Anal ' ysrs Preferred ~~ ... ........ ......:. .. a...... ...........~ SCS Scenario Regronai Housing Needs Allocation '~.,-' `' F~:L~ `Ongoing -- Locai Engagement & Public Outreach ~.~.,:' Regional Housing Needs Allocation ~. ~{ r' ,, r ~» l~" araTi Environmental knpactReport ~ ~~ A ......: ......... ......... ..:...... ......:'.. ......... ..:....~ •/ D0.IlFT ~• Draft RTP/SCS Plan ~} ........~ ......,., a ... ....... ......... o Januarj r November/Decembar EIR _ F,~a, , Certifications ~ ~ , Puhlic Plan --' E,NIl~ ~ u ~ ~~ , Hcanngs Adoption ~_ ~^, - o ~~.~~ ~ ._ ~. _ u Q :,rl $~ ~ o `t Initial Vision Scenario Page 85. 5.2 Development of Detailed Scenarios Several next steps exist in soliciting and collecting feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, which will need to be undertaken in coordination with local jurisdictions, as listed previously. Similarly, several tasks remain to develop the Detailed Scenarios: • The development of the SCS requires a forecast of a twenty-five year land pattern, which takes into account market and public investment constraints. The Detailed Scenarios will define those constraints. • The employment distribution was established using secondary data and based on previous forecasts (Current Regional Plans Forecast and Projections 2009). For the Detailed Scenarios, vve will use additional state and federal data sources to review the distribution of existing jobs. We will then develop alternative forecasts of job distribution through the place type approach, including an analysis of clusters and industries. We will develop a scenario with a higher proportion of employment growth in Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas in order to move closer to the goals identified in the regional performance targets. • Similarly, the Initial Vision Scenario relies primarily on the transportation network proposed in Regional Transportation Plan 2035. The Detailed Scenarios will consider alternative approaches to the expansion of transit services and transportation projects that are supportive of the proposed land pattern. ®~ The Detailed Scenarios will define the alternative packages of transportation policies, strategies, and investments required to achieve targets utilizing alternative land use patterns and housing distributions. e The Detailed Scenarios will take into account the policies utilized by the RHNA methodology. ABAG and MTC will be working with the SCS Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) to develop an approach for allocating the eight-year regional housing need to each jurisdiction in the region that meets the statutory objectives of RHNA and is consistent with the development pattern of the SCS. The HMC will discuss the criteria for consistency between RHNA and the SCS, and how best to meet local and regional sustainability goals. Initial Vision Scenario Page 86 ~~9~" ~ o ~ 6. APPENDIX 6.1 Glossary of Terms Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) - If the SCS is unable to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction target, then an APS must be prepared. The APS would show how the greenhouse gas targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure investments, or additional transportation measures or policies. The APS is a separate document from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), but may be adopted at the same time as the RTP. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 -The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan -The scoping plan developed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) has a range of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non- monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms (such as acap-and-trade system), and an AB 32 cost of implementation fee regulation to fund the program. The plan is a central requirement of AB 32.. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) -The council of governments and designated regional planning agency represent the San Francisco Bay Area's nine counties and 101 cities and towns. ABAG initiates innovative programs, projects, and partnerships to help resolve the region's economic, social, and environmental challenges, providing research and . analysis and cost-effective local government service programs. ABAG is committed to enhancing the quality of life in the Bay Area by leading the region in advocacy, collaboration, and excellence. in planning, research, and member services. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) - BAAQMD regulates industry and employers to keep air pollution in check and sponsors programs to clean the air. BAAQMD also works with ABAG, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) on issues that affect land use, transportation, and air quality. Bay Area Regional Agency Cli-mate Protection Program -This program was approved by the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) on July 20, 2007. As part of this process, ABAG established targets for assessing alternative land use scenarios in the development of the latest.iteration of Projections 2009, the region's policy-based forecast of population and employment. MTC developed the RTP update, Transportation 2035, which evaluates transportation strategies and investment programs relative to a target of reducing GHG emissions from on-road vehicles in the year 2035 by 40 percent compared to 1990 levels. , Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) - Astate-established agency with jurisdiction over dredging and filling of San Francisco Bay and limited jurisdiction over development within 100 feet of the Bay. Initial Vision Scenario Page 87 California Air Resources Board (GARB) -part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Its mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare; and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state. SB 375 requires that GARB set GHG-reduction targets for cars and light trucks in each California region for the years 2020 and 2035. California Environmental Quality Act.(CEQA) -This California law passed in 1970 requires that documentation of potential environmental impacts of development projects must be submitted prior to development. Under SB 375, housing development projects can qualify for a full CEQA exemption i£ • They do not exceed 8 acres or 200 units • They can be served by existing utilities • They will not have a significant effect on historic resources • Their buildings exceed energy efficiency standards • They provide any of the following: - 5 acres of open space - 20 percent moderate income housing - 10 percent low income housing - 5 percent very low income housing. Carbon Dioxide (COZ) - COZ is a colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas that is a normal part of the ambient air. COZ contributes the most to human-induced global warming. Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by approximately 30 percent since the industrial revolution. Clean Air Plan (CAP) - At a public hearing on September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD Board of Directors adopted the final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on the CAP. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, the 2010 CAP provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. Climate Change -Climate change refers to changes in the Earth's weather patterns, including the rise in the Earth's average temperature due to an increase in heat-trapping or greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Climate scientists agree that climate change is a man-made problem caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal. Transportation accounts for about 40 percent of the Bay Area's GHG emissions. Climate change is expected to signifcantly affect the Bay Area's public health, air quality, and transportation infrastructure through sea level rise and extreme weather.events. Complete Communities -Complete communities are those which provide the opportunity for people to live a complete day, including their work, school, services, and recreation, within the boundaries of their own neighborhoods. Complete communities offer these amenities in a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. where public transit is at least as convenient as the automobile. These neighborhoods or districts are self-sufficient by connecting transit and shopping, and are surrounded by different housing types, services, and amenities. Complete communities are Initial Vision Scenario Page 88 ~ ~ ~~ ~o ~- created through an-integrated approach to transportation planning, land use planning, and urban design with an inter-related set of policies that mutually reinforce one another. Current Regional Plans Forecast -Current Regional Plans Forecast refers to the forecast of housing and employment based on the assumptions in ABAG Projections 2009 and some input from local jurisdictions. It reduces employment growth expectations for 2035 given the current recession and economic restructuring. Detailed Scenarios -Following development of the Initial Vision Scenario, Detailed Scenarios that account for available revenues will be developed, analyzed and discussed as part of the Plan Bay Area process. (See also Initial Vision Scenario and Preferred Scenario.) . Equitable Development -Equitable development ensures that individuals and families in all communities can participate in and benefit from economic growth and activity. It is grounded in four guiding principles: the integration of people and place strategies; reduction of local and regional disparities; promotion of "double bottom line" investments; and inclusion of meaningful community voice, participation, and leadership. FOCUS - A regional planning initiative spearheaded by ABAG in cooperation with MTC, and in coordination with BAAQMD and BCDC. FOCUS seeks to protect open space and natural resources while encouraging infill development in existing communities (see PCAs and PDAs below). The FOCUS initiative encourages future growth in areas near transit and within the communities that surround the San Francisco Bay. Concentrating housing in these areas offers housing and transportation choices for all residents, while helping to reduce traffic, protect the environment, and enhance existing neighborhoods. Focused Growth -Development that reflects higher densities, mixed use, and a higher proportion of housing and employment growth in urban areas, particularly near transit stations and along transit corridors, as well as in town centers. Growth Opportunity Areas -Locations in the region identified by local jurisdictions during the development.of the Initial Vision Scenario with.potential capacity for growth. These areas may be in the process-of becoming PDAs or have different criteria to pursue sustainability focused on employment or rural characteristics. Global Warming -The progressive gradual rise of the Earth's average surface temperature thought to be caused in part by increased concentrations of GIIGs in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas (GHG) -Gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect, which causes warming of the atmosphere of the Earth. Initial Vision Scenario - As part of Plan Bay Area, the Initial Vision Scenario articulates the Bay Area's vision of future land uses and assesses its performance relative to statutory greenhouse gas and housing targets as well as other voluntary performance targets. The Initial Vision Scenario is unconstrained by available revenues. As such, it serves as a starting point for Initial Vision Scenario Page 89 . 1'.. - . ~Zo~ ~o~k the development, analysis and discussion of Detailed Scenario alternatives that will lead to a preferred scenario by early 2012. (See also Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario.) Joint Policy Committee (JPC) -The JPC coordinates the regional planning efforts of the ABAG, BAAQMD, BCDC and MTC. Among the JPC's current initiatives are focused growth, climate protection, and development of a sustainable communities' strategy pursuant to SB 375. Low-carbon emissions standards or low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) -California's LCFS requires fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state, dramatically expanding the market for alternative fuels. By 2020, the LCFS will reduce carbon content in all passenger vehicle fuels sold in California by 10 percent. - Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - A regional council of governments authorized under federal law to develop a regional transportation plan. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) -The transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC is the MPO for the Bay Area. MTC is currently working on its 2035 Transportation Plan. Particulate Matter2,; (PMz.;) -Fine particles are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. The regional target is to reduce fine particulate matter, PM2.5, by 10 percent below today's levels. Particulate Matter ~o (PM~o) -Particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less in size. The regional target is to reduce coarse particulate matter, PMio, by 45 percent over today's levels. Performance Measures -Indicators of how well the transportation system or specific transportation projects will improve transportation conditions. Place Types -Groups neighborhoods or centers with similar sustainability characteristics and physical and social qualities, such as the scale of housing buildings, frequency and type of transit, quality of the streets, concentration of jobs, and range of services. Place types area tool oflocal-regional exchange to identify places and policies for sustainable development. Bay Area jurisdictions can select a place type to indicate their desired level of growth in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay Area -One of our region's most comprehensive planning efforts to date. It is a joint effort led by ABAG and MTC in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC. All four agencies are collaborating at an unprecedented level to produce a more integrated land use-transportation plan. Priority Conservation Area (PCA) -Regionally significant open spaces for which there exists a broad consensus for long-term protection and for which public funds may be invested to promote their protection. Local jurisdictions and open space agencies identified these locations voluntarily through the FOCUS initiative. Initial Vision Scenario Page 90 Priority Development Area (PDA) -Locations within existing communities that present infill development opportunities, and are easily accessible to transit, jobs, shopping and services. Local jurisdictions identified these locations voluntarily through the FOCUS initiative. Reduction Target - A goal set by California Air Resources Board for a region to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks within a specific timeframe. RAWG (Regional Advisory Working Group) - An advisory group set up to advise staff of ABAG, _MTC, BAAQMD and BCDC on development of Plan Bay Area. Its membership includes staff representatives of local jurisdictions (CMAs, planning directors, transit operators, public works agencies) as well as representatives from the business, housing, environmental and social justice communities. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) -The Regional Housing Needs Assessment process is a state mandated planning process for housing in California. ABAG is responsible for allocating this state-determined regional housing need among all of the Bay Area's nine counties and 101 cities with assistance of a recently established SCS Housing Methodology Committee. The SCS Housing Methodology Committee is currently evaluating the factors to be used by ABAG in the current allocation process. Beginning in this current cycle, RHNAs must be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) mandated by SB 375. Local housing elements must be adopted 18 months after the next regional transportation plan. RHNA Integration -RHNA must be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SB 375 requires that the .RHNA/housing element cycle will be synchronized and coordinated with the preparation of every other RTP update, starting with the first update after 2010 (i.e., 2013). RTP updates occur every four years, and housing elements must be adopted by local governments eighteen months after the adoption of the _RTP. With a few exceptions, the region will now be on an eight-year RHNA cycle and local governments will be on eight-year housing element cycles. In addition to synchronizing with the preparation of the RTP and the SCS, the RHNA allocation must be consistent with the development pattern included in the SCS. The resolution approving the RHNA shall demonstrate consistency with the Bay Area's implementation of SB 375 and the SCS. Regional Performance Targets -Both ABAG and MTC used performance targets in developing the Regional Transportation Plan and Projections 2009. Performance targets include limiting greenfield development to 900 acres per year, or 22,500 acres over the 2010-2035 time period. Additional targets include increasing non-auto access to jobs and services by 20 percent, by 2035, and reducing daily vehicle miles traveled (V1V1T) per capita by 10 percent, compared to 2006 levels. Other targets include increasing access to jobs and essential services via transit or walking by 20 percent above today's levels; reducing driving per person by 10 percent below today's levels; reducing traffic congestion, measured by hours of delay, by 20 percent below today's levels; and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) - A transportation plan which is developed every four or five years that, among other things, outlines a region's transportation investments. The Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan is called Transportation 2035 Plan and it is the long-range planning document of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The plan has a 25-year Initial Vision Scenario Page 91 ~(~~' O~ horizon and serves as a comprehensive blueprint for investment strategies for maintaining, managing and improving the surface transportation network in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The plan determines how the region will spend nearly $218 billion in local, regional, state and federal funds that are projected to be available to the Bay Area over the next 25 years. SB 375 Transportation and Land Use Planning Act of 2008 -The act mandates an integrated regional land-use-and-transportation-planning approach to reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles and light trucks, principally by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 375 requires that the California Air Resources Board (GARB) set GHG- reduction targets for cars and light trucks in each California region for the years 2020 and 2035. SB 375 provides incentives for creating attractive, walkable and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. SB 375 also changes the state Housing Element law by linking regional planning efforts for transportation and housing. Under the bill, all transportation and housing planning processes are put on the same eight=year schedule and must be updated once every eight years. The Sustainable Communities Strategy, RTP and RHNA will be developed together through a single and integrated cross agency work program with the JPC. SB 375 Implementation - SB 375 explicitly assigns responsibilities to ABAG and to the MTC to implement the bill's provisions for the Bay Area. Both agencies are members of the Joint Policy Committee (JPC). The polices in this document were approved by the JPC and provide guidance to the two lead regional agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities in collaboration with their JPC partners, BAAQ.MD and BCDC. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) -Apart of the Regional Transportation Plan that predicts a likely growth pattern for the region. The SCS lays out how emissions reductions will be met. This strategy becomes part of the Regional Transportation Plan. It does incorporate the 1ZHNA requirement to provide housing to accommodate all income groups while meeting reduction targets. SB 375 requires the regional transportation plan for regions of the state with a metropolitan transportation planning organization to adopt an SCS. Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) -The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) is the CEQA document that will.be prepared to review `transit priority projects' that are consistent with the adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy. The SCEA is not required to reference, describe, or discuss growth inducing impacts or any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network. The lead agency's decision to review and approve a transit priority project with the SCEA shall be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) - A type of development that links land use and transportation facilities to support public transit systems and help reduce sprawl, traffic congestion and air pollution. Transit-oriented developments include housing, along with complementary public uses (jobs, retail and services), at a strategic point along a regional transit system, such as a rail hub. Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) - M"I'C's TLC Program provides funding for projects that provide for a range of transportation choices, support connectivity between Initial Vision Scenario ~ ~ Page 92 transportation investments and land uses, and are developed through an inclusive community planning effort. The purpose of TLC Program is to support community-based transportation projects that bring new vibrancy to downtown areas, commercial cores, neighborhoods, and transit corridors, enhancing their amenities and ambiance and making them places where people want to live, work and visit. Transit Priority Projects -Projects that contain at least 50 percent residential use; have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre; have afloor-area-ratio for the commercial portion of the project at 0.75; and are located within '/2 mile of either a rail stop, a ferry terminal, or a bus line with 15-minute headways. Initial Vision Scenario ~ Page 93 Gl to ~-~I ~ 6.2 MTC Station Area Planning Manual Place Type Identification Matrix _ svopsanp Su~l~quap~ dax s # c c ~ ~ t. ° 3 5 v y~ L V ~_ ~L. Z w ~ nom. Q v (1) A. O ~ ~ a' o ~' r. ~? ~ o.s ~~c. .^ ~~~ ~ m ~~~ .o u i ~ '~ ~J' ~ _ ~ ~~ v5 ~, a .. a 8 - ~ ~ 2 ' - ~ .gyn. n ~ .T `- ~ ' ~S zY ~ : ,~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ p sA 1 ~ ~ ~ ^_. GA ~ % I ...i t . W a ~ t Z ~ j "ffi~~ a.a.~F '~.4 ' ~ ~ ~ v c G I ~ ~ ,: Jt - ~ ~ ~ ire U ~ Y ~ G ~ v Ys '~ w m p ~ E, p L ~it ~ ~ 1 33 '~ 3 ~. ~ .~ ~ ~ ] F W ~ - ~ _ 3 _ c ~ i :. _,'.J _ ,.~.~..... _ . „ a 4. C 9 ~ x,,,, ~ - ~ ~. w II S~ yy ~ C1 '~ pp{ T _ ~ ~ VJ ~ f ~' > ~ C E"' 4C S' v 's 3 ~ ~~`' '~ .e ~ 3 i ......._«. .. ..... ... ......_.._.._......... . .. _.. _ ............_ ~ ~ v w, ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ '3 , ~ t~ - ~Cnn~ ~ W r ~ 4. .CSi ~.. .~ .a ~' ~o ~{~ti` w n r < 3 j, L~ ~ ~ 1 v O ~ v°' G ~ ~ ~ y 4 V , ~ j .,~. F '. 9..r3 L9 2' ~ i . W i t '~i a ~ .p ~ ~ ~ s p a i1 5 y f :~i r 3 ~ t ~ .V 1.: ,~ r, G 7 ~E~ ~.~ ~'~..5 ='y m a ~ .~ ~ -~ ~ . ~'.. d ti rn I e i; ~ ~ W ~ ~ O ~ 4Y c C y~ J `~ G +~ G 1" y ~, O O ~ }} b.C. q ~~ al ~ Q ~ W C {.. 'N_' tE 'J ~ :1 `mss' .~ ~ m ~ C y % N ~ IS L C ~ ~' fT~yC~ U $ W ~ ~ ~ W ~ .A V +r b ~ y ~ } ~ ~ 1 j ~ E'S suogsanj~Su~~14ua-idaN ~ sa;oy Initial Vision Scenario Page 94 }.1 _ _- _ N ~ ~ w oLL ~!- ~ ~ ° ~ z C ~ Q v~ ~ i .r ~ •O ~ ~ O~ N E 3T Q 7 ~ .~ L ~ o~ C L ~ > o =-- Q ~ ~ - Q S N N o ~ a~ o f ~, ^ , f6 °~ V°J p~ oa®' ~ I I ~~ ~a ~~ `~, ~~ ~,~ ,~ ~ Q ~, ~~ ''~ ~ ~ z Q~ a 7 ~ m LL ~ ~ r Q I O DR ~ ~~ ~'a"°"' ~N _. i ' i ~ ~ ~~y i lL i 0 L ~ ~ :~ as vaerdssvt ~ i ~' aavavrossvt , I U (' I f^~~ o, II ~ ~, c O ~ ~ ,~ ro l9 ~~d'bg ~ w ~ i v W m IIJI C L~ ~n J m Z i} m (] i ~, _ --- -- O VON3DVH j (l I-~~ I ~ ~ ~ ` N `` ~ ~ ~ },! ~ ~ .Q ~ L Q a.J 1t V v D~ ~ '~' p 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ 4CCJ C ~ v o d ~ ~ .4+ •~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ V G fJ~=~ 0 U U N I'~~I ;: " ~ a i f a m t O m ~. ~ ^ >, . ~ m r e ~ 'o ~ m ~ .~ ~ v p a rn ~ , ~, M o LL f'w ~ v m~ z o N~ o o N W o 0 ~5 ~ o w6 ~~ "mU o ° E d d' w ebb F a ~ ~~;~, o ~~~~ 0 p 0 o d 0 0 0 0 0 -i `! ~ i1 ~, ~_. ~~~~ = ; wJ ~~ ~f> ~ _ ~ ~~~ ~r~~,;,_~~~~y ~~~ ~- j~ ~`• ~. ~~~ ~~ ,n>% ~~ ter` Ya ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ti a~ ~ ` - a f ~ ;~` _, -~ .._~ ~ o `~i N ~ ~•~~ Q a ~y ~ O ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VT 1 ,~ O ~ ~ d Q ~ j O ~ V / a~ a o a~ ~ a i ^ >. a L ~ N h _~ z oLL N~ Wo 0 a~ ~ o Ns N =°- x o EoaU ~ d w ~> F °o ~= ~' ~ -- o 0 0 O N ~ V O O ~ O 4 ~ V '/~ 4 M1 6 t I t 4 f @f l ~ N~ y ` t 4 ~ I I f V r Vt I ` Vt \ t ~" 'LA s~ yIy w ~ ~ i ~~ ~ V ~ ~ f a-i p q ~q ~ ~; ° ~*' ~ r, 8 ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~1 E m ti. '" ._. ~ ... _..i,.. ...I . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ,.q 1 f~~ / ;......_._. . ~ r. V. \' A ~ ~' ~ r w C c_~~ ri , .a, i w M,...r ... ~. ~, ,. ,r .. ,ry / ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~_.. _. ~ , 1 air„ _. , : ( ' ~~_ ~. ~~ u„ ,- tx ~ , .,.. _ . ~,. .. r' ~ ~ r , ~ y ,~,. .. ~• J ~'" r~ .. ~ ~,.. _„ ~ _ ... `i ~.,. x ~,, , ~ ~ ' _ ,~~ i ~ I~' .... ~ .... .. ....... v> v . , ! //~"/ ~. .~....~ ~ ~ 0 ~. . 4 , ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ wr," "`"~`a ~ ~ ~ ri. ~~ d , ,„ f `y _ B\Il ., i M,. /, U~^li J ~' C7 a~ ' M m, ~ ~ , +u. ~ ,fig' y ~+ ~t yip ~ .. ` ..n III Illiil 4 r ~ ~ q~i ~ ^d ~~ryyy ~6 ~~p~ y+ Wi w ~ a~ ~ ~ " ~ tll; ~" ~ 45 ~ ~ ,. v. ... II w ~ ~ . .' ~~ / ` R ,.t ,., µ ~ y w 4 ~ ~ ~ U G .._ '1 ~~ ~ p~+~ ~ ~~ ~fi ... a ~ ~ - tl '~ lfl Ch9 ,I L ~ . a ~~ qq ~ " ' E 45. 'U S (jj ~' ~ , e~ ~sy, gv na C ~ .~ a si L i~~ v a ~ .J ~ 1 i ~ C n 6 F .Y~ ~ ~CT~ ~: .p lri pay q n '. VY " -. ~ °° .~ ~. o n °°^°pp .,.J pp~~ b,.., ~ V r 3 "^ m ~ S «'~ ' ~. d ~~ ~, b ~ I ~ ~uiu ~. . , N ~~ n ,., o uu u . ,i uuPpl llll u. ~~~~ ll ~~ ' [P~~ i C.~~~ OF DU~~~ /~~'~, 19r C~~=' =i~),SZ `\ \7~1 1~~//~ `O~LIF`~/OR~~~ May 25, 2011 CITY OF DUBLIN -- 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://vvww.dublin.ca.gov s ~~~' Metropolitan Transportation Commission Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Subject: Initial Vision Scenario Questions for Elected Officials To Whom It May Concern: Following the release of the Initial Vision Scenario in March 2011, local jurisdictions were asked to solicit input from their elected officials on a series of questions. Those questions and the City of Dublin's response to them are as follows: 1) Is the proposed place type appropriate for your Priority Development Area(s)? Given. the availability of resources, is the proposed urban scale, mix of uses, and expected household growth appropriate? All of Dublin's PDAs have a Place Type designation of "Suburban Center". The City feels that this is the most appropriate Place Type designation based on the characteristics of Dublin's 3 PDAs (Dublin Town Center, Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area). The City does not believe that the Initial Vision Scenario's expected household growth rate is appropriate and recommends that the allocation of housing units be adjusted to align with the City's current Planning documents for each PDA. This would include 6, 072 housing units in the Dublin Town Center PDA; 3, 300 housing units in the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossing PDA; and 1,300 housing units in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan PDA. 2) What transportation improvements would help to support those Priority Development Area(s) in your jurisdiction? Transportation and infrastructure has been sized to accommodate the development potential anticipated by the City of Dublin. The allocation of housing units within the Initial Vision Scenario exceeds what is planned and likely to occur within the Dublin Town Center and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs. Therefore additional Area Code (925) ~ City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 ~ Parks & Community Services 833-6645 ~ Police 833 ~~I'ACHIVIENT .7 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 analysis would need to be done. Street improvements and pedestrian enhancements within fhe Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA would help support and encourage planned transit oriented development within this PDA by making streets and sidewalks more pedestrian friendly. Improvements to the Iron Horse Trail from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard and the widening of Dougherty Road to accommodate transit and bicyclists would encourage and facilitate greater pedestrian and bicycle access to the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA. Additionally, a pedestrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing along the Iron Horse Trail at Dougherty Road and at Dublin Boulevard would increase pedestrian and bicycle safety at these roadway crossings. 3) What additional funding would be needed to support housing growth? The City does not believe that the Initial Vision Scenario's expected household growth rate is appropriate and recommends that the allocation of housing units be adjusted to align with current City of Dublin Planning documents for each PDA. The maximum development potential for each PDA is as follows: Priority Development PDA 'Revised PDA ;IVS ' ' Area (PDA) Housing Unit Housing Unit Housing Unit Difference Number Number Number Dublin Town Center 4,108 6,072 6,672 +600 Dublin Transit Center/ 3 796 300 3 541 2 -759 Dublin.Crossin s , , , ~. Downtown Dublin 541 1 300 156 2 +856 S ecific Plan , , Totals 8,445 10,672 11,369. , +697 4) If the Initial Vision Scenario growth estimate is too high, should some of the. growth be shifted, to another part of your jurisdiction, elsewhere in the County or elsewhere in the region? The City of Dublin feels that the Initial Vision Scenario growth estimate exceeds what is planned for the Dublin Town Center and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs and is lower than what is planned or. anticipated for the Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA. Some of the development potential could be shifted from the Dublin _ Town Center and/or Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs to the Dublin Transit '~ ` ~ Center%Dublin Crossings PDA; however Dublin's PDAs are not planned to accommodate all of the housing units the Initial vision Scenario allocates. The City of Dublin believes the job growth identified in the Initial Vision Scenario falls short of the actual potential growth. The City estimated 44,901 jobs at ultimate build ouf with approximately 17,994 of those jobs being within PDAs. 5) What are the challenges for your local jurisdiction to attract and retain jobs that match your local workforce? The physical layout of Dublin as a linear community primarily along the 1-580, lends itself to being attractive for retail uses, Thus retail jobs. This is in stark contrast to the housing stock and real estate prices in Dublin, which attract a skilled, high wage workforce that exceeds what the market can provide in retail-oriented jobs. With respect to the market Area Code (925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 -Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 -Parks & Community Services 833-6645 ~ Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 l ~e~ ~o~ for affice development, Dublin sifs between two of the largest business pars rn Northern California with ample space to accommodate users. However, Dublin has found a niche with a limited amount of campus office and corporate office for businesses wanting visibility that comes with being located along I-580. When it comes to industrial lands, . the land values and development fees are generally too high to support construction of large scale industrial development. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Vision Scenario and respectfully request that the housing unit allocations and job growth projections to our three Priority Development Areas be adjusted in the Detailed Scenario to reflect the development potential planned for in existing City of Dublin Planning documents. Regards, Jeri Ram, AICP • Community Development Director CC: Joni Pattillo, City Manager Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager - ~ . ~ Jeff Baker, Planning Manager ,- .. ~ .. . Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner G:ISCS -Sustainable Communities Strategyllnitial Vision ScenariollVS Comment Ltr to ABAG.doc ,. Area Code (925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Works/Engineering $33-6630 ~ Parks & Community Services 833-6645 • Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 ~.~ O~ DU~~~ MINUTES OF THE CITY CEO N CIL ,`` OF THE CITY OF DU ~ 1 ~ $~ REGULAR MEETING - May 17, 2011 CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:29:47 PM ,regarding: I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1 potential case Facts and circumstances: Letter from Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld dated March 22, 2011 II. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Attorney III. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1 case A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, in the City Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:14:11 PM , by Mayor Sbranti. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti ABSENT: ~~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Sbranti stated there was no reportable action during Closed Session. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 VOLUME 30 ,~~~ D~ REGULAR MEETING 19~~~ir_~~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~\ ~ /~ ~tcr gN~ ~' ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Certificates of Recognition for Hiah School Student Volunteers at Dublin Library 7:18:51 PM 3.1 610-50 The City Council presented Certificates of Recognition to High School student volunteers at Dublin Library. . ~-i - _ Youth Advisory Committee Appointments 7:14:56 PM 3.2 110-30 Director of Parks and Community Services Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that the Mayor was recommending the appointment of three middle school and ten high school youth, along with three alternates, to the Youth Advisory Committee for the term of June 2011 through May 2012. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment to the Youth Advisory Committee as follows: Rebecca DeGuzman, Cassidy Hearne, Jeanina Ng, Kush Rastogi, Grace Li, Visesha Kakarla. Sophia Bafaiz, Akshay Aitha, Vivian Sung, Marcos Castro, Gabriela Vasquez, Gabrielle Basile, and Shilpa Stanley. Alternates appointed as follows: Brianna Barnes, Vinootna Kakarla, and Dilpreet Anand. Mayor's Appointment of Student Representative to Parks and Community Services Commission 7:16:37 PM 3.3 110-30 Director of Parks and Community Services Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that seven applications were received for the Student Representative to the Parks and Community Services Commission and the Mayor was recommending the appointment of Dublin High School student Jasmine Bafaiz. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment to Jasmine Bafaiz as Parks and Community Services Student Representative. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 VOLUME 30 G`~yOFD~ REGULAR MEETING i9~~~'/~~s~ MAY 17, 2011 ~\ ~ /~ Gc, ass ~' 2011 Business Anniversary Awards 7:17:56 PM 3.4 610-50 Economic Development Director Linda Maurer presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would recognize those businesses that have been in Dublin 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 years. The City Council presented plaques to those businesses that have been in Dublin for 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 years. Public Comments 7:39:02 PM 3.5 Bob Tucknott, Dublin resident, requested the following be read into the record: "The Dublin Rotary Club is requesting a variance to the Ordinance that limits the time a public entertainment venture (Circus Vargas) can play from 10 days to 13. The Rotary uses the money made to benefit the community." Charles MclCeag, public speaker, thanked the City for the efforts taken the last five years regarding the Arroyo Vista project. ~,, CONSENT CALENDAR 7:42:32 PM Items 4.1 through 4.7. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm. Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meetings of May 3, 2011. Adopted (4.2 1000-20) ORDINANCE N0.5 -11 DELETING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.88 RELATING TO WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.88 RELATING TO WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 VOLUME 30 OF~DpR, REGULAR MEETING 19i~~'/^'~y~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~~ ~~%/~ IttpR~ Adopted (4.3 600-35) RESOLUTION NO. 56 -11 ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS TO CIVIC CENTER SECURITY SYSTEM and approved Change Order #2. Adopted (4.4 600-60) RESOLUTION NO. 57 -11 ACCEPTING PARK LAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEES FOR PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EDEN PORTION OF TRACT 7943, ARROYO VISTA Adopted (4.5 350-40) RESOLUTION N0.58 -11 AUTHORIZING THE USE OF ECS REFINING FOR THE RECYCLING OF CITY ELECTRONIC WASTE AND SURPLUS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND DECLARING CERTAIN ITEMS AS SURPLUS PROPERTY Adopted (4.6 820-40) RESOLUTION N0.59 -11 ALLOCATING FUNDING FOR CITYWIDE STORM REPAIRS Approved (4.7 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Consideration of Request from Janet Lockhart to Place a Plaque Recognizing Dave and Bea Burton at the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums 7:44:28 PM 5.1 (395-30) Director of Parks and Community Services Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a request from Janet Lockhart to place a plaque at DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 VOLUME 30 ~oeDC~ REGULAR MEETING ai~~ir_~~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~\ .,~" ~~ Gw R~,m the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums to recognize the generosity of Dave and Bea Burton for their contributions to the community. Janet Lockhart, Dublin resident, stated the Burtons had history in the area and suggested that something be put in writing so that the request for the plaque would be fulfilled in the future. Guy Houston, Dublin resident, stated no one knew when the project would be completed, so he would also like the request be put in writing so it would not be forgotten. Cm. Swalwell stated he agreed that the request should be memorialized. Cm. Biddle stated he thought there might be a future need for plaques and the Orchard Garden would be a good location. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she agreed with Ms. Lockhart's and Mr. Houston's request. The City Council makeup would change and it was important to preserve the Burtons' memory. Vm. Hart stated he concurred with the previous comments. Mayor Sbranti stated Dave Burton was a champion of the bell tower at the Historic Park. On motion of Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council directed Staff to memorialize that, when funds were available, a plaque in honor of Dave and Bea Burton be placed on the grounds at the Heritage Park and Museums in' the Orchard Garden. Consideration of Request from Dublin Sister City Association for Waiver of Rental fees for International Friendship Soccer Tournament 7:53:17 PM 5.2 (950-50) Assistant Director of Parks and Community Service Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a request from the Dublin Sister City Association for a waiver of fees for use of City facilities and soccer fields for the Dublin Sister City International Friendship Soccer Tournament. Janet Lockhart, Dublin resident and President of the Sister City Association, stated they had been working with various groups to organize the Soccer Tournament and had managed to get two title sponsors. Cm. Swalwell stated he was in favor of the request. Vm. Hart stated this kind of event was what made cities great. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 VOLUME 30 ~~OFDpRI REGULAR MEETING l~~ir_~~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~\ Gt~rnRes On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the request from the Dublin Sister City Association and directed Staff to waive the fees for the Tournament events. ~. PUBLIC HEARINGS Scarlett Court Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code related to the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District (Chapter 8.34), PLPA-2011-00019 8:02:01 PM 6.1 (450-20) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Principal Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that one of the high priority Economic Development Goals and Objectives for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year was to examine appropriate locations to permit automotive repair businesses within the City. Staff had identified locations in the City where additional auto-related uses would be appropriate, and had drafted changes to the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate their development. Staff was proposing amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. The proposed amendments would streamline the process to allow auto-related uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District by means of a Zoning Clearance or Minor Use Permit. The amendments included modifications to Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), Chapter 8.34 (Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District), and Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance). Vm. Hart asked for confirmation that this would riot have any impact on existing businesses in the area. Ms. Bascom stated that was correct. Guy Houston, Dublin resident, stated he was in favor of the proposal. Doreen Green, Dublin resident, stated this was awin-win situation. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Biddle and by unanimous vote, the City Council introduced an Ordinance Amending Chapters 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses), 8.34 (Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District), and 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) of the Zoning Ordinance for Auto-Related Uses in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 VOLUME 30 G,~oF~oo~ REGULAR MEETING i9r~~~~az MAY 17, 2011 ~~ ~ ~~ ~4G1 R~~ Avalon Bay Communities, Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) for (1) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan and Development Agreement submitted by Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.; and (2) the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review for Avalon Bav Communities, Inc PA 06.060 (appeal filed by Carpenters Local 713) 8:08:08 PM 6.2 (400-20/410-30/450-30/600-60) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Planning Consultant Mike Porto and Assistant City Attorney Timothy Cremin presented the Staff Report and advised that the proposed project, Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C), was a residential project comprised of 505 apartment units, a 4,223 square foot fitness center, 733 spaces of structured parking within two buildings, 25 private, on-street parking spaces, and 40 public on-street parking spaces on a combined 7.2-acre site located within the Transit Center Village planning area. Cm. Biddle stated the Development Agreement for this project was consistent with the City's other development agreements except for the modification of the inclusionary housing. City Attorney John Bakker stated the particular situation in terms of inclusionary housing had to do with a prior court case that dealt with the rent control statute that gave the owners of residential rental projects the right to set initial rents. In the court case, it was argued that the provision of State law meant cities' inclusionary zoning ordinances may not restrict the amount of rent that cities could charge or that applicants and/or developers could charge their tenants. The applicant asserted that case in the course of the processing of this project. Staff disputed that, primarily because previously they agreed to comply with the City's ordinance. Ultimately the City agreed that it would not enforce the rent restriction requirements. The City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance restricted the rent that could be charged, and also restricted who could occupy those units. It required that the occupants of the units be of moderate income. The rent would not be restricted but the households that could rent those particular units would be restricted to moderate income households. Staff determined that limitation, in and of itself, would restrict the amounts the Applicant could charge for rent because they would not have the entire marketplace of households to rent to because they could only rent to moderate income households. Presently, market rents were at the moderate income level. That would not always be the case. Cm. Biddle noted the project called for the first floor to be built as residential, but could be converted to commercial. Mr. Porto stated there were two distinct areas of the buildings. Areas that faced the plaza and the two units near the fitness center on Iron Horse Parkway. Those units would be constructed DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 30 G~~OF~~DpB~ REGULAR MEETING (9'~`-"~~~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~~ '~" /~ in such a manner that they could be converted at a later date to some type of a commercial use. Scott Littlehale, representative of the Appellant, Carpenters Local Union No. 713, stated he would address the exemptions that had been claimed by the City for this project. It had been stated earlier that it hinged on being identical to the project analyzed in the prior EIR. The Appellant pointed out in their letter to the City that there had been a shift of 100 units from one site to a site closer to I-580. That was relevant because it was a point source of contaminants to residents of the project. He was pleased that the applicant would address that item. Significant and unavoidable impacts were a relevant question. Conditions had, in fact, changed in Dublin and the region. There had been changes in the physical environment and the state of the science on impacts to the physical environment and recommended mitigations. The policy environment had also changed, specifically in the area of green house gas emissions. Their expert found that the emissions were ten times above the threshold set for screening criteria by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Subsequent to the 2002 EIR, there had been a number of mitigations that had been provided as available to cities and project proponents to mitigate those impacts. The CEQA section that had to do with exceptions to an exemption notes that mitigation measures or alternatives which were considerably different than those analyzed in the previous EIR and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the project proponents declined to adopt them or alternative was grounds for taking exception to the claiming of an exemption. Amongst other grounds, they based their comments on that. Changes in the physical environment that had and could occur in a ten-year period of time since the actual data was collected for the EIR that was certified in 2002, the cumulative impacts analysis for transportation impacts was based on a number of approved and potentially pending Dublin projects. It would be beneficial for the people of Dublin and the region to have a supplemental EIR conducted. Jeff White, Avalon Bay representative, stated they were here to build the vision the City had in the early 2000s for a transit center and had been working in a collaborative way with the City to do just that. The project had morphed several times within the last two years. They had the approval of the Planning Commission. They were very proud of the project. There had been some concerns raised about air quality. They would perform the mitigation that had been adopted by the BAAQMD and the City of San Francisco which had been on the forefront of dealing with this issue in the Bay Area. Whether there was an issue or not, they would have a mitigation in place. There were also a number of other mitigation measures outlined in the letter presented to the City. Miles Imwalle, Attorney for Avalon Bay, stated they had reviewed the new letter submitted by the Appellant and did not find that there was significant new information. However, the Applicant did modify the project voluntarily to include a filtration device that had been recommended. Robert Klein, Dublin resident, stated this project concerned him as this information was approved in 2001/2002. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 30 ~gOFDpB REGULAR MEETING iu~ ~u/ ~~ MAY 17, 2011 I`\~~~/~ ~~~~~ John Dalrymple, public speaker, stated he did not remember the inclusionary housing element mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting. The City should be thoughtful of how they were changing the inclusionary housing element. This could be setting precedence. Mr. Littlehale stated the exemption being claimed was for a residential project only and now it was said it might be converted. The purpose of CEQA was to try to deal with the costs of mitigating impacts. Mr. White stated this was a great project. There might be some concerns about air quality and they were going to mitigate them. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. Mayor Sbranti asked if, in regard to affordable housing, it was part of the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Bakker stated it was contained in the version that went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto stated it was presented but the Planning Commission did not elevate it to a discussion level. Mayor Sbranti asked if the rationale for what was included in the DA relative to inclusionary housing had to do with the fact that the median affordable unit price was so close to the market price. Mr. Bakker stated that was one of the rationales. The other was by limiting persons that could rent the units to those of moderate income, it tended to reduce the rents as well. State law was limiting cities' ability to enforce rent restrictions included in inclusionary zoning ordinances. Cm. Hildenbrand stated the Applicant was providing more than the 7.5% affordable housing usually required in a DA. Mayor Sbranti stated that was correct. Usually the agreement was to provide 7.5% affordable housing, but the Applicant was going to have 10% affordable housing. Mr. Bakker stated, when the County did the transit center project, they proposed 15% across the entire transit center project. They satisfied the low and very low requirements on a specific parcel. The remaining 10% would be built in place of paying in-lieu fees on any of the 12.5% to 15%. Mayor Sbranti asked what would happen when the market went back up. Would these units still be restricted in terms of pool of occupants? City Manager Pattillo directed the City Council to a specific page in the Staff Report, Condition 17, "The Applicant/Developer shall provide a minimum 10°lo moderate income units of the total DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 30 ~OFDp~ REGULAR MEETING i9~~`-"r~~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~\ ~ /~ ~4LIFOR S units actually constructed within the project. Unit affordability shall be between 80% and 120% of the area median income. Affordable unit types shall be equally dispersed with the same ratio as market rate units in accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. Any changes to the affordable units must first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development." Vm. Hart asked for confirmation of the Appellant's issues. Were they the greenhouse gas issue, the physical changes of the project that would now cause a Supplemental EIR, and Pleasanton's potential growth based on its EIR. Mr. Cremin stated yes, those were the three main issues the Appellant had, which included Pleasanton's projected growth plan. Cm. Hildenbrand stated when Staff was referring to the 1,000 feet, there was only a small portion of the project that fell into that area. It was more of a corner. Mr. Porto stated that was correct. Cm. Swalwell stated the Applicant was voluntarily willing to put in an air filtration system. Could that condition be placed in the DA? Mr. Cremin stated Staff's recommendation was that the City accept it as a modification of the plan that the Applicant submitted. It would be part of the City's approval process. Tonight, part of the City's Council's motion would be to approve the voluntary measure that was submitted today in a letter dated May 17, 2011. Staff would not recommend putting it in the DA as it was a voluntary measure that the Applicant was proposing; not aCity-required element. Cm. Swalwell asked what would happen if the Applicant came back arid did not include that air filtration system. Mr. Cremin stated the Applicant would be inconsistent with the approval and the City would have enforcement mechanisms to address it. Mayor Sbranti asked, in regard to the exemptions under CEQA, if Staff could summarize the three elements where the project was exempt. Mr. Cremin stated the three elements were that it was a residential project consistent with the Specific Plan which has an EIR for that Specific Plan. It was a residential project that was interpreted to include ancillary uses. Mayor Sbranti asked about the exceptions to the exemptions. Mr. Cremin stated the Appellant was claiming there were three exceptions to the exemptions: 1) Substantial changes to the project which required major revisions to the EIR due to new or. substantially more severe impacts. The City's response was that the City did not see DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10 VOLUME 30 G`~,~OF DUB REGULAR MEETING i9r~~i-~~si MAY 17, 2011 ' \` ~ //l ~'rGIFOR~~~ substantial changes in the project from what was described in the Specific Plan. 2) Substantial changes occurring to circumstances under which the project was undertaken. The City's response was in companion with changed circumstance. You had to show major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased impacts. CEQA had a disclosure requirement and disclosed that. The City disclosed that and entities had the opportunity to comment on it. 3) New information component spoke of not only new information, but the key component was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified. This was important because the criteria that could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence was basically a mechanism of CEQA to prevent re-openers. There was new information annually so you could continue the process repeatedly. Cm. Biddle stated the project had been planned for a long time as atransit-oriented development. It was time to move ahead with it. Vm. Hart stated the City had I-580 and I-680 and knew there were potential emissions issues. Part of the EIR did take that into consideration. He was not convinced the City had any kind of significant and/or substantial change in the greenhouse gas issue. There were also no significant changes to the layout as originally described in the EIR. In regard to Pleasanton, there was no guarantee of what it would do. It had been a thorough EIR study. He did not believe the Appealeant had met the proof he would need to approve the appeal. Cm. Hildenbrand stated the processes had been completed, and if it had not been for the slowdown, this project would have been built. It had been planned and the project met the requirements. This was a good plan and the City should stay committed. There was not significant reason to do a new EIR. Cm. Swalwell stated this was a site near the BART station and would take cars off the road. The air would get better with cars off the road. It was a better project for the inclusion of the air filters. Mayor Sbranti stated he supported what the City Council had said. When the City adopted the Climate Action Plan, the BAAQMA actually had referred to elements relative to this project and others. Staffs response to the BAAQMD included mitigation and BAAQMD signed off on the Plan. He stated he also encouraged Avalon Bay developers to include apprentices in the project. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council introduced an Ordinance Approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment/Stage 2 Development Plan and Finding the Project Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act for Avalon Bay Communities, Site C', Dublin Transit Center; and introduced an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement and Finding the Project Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act for Dublin Station, Site C, Dublin Transit Center, between the City of Dublin and Avalon Bay Communities; and adopted DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 VOLUME 30 G~~OF~~DpB~ REGULAR MEETING ~9~~`-"r~~~ MAY 17, 2011 ~\ ~ /~ D`iL/FOR~~ RESOLUTION N0.60 -11 AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7929 AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER (APN 986-0054-005-02), PA 06-060 with the amendment made by the Applicant to the project: 9:19:30 PM Mayor Sbranti called for a short recess. 9:27:50 PM The .meeting was called back to order with all City Councilmembers present. -- . UNFINISHED BUSINESS Replacement of Day on the Glen Festival 9:34:02 PM 7.1 (950-40) Director of Parks and Community Service Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff would present afollow-up report on potential themes for a replacement festival for Day on the Glen starting in fall 2012. The two potential themes for consideration by the City Council included a Pasta and VUne Festival and an International Festival. Cm. Swalwell asked with the international theme, if they could include international wines. Ms. Lowart stated Staff had not considered that yet. Mayor Sbranti asked how many people on average attended Day on the Glen. Ms. Lowart stated it was close to 30,000 over two days. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 VOLUME 30 ~yOFDp~ REGULAR MEETING 19i~~'/~~~ MAY 17, 2011 `\ ~ /~ Gc~ u`'m Mayor Sbranti stated he sat through a portion. of the Parks and Community Services Commission meeting when it was discussed and they liked the idea of the Pasta festival with an international flair. Cm. Swalwell stated he was in favor of the international pasta and wine festival. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she liked the international theme. It might be called International Noodle Festival, not pasta, or International Food and Wine festival. Vm. Hart stated he was supportive of an International Food and Wine Festival. He did not believe they should go all out with the international part. It should be marketed appropriately. Cm. Biddle stated they should go forward with an International Food and Wine Festival. Mayor Sbranti asked if Staff knew of anything comparable in the area. Ms. Lowart stated there was one in San Francisco. Vm. Hart stated some people were turned off by the term international. Ms. Lowart stated Staff was looking to get some direction from the City Council and then explore the options. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she was trying to envision what it would look like. Ms. Lowart stated Staff had not reached that level of detail yet. Mayor Sbranti stated he liked the direction they were headed. Focus could be recruiting Dublin restaurants, but Tri-Valley restaurants would also be good. There was a lot of exploring to do. The City Council directed Staff to further develop a food and wine theme for a new festival to be reintroduced in 2012, and work on event components. Positano Development -Neighborhood Park 9:56:08 PM 7.2 (600-35) Parks and Facilities Coordinator Rosemary Alex presented the Staff Report and advised that the 2010-2015 City of Dublin Capital Improvement Program included funding for the design and construction of one of two Neighborhood Parks located in the Positano Development. As part of the design process, Staff was seeking City Council approval on the preferred Conceptual Park Design for the 4.6 acre park located in the Positano Development. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 VOLUME 30 ~~OF D REGULAR MEETING i9 ~~~-~~si MAY 17, 2011 `` ~ ~~ G~i Re's Dick Alseena, Landscape Architect with MPA Design, discussed options for the park, including the preferred option, and its details. Cm. Hildenbrand asked where art in the park could go. Mr. Alseena pointed out the location on the diagram. Mayor Sbranti asked if the park only had street parking. Mr. Alseena stated it was all street parking. Vm. Hart stated there should be additional bike parking spots. Mayor Sbranti asked if, after the bids, the options go to the Parks and Community Services Commission. Ms. Alex stated typically, when the City went to bid, Staff knew what could be impacted and would bring it back to the City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the preferred Conceptual Park Design, and authorized the Consultant to proceed with preparation of construction documents. Vii. NEW BUSINESS Sustainable Communities Stratepy Initial Vision Scenario 10:19:04 PM 8.1 (430-50) Senior Planner Marnie Waffle presented the Staff Report and advised that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy for the nine-county Bay Area region in accordance with Senate Bill 375 and were soliciting comments from local jurisdictions on the distribution of housing units to accommodate the region's population growth over the next 25 years as well as projected job growth. The proposed allocation of housing units and job growth to the City of Dublin was not consistent with current Planning policies. Vm. Hart stated he was confused how ABAG could show such a significant growth. Ms. Waffle stated the State of California came up with the projected 900,000 housing units and gave ABAG the responsibility to disseminate those throughout the Bay Area. ABAG looked at the priority development areas, the designations that each city received, and allocated units to those priority development areas based on transportation improvements and anticipated future transit investments. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14 VOLUME 30 ~yOFDp~ REGULAR MEETING i9~~~~~az MAY 17, 2011 `\ Vm. Hart stated that sounded arbitrary. Cm. Hildenbrand stated this was discussed at a workshop on Saturday. It should be looked at by region. There was a disproportionate number of housing units that the City could get because it was still growing. The City had Transportation Oriented Developments in place or priority development areas that the City had identified. There was a concern that, because of this, ABAG was giving higher percentages without regard to the region. There was discussion about this needing to be based on a regional perspective. Mayor Sbranti stated the process was somewhat arbitrary, but that was why ABAG was asking for comments. Mayor Sbranti asked, in terms of the Dublin Town Center, what was the rationale for putting so many more units away from transportation? Ms. Waffle stated there was no rationale associated with that. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City could word the letter more strongly in terms of Items 4 and 5. The City Council directed Staff to provide comments to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on the Initial Vision Scenario. Proposal to Release City Weed Abatement Liens on Property Owned by Syed Bukhari 9:28:08 PM 8.2 (640-70) City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that Syed Bukhari had requested that the City consider accepting a payment of $8,000, in exchange for the City asking that the County of Alameda release a weed abatement lien on his property in Dublin. Guy Houston, representing Mr. Bukhari, asked that the City support this measure. On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved Mr. Bukhari's request that the City accept a payment of $8,000 in full satisfaction of the weed abatement lien on his property and directed Staff to accept the offer. Letter of Support to California Citizen Redistricting Commission 10:41:37 PM 8.3 (660-40) Mayor Sbranti presented the Staff Report and stated this item had come up at a Tri-Valley meeting and advised that the City Council would consider a letter to the California Citizen Redistricting Commission. Mayor Sbranti asked if the City Council was interested in sending the letter attached in the packet. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15 VOLUME 30 of REGULAR MEETING /nom ~tr' ~~~ MAY 17, 2011 '~~~~~~~ Gc, ~ By consensus, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the letter to the California Citizen Redistricting Commission. ~i Letter of Support for i-GATE Application to the United States Economic Development Administration for the i6 Green Challenge 10:47:25 PM 8.4 (610-80 Economic Development Director Linda Maurer presented the Staff Report and advised that the City received a request from the City of Livermore, lead coordinator for the region's State Innovation Hub - i-GATE (Innovation for Green Advanced Transportation Excellence), to have the Mayor sign a letter in support of their application to the Economic Development Administration's "i6 Green Challenge." Vm. Hart stated this was a regional component and it should be supported. By consensus, the City Council directed the Mayor to provide a letter of support to the City of Livermore for the U.S. Economic Development Administration's i6 Green Challenge. .~ Designation of Two Councilmembers as City Representatives to Discuss Compensation with the City Attorney 10:50:00 PM 8.5 (600-30) City Manager Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that the item provides for the designation of two members of the City Council to serve as the City's representatives to discuss terms of the City Attorney's contract, including compensation, with the City Attorney. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council designated ~Vm. Hart and Cm. Swalwell as the two members of the City Council to discuss compensation with the City Attorney. OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 10:51:20 PM City Manager Pattillo stated the Farmers' market would occur on Thursday, May 19, 2011. Cm. Swalwell stated he attended the Dublin Pride Week kickoff at Emerald Glen Park, the Farmers' Market, the Sustainable Community Summit, and Relay for Life. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 16 VOLUME 30 ,~oFOti~ REGULAR MEETING u;~ ~ir ~~~ MAY 17, 2011 '~~~~~~~ Gic, ~s Cm. Hildenbrand stated she attended the Dublin Pride Week kickoff, the Farmer's Market, and the Sustainable Community workshop. Next week would be the East Bay Division meeting at Scott's in Walnut Creek. Cm. Biddle stated he attended the Dublin Pride Week kickoff, an Alameda County Transportation Commission meeting, a Waste Management Planning Committee meeting, an Alameda County Housing Authority meeting, the Bike to Work station, the Farmers' Market, and Relay to Life. Vm. Hart stated he attended the Farmers' Market, and a Tri-Valley Transportation Commission meeting. City Manager Pattillo stated Staff was looking at parking options at the Farmers' Market. Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the Dublin Pride Week kickoff, Bike to Work Day, Farmers' Market, Relay for Life, the Red Blue and Gold Dinner, and. a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) meeting. He also stated he had been was appointed President of the Alameda County Mayors Conference. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:14:30 PM . in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops. Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk. N J ~ ~~~~` Mayor ATTEST: '~ City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 17 VOLUME 30 ~OFD~ REGULAR MEETING 19~~~~~~ MAY 17, 2011 `~ ~ ~~ Gwrnu~m ~ c o ~ / ~~ ~ W O L /' ~:. ~ L r L W ~ § ~ O ~ i..l~ \- ~~ C ~ ~ ~ m Q C ~ C C Q D ~ ~ ~_ O ~ N ~ O LL ` ~ O O ~ E ~ r o 0 N ~ ~ N °J 9 ~ O O Q =~ O N z-. O 0 0 a O O 0 0 0 0 o O ~ T.~ ~' ' uU~,,~. ~~PO - L ~ . ~, -~ ~L . ~ ~ ~"` L_ ~r. -: ~ ~ ~r ;~ _ ,, ,~ f ~ ,. ~- , ~-' '~ i . ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ t . ~- ~ ~ ~, _ ~\y L _ ~Q - r--~ - ~~ _n ~', ~ a--+ ~ ~ Q E m ~ i ~ ~ //~~~ • ~ 1 y ~ ~ o N =~> T ~ \ W ~ ~ ~ fn ~ ~ """"~~ z ^ A 1 ^ , \I!~' W~ ~ ~ N Q ~= . fn ~ U ~ ~ a--~ ( ~ mmmN ~ Up o a~ n U ~~ o ~~~ 1-~ r~ `~ ~ ~ '''!~. 1 ~ ~P e ,! '' _`~ ~~ I ~il~ll{<<fJ~---~~~ I ~ '- ~~ i ~ (~ ... _ I i i -i r - ~~i.._.__..___~ __--~ rr ~J L ~ ~ ~ i Q 0 r _ ~ ~ a--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~~Q~~ D U ~ > U ~ D Q C a 0 N N 0 ~ ~ O LL O N ~ C O ~ ~ O N ~ O O O O ~s o N _~ O O E °m ~ - o ~ o (n z co 0 0 a 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 O o ~- ~i r~ ~v c Q s '~ +~ ~ c ~ o ~ ti„a,,,o,,,vm„, c U ~ ~ ~ a ~_ o a ~ ~ °~ _ ~ ~ o 0 o ;~ ~ ~, ~ L a ~noa J ~ --- I I/ ~% ~~ ~~ ~~ May 20, 2011 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, bublin,.California 94568 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter '101 8t~' Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Sort MetroCenter 101 8t~' Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 . Sub}ect: •lnitial~ Vision Scenario Questions for Elected Officials To Whom It May Concern; Website: hftp;llv+rww.dublin.ca.gov Following the release of the [nitial Vision Scenario in March 2011, local jurisdictions were asked to solicit input from their elected officials on a series of questions. At the May 17, 2011 Dublin City Council meeting, Staff posed the questions provided by ABAG to the City Council and obtained their approval to forward the following responses: 1) Is the proposed place type appropriate for your Priority Development Area(s)? Given tl~.e availability of resources, is the proposed urban scale, mix 'of uses, and expected household growth appropriate? All of Dublin's PDAs have a Place Type designation of "Suburban Center': The Cify feels fhaf this is fhe most appropriate Place Type designation based on the characteristics of Dublin's 3 PDAs (Dublin Town Center, Dublin Transit Cenfer/Dublin Crossings and Downfown Dublin Specific Plan Area}. The City is unclear as fo the rationale for the allocation of housing units within designated PDAs and does not believe that the Initial Vision Scenario's expected household growth cafe is appropriate. The City requests that fhe allocation of housing units be adjusted fo align with Dublin's current Planning documents for each PDA. This would include.6,472 housing units in fhe Dublin Town Cenfer PDA; 3,3Q0 housing units in fhe Dublin Transif Cenfer/Dublin Crossing PDA; and 1,300 housing unifs in fhe Downfown Dublin Specific Plan PDA. Area Code {925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Economic beveiopment 833-6650 I;inance 833-6640 • Public WorkslEngineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 -Police 833-6670 PianninglCode Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Metropolitan Transportation Ca~r~mission Association of Bay Area Governments Page2of3 May 20, 2011 2) What transportation improvements would help to support those Priority Development Area(s) in your jurisdiction? . Transportation and infrasfructure has been sized to accommodate the developmenf potential anflcipated by the Cify of Dublin. The allocation of housing units within fhe Initial Vision Scenario exceeds what is planned, and likely fo occur, tNifhin fhe Dublin Town Center and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs; therefore, addifional analysis would need to be done: Street improvements and pedestrian enhancements within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDA would help support and encourage planned transit oriented developmenf within this PDA by making streets and sidewalks more pedestrian friendly. Improvements to fhe Iron Horse Trail from Dougherty Road to Dublln Boulevard and the widening of Dougherty Road fo accommodate transit and bicyclists would encourage and facilitate greater pedestrian and bicycle access to fhe Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA. Additionally, a pedesfrian and bicycle bridge overcrossing along the Iron Horse Trail at Dougherty Road and at Dublin Boulevard would Increase pedestrian and bicycle safety at these roadway crossings. 3) What additional funding would be needed to support housing growth? The City of Dublin is unclear as to the rafionale for fhe allocafion of housing units within designafed PDAs and does not believe ~ fhat the Initial Vision Scenario's expected househa_Id growth rate is appropriate. The City requests that the allocation of housing units be adjusted to align with current City of Dublin Planning documents for each PDA. The maximum development potenfial for each .PDA is as follows: Priority Deveto~men-f - PDA - Revised PDA - IVS --_ .:Area-(PpA) _ Housing Unit Housing Unit Housing I:JnEt _ Difference __ Number __ - N.u_mber- Number _ - -- -- Dublin Town Center 4,108 6,072 6,672 - -. -_ - - -600 Dublin Transit Center/ Dublin Crossin s 3,796 3,300 - 2,541 -759 Downtown Dublin • S ecific Plan 541 1,300 2,'156 ~ -856 Totals 8,445 10,672 ~ '1'1,369 +fi97. 4) if the Initial Vision Scenario growth estimate is too high, should some of the growth be shifted to another part of your jurisdiction, elsewhere in the County ar elsewhere in the region? The Initial Vision Scenario growth esfimafes exceed whaf is planned for fhe Dublin Town Center and Downfown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs and is lower than what is planned or anflcipated for fhe Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA. Some of fhe development potential could be shifted from fhe Dublin Town Center and/or Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area PDAs to fhe Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings PDA; Rrea Code {925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Econgmic development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public WorkslEngineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 • Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Metropolitan Transportation Cor~rmissiort Association of Bay Area Governments Page3of3 May 20, 2811 however, Dublin's PDAs are not planned- to accommodate alt of the. housing units fhe initial vision Scenario allocates. The City of Dublin believes the job, growfh identified in the initial. Vision Scenario_ falls short of the actual potential for growth. The City estimates 44,901 jobs at ultimafe build out with approximately 17, 994 of thas~ jobs -being -within PDAs. Dublin is a major job cenfer in the Trf-Valley and has .zoned up fa 2 million square feet of campus office development at the Dublin Transit Center; an additional 950,000 square of- office development along with a 950-room hotel has been zoned for of the West Dublin.BART Station. - ~ - 5) What are the challenges for your local jurisdiction to attract and retain jobs that match your local workforce? The physical layout of Dublin as a ,linear community primarily along 1-58Q, lends itself to being affractive for retail uses, thus retail- jobs. This is in .stark contrast fo fhe pausing stock and real estate prices fn Dubffn, which attract a skilled, high wage workforce. fhaf exceeds what fhe marke# can provide in. retaf!•-oriented jobs. With respect fo the market for office devefopmenf, Dublin sits between fwa of the largest business parks~in•Norfhem California with ample -space fo accommodate users. However, Dublin has found a-niche with campus office and corporafe office for businesses wanting the .visibility fhaf comes with being located along 1-580. This creates fhe potential for attracting high paying jo~6s in a ~ variefy of office sectors and capturing some of fhe workforce -fhaf carramufes Pram fhe San Joaquin Valley. When it comes fo indusfrial ~ lands, the -.land values and developmenf fees are generally too high to support consfrucfion of large scale industrial development. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Vision _Scenario and respectfully request that the housing unit allocations and job growth projections to our three Priority Development Areas be adjusted in the Detailed Scenario to reflect the development potential planned far in existing City of Dublin Planning documents. Regards, ,teri am, AICP Community Development Director CC: Joni Pattilla, City Manager Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager Jeff Baker, Planning Manager Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner Area Code 1925) • City Manager 833-6850 • City Counci1833-fi650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Revelopmen# 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Put~lic workslEngineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 • Police 833-6670 PlanninglCode Enforcement 833-66'[0 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Sustainable Communities Strategy ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outer Bay Area Growth REVISED: September 1, 2011 In July, ABAG's Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for Five Alternative Scenarios, which will be used to inform the development of the Preferred Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). Scenario 1 and 2 are based on unconstrained growth, assume very strong employment growth, and unprecedented funding to support housing affordability. Scenario 1, the Initial Vision Scenario was released in March 2011. Scenario 2, Core Concentration Unconstrained will be developed to provide a more concentrated development pattern along transit corridors. These two scenarios are essential to identify the challenges and policies for an ideal sustainable development path. This report presents the land use patterns for scenarios 3, 4, and 5 based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. They provide a range of housing and employment distribution patterns across places and cities that support equitable and sustainable development. The three scenarios are as follows: ^ Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Priority Development Areas in the Inner Bay Area along the region's core transit network. ^ Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. ^ Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. These three scenarios assume a strong economy supported by the appropriate affordable housing production. They also assume targeted local and regional strategies and additional funding to support sustainable and equitable growth. They are designed primarily around Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas, as places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. (PDAs will refer to both areas in this report) The level of PDA growth is defined based on the Place Type established by the local jurisdiction (i.e., regional center, transit neighborhood, rural town), which provides a regional language to recognize the character, scale, density and expected growth for the wide range of places in the Bay Area. Beyond the PDAs, household growth is distributed based on employment, transit access, household formation, and housing production. Employment distribution is based upon the existing employment pattern, reversing the previous dispersal trends throughout the region. Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 Regional dialogue on land use scenarios The purpose of the land use alternative scenarios is to expand the regional dialogue on the type of development, planning strategies, and investments to define the SCS. We are seeking input from local jurisdictions, community organizations, business organizations, and general public on the following themes: Distribution of growth ^ Shifting from previous trends of dispersed growth, do these three land use scenarios provide an appropriate spectrum for sustainable and equitable development trends? Is growth concentrated at the appropriate places? Development of vital and healthy places ^ Are housing and jobs converging at the appropriate places? Can this convergence support greater access to jobs and housing, particularly for the low and moderate income populations? ^ What elements of the scenarios would support the development of complete communities? ^ Do the scenarios address the local expectations and necessary adjustments for regional equity and sustainability? Planning strategies and investments ^ How can local jurisdictions, community organizations, and business organizations converge into a coherent regional strategy? What policies and investments should be prioritized to support the SCS? This report includes five sections and two appendices. The first section is a brief summary of the input received from local jurisdictions and stakeholders on local development and equity. The second section is an overview of regional employment and household growth between 2010 and 2040. The third section describes employment trends and distribution, including some details of the recent regional employment analysis undertaken by ABAG and MTC to inform the land use patterns. The fourth section provides an overview of the housing distribution, which relies on the housing analysis presented in previous reports. The fifth section covers the next steps towards the development of the Preferred Scenario. The appendices include, first, details on the methodology for growth distribution; and, second, tables of growth by PDA and local jurisdiction. Scenarios maps are compiled in a separate packet. 1. INPUT ON SCS SCENARIOS The development of the SCS Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios are informed by a wealth of input we received on the Initial Vision Scenario (IVS) from local elected officials, planning directors, and Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) as well as from the Regional Advisory Working Group, Equity Group, and stakeholders groups. County-level Basecamp sites have been well noticed and public workshops were held throughout our nine-county region. As indicated in previous reports, land use decisions are a local responsibility governed by local jurisdictions. The land use scenarios presented here are based upon local input and strong Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 coordination among local and regional agencies. Regional agencies have incorporated local input into three coherent land use development patterns. Input on local development The input received reflects the unique characteristics of the region's communities. Some communities described the level of housing growth depicted in the IVS as too high, while other jurisdictions responded that IVS housing growth levels would be appropriate if funding for redevelopment, public schools, transit and other community infrastructure were available. Still, a number of common themes have emerged. ^ Addressing the Bay Area economic challenges: The Bay Area's first Sustainable Communities Strategy should advance a vibrant economy and strong growth for the region. Employment growth should be aligned with existing and planned transit. Employment totals are too high given past performance and the depth of the recession. ^ Sustainable and equitable housing production: Growth levels in the Initial Vision Scenario are not feasible given current market constraints and funding availability. Infill development challenges require capital investments and supportive policies. The SCS should reward communities that advance sustainable growth at transit nodes. ^ 1 ransit service: Cuts in transit service will impede sustainable growth. Transit-served, infill areas that have not been nominated by local communities as PDAs should take on comparable levels of growth. ^ Coordination of regional efforts: Loss of redevelopment agencies will limit infill development. The SCS should provide CEQA benefits for projects in PDAs. Air District and BCDC requirements should be aligned with the SCS. Input on equity Regional agency staff has worked with the Regional Equity Working Group and MTC's Policy Advisory Council to develop inputs to the Alternative Scenarios that will increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Social equity as well as economic growth and environmental sustainability are promoted through the emphasis on encouraging growth in complete communities served by transit. In addition, each of the alternative scenarios will also distribute growth in a way that ensures each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Factors related to transit service, employment, and net low- income commuters to a jurisdiction will also inform the alternative scenario housing distributions. 2. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2010 - 2040 The recent national economic recession triggered a major employment decline. Recent data and research indicates that the nation is facing a slower recovery than expected over the next few years, which will in turn impact the recovery of the Bay Area. Beyond this short term recovery, the rates of employment growth for the Bay Area and California have become closer to or lower than the national rates since the 1980s. They were higher than the nation from the 1960s to the 1980s, but as the region and the state matured in its economic composition, growth rates became closer to the national average. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 3 September 1, 2011 Due to lowered forecasts of national economic and j ob growth, along with dramatic decreases in state and national immigration levels (even prior to the recession), the Bay Area job forecast for 2040 would be revised downward by an estimated 100,000 jobs than the forecast employment for the Initial Vision Scenario. The total jobs for 2040 would drop by another 200,000 jobs by switching to a forecast where the Bay Area maintains its current share of national employment. Even under those considerations, the SCS can reasonably assume a healthy economy for the Bay Area by 2040. High expectations are based on the strength of our knowledge-based economy, the development of new high technology sectors as well as the diverse economy to support these leading sectors. In addition, the Bay Area has a highly qualified labor force when compared to other regions and a high quality of life based on access to urban amenities, natural resources, and a Mediterranean climate. The region also provides businesses with a wealth of research and development resources and a strong network of international exchange. Given these resources, regional and economic experts working with ABAG and MTC suggest the Bay Area could add almost a million jobs up to 4.26 million jobs by 2040. This is an average of 33,000 per year over the next 30 years, which assumes a healthy and strong economy. This is more than three times the 10,000 average annual job growth of the previous two decades. It is close to the 40,000 average annual job growth of the last 50 years when the region experienced the development of the high technology industry and the finance sector. This employment growth will be supported by strong housing production of about 770,000 units by 2040. This would represent an annual production of 27,000 units per year. The slow recovery of job growth and housing prices are expected to limit housing production in the near- term. This period should be addressed independently from the housing production of the later years. Assuming a suppressed housing production rate of 15,000 units from 2010-2015, this level of growth would increase to almost 30,000 units per year over the 2015-2040 timeframe. In comparison, historical rates were 20,000 per year from 1990-2010 and 36,000 averaging 1970, 1975, 1980, and 1985 rates, periods of much greenfield housing production. The expected growth of 770,000 housing units by 2040 in the scenarios under discussion is lower than the equivalent one million units in Initial Vision Scenario. The former is the expected housing production while the latter reflects the housing need. The expected housing production addresses lower 2010 household and population counts (Census 2010), lower employment growth than previous forecasts, and reasonable assumptions on market trends, local and regional policies, and infrastructure. This level of housing reflects a reasonable job to household ratio for the Bay Area and would consider a reasonable pace of recovery of the housing market. For these scenarios we are assuming a job to household ratio of 1.3 by 2040. This ratio is based on the regional average over the past six decades and is also similar to the present-day ratio. It could be expected that demographic shifts would lower this ratio over the next fifteen years as the baby boomer generation retires, but that it would rise again in the later years of the planning horizon. Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 Regional Growth: Households, Population, Employed Residents, Jobs, 2010 - 2040 Core, Focused, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Initial Vision Scenario 2010 2040 Growth 2010-40 Growth 2010-40 Households 2,608,000 3,378,000 770,000 1,031,000 Po ulation 7,151,000 9,236,000 2,085,000 2,432,000 Em to edresidents 3,153,000 3,974,000 821,000 1,338,000 Jobs 3,271,000 4,266,000 995,000 1,463,000 These scenario land development patterns will be supported by transportation scenarios that will vary the level of funding for "fix-it-first" maintenance, transit capacity improvements, roadway improvements, and bike/pedestrian funding. 3. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION The region is experiencing a transformation in its economic activities and in its population composition, both of which have major land use implications. The very strong growth of knowledge-based activities at the intersection with urban amenities brings new strength to employment centers. These economic trends are parallel to some key emerging demographic changes: young professionals' preferences for vital urban places instead of office parks, an increase in the ethnic diversity of the labor force and residents, and a major wave of retirement and increase in the senior population. Providing that the region can develop and implement a solid SCS, these changes provide an opportunity to strengthen the economic health, social equity, and sustainability of the Bay Area. SCS tasks to support a healthy economy include: ^ Provide the appropriate transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities to support the new wave of industries at urban locations and densified office parks. ^ Support a diverse economy through public investments that support strategic sectors, and the retention and expansion of affordable housing close to major employment centers. ^ Regain the economic vitality of regional centers, which lost employment over the past decades. Support increased densities and a mix of uses at suburban office parks, which have been major employment growth areas. ^ Concentrate urban amenities and affordable housing in downtown areas and along transit corridors across the region. ^ Maintain and increase the viability and productivity of industrial lands and agricultural resource areas. For the purpose of the SCS Alternative Scenarios we have revised the total employment growth by 2040, the growth by industry, and the distribution by PDA and city. The rationale for this healthy economic growth in relation to population and housing growth will be discussed in a Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 separate memo. This report primarily focuses on growth by industry and distribution patterns based on the employment analysis developed by ABAG and MTC in collaboration with Strategic Economics. Changes in the regional industrial composition Starting in the 1970s the region experienced major employment growth in San Francisco's financial district and the emergence of Silicon Valley as the global center of high technology. In contrast to many other metropolitan regions for subsequent decades, the Bay Area's economic sectors developed through very distinct specialized clusters. In the years following the turn of the millennium the region has a more mature economic base with an economic sector composition that is closer to the national average. Professional and business services and information jobs have become the major leading sectors in the regional economy. Over the last decades they have experienced sharp growth but they have also been the most impacted during periods of economic decline. These regional leading sectors have increased the demand for highly educated labor and provided high wage jobs. Educational and health services have displayed steady growth, but a more moderate level than professional services. These sectors have surpassed manufacturing, government administration, and retail employment. Over the next 30 years, educational and health services sectors are expected to continue their rate of growth. Professional and business services are expected to generate more than one third of the total regional growth by 2040. Since the 1980s, these growing sectors have more than compensated the loss in manufacturing and finance jobs. During this period, much of the region's traditional manufacturing employment has relocated to low cost labor regions in Asia and Latin America. More recently despite steady growth in professional and business service jobs related to emerging technology industries, high tech manufacturing has also relocated out of Silicon Valley to lower cost locations. Changes in technology have also reduced labor requirements and increased productivity for the remaining manufacturing businesses. On the opposite spectrum of the economic sector location patterns, while the region continues to be an important financial center, finance employment jobs have been eliminated or relocated out of the Bay Area. The decline of these two sectors has resulted in a loss of middle-income jobs for the region. Looking forward to 2040, manufacturing and finance are not expected to significantly expand. However, they will remain essential and stable sectors in the regional economy and are expected to retain approximately the same employment size over the next 30 years. The Bay Area is a major international destination for business and leisure travel. Leisure, hospitality and retail are growing employment sectors. In particular, leisure and hospitality employment has grown at a faster pace than retail, following the pattern of professional and business services. Both industry groups are expected to retain a steady growth over the next 30 years. Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 Changes in the regional spatial patterns Over the past decades the Bay Area experienced a decline of employment at its major regional economic centers while suburban employment centers and office parks emerged and grew throughout the region. These spatial patterns were conditioned by the decline of the finance sector in San Francisco, the growth of the high technology sectors in Silicon Valley, the formation of the Tri-Valley business cluster supported by labor from lower housing cost communities in the eastern part of the Bay Area and the central valley, and the strengthening of medium size downtowns such as Walnut Creek, Santa Rosa and Berkeley. The growth of professional services in close proximity to urban amenities, point toward a new wave of growth that could be accommodated at major economic centers and a demand for urban amenities, mixed-uses and higher densities at suburban employment locations. Analysis of employment and demographic trends indicates that the SCS can serve to support these emerging trends by increasing access to transit, affordable housing, and urban amenities at employment centers. The SCS would recognize the economic function of each place in the region and the potential they offer for the growth of selected industry groups, jobs and businesses. This recognition is also informed by the community choices on the function and qualities of their places. Some of the expected trends are described below. ^ Renewed regional centers Regional centers have reduced their office jobs as a share of the region from 49 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2010. Downtown San Francisco and Downtown Oakland also reduced their absolute employment levels. Downtown San Jose had a small increase. In the SCS Scenarios we expect a reversal of this trend. This is based on the rate and scale of growth of professional services urban entertainment, which brings a new economic vitality to the regional centers. Similar to the growth of the financial district in the 1970s, the Bay Area is attracting new businesses and workers that want to locate in close proximity to related firms, services and amenities. The new wave of businesses and young professionals' demand for building space prioritizes flexibility to adjust spaces to multiple functions and requires less office space per worker relative to the early growth of traditional downtown office space. The growth of health and educational services would also support the growth of regional centers. ^ Office parks: Office parks have been a dominant building pattern in the two suburban areas that experienced major growth in the Bay Area over the past several decades: Silicon Valley and the Tri-Valley. In the SCS Alternative Scenarios office park employment will continue to grow but at a slower pace than in recent decades. The emerging private shuttle services run by businesses, particularly in San Mateo and Santa Clara County are expected to grow and improve transit access while lessening, but not fully mitigating increased freeway traffic congestion related to employment growth. Growth in office park employment is limited in part by the capacity of the region's congested freeway network. Office parks in the Tri-Valley area would house more workers within their own jurisdictions, but will continue to draw from lower cost labor in the Central Valley. Some office parks would be transformed with additional office buildings and a mix of uses including housing. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 7 September 1, 2011 ^ Downtown areas and transit corridors The increasing need and desire for local services in close proximity to residential locations has led to a clustering of services along corridors and in small downtown areas over the past decades. The increasing size of the region's senior population will likely reinforce this trend over the next decades. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume an increase in local serving jobs in Priority Development Areas proportional to housing growth in PDAs. ^ Industrial land The decline of the manufacturing and wholesale employment due to business relocation and changes in technology has resulted in a major contraction of those businesses in industrial areas. In many areas this has not resulted in vacant industrial land, but a different mix of businesses that are necessary to support the local and regional economies. In addition to basic services such as refuse collection or supply distribution, industrial lands are now occupied by a wide range of businesses from food processing to green industry manufacturing, and auto repair to high tech product development drawing employment from many sectors into traditional industrial lands. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume limited but stable job growth in manufacturing, given retention of industrial land at core locations and an expanding array of production, distribution and repair activities. ^ Agricultural land The Bay Area has a wealth of agricultural land unparalleled among our nation's largest metropolitan regions that provides high quality agricultural products including diverse high- value crop production and its world-renowned wine industry. For the most part the region's remaining farmland ispolicy-protected from urban expansion. All of the counties outside of San Francisco have a growth management framework (e.g. urban growth boundaries, agricultural zoning, etc.) in place. The SCS Alternative Scenarios assume the retention of most agricultural land with some increase in productivity yielding modest employment growth. Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios Given the expected levels of regional growth, changes in the economic sector composition, and changes in the spatial patterns of employment location, the three alternative scenarios provide alternative land use development patterns based on various degrees of employment concentration. All scenarios assume nearly one million additional jobs in the region through 2040. They also assume the same growth rates by industry. The three scenarios assume slowing or reversal in the declining share of employment in Priority Development Areas experienced in previous decades. The three scenarios also assume some growth in local serving jobs proportional to the housing growth by PDAs. The three employment scenarios are CONCEPTUAL scenarios to understand and assess distinct land use patterns in relation to housing and transit. Starting from the current distribution of employment and growth trends over previous decades, the scenarios add three factors: the concentration of jobs in PDAs, the concentration of knowledge-based jobs (Information, Finance, Professional & Business Services), and the link of local serving jobs (primarily Retail, some Health, Educational, and Recreational Services) to housing growth. They do not yet include input from local jurisdictions or analysis of land constraints, industrial cluster support, or Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 public and private investments. This input and analysis will be essential to develop the employment distribution for the Preferred Scenario. Overview of job growth by scenario Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area Land use Higher growth in Higher concentration Continued trends of trends major employment of employment in more growth in Outer centers close to transit PDAs than 2010 Bay Area and more growth outside of PDAs PDA job Small increase of Small increase of Decline of PDAs share growth PDAs share of PDAs share of of regional jobs over regional jobs over regional jobs over 2010 Focused Growth 2010 Scenario Knowledge- Additional 15% in Additional 10% across Decline in share of based jobs inner bay PDAs all PDAs PDAs following revious trends Local Follows housing Follows housing Follows housing serving jobs growth, more jobs in growth, distributed growth, more jobs in inner bay area PDAs across all PDAs and outer bay area Jurisdictions Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based jobs will be more concentrated in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use neighborhoods in the Inner Bay Area places where jobs are concentrated today. Local serving jobs will follow housing in PDAs, which will be more concentrated in the Inner Bay Area. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes that the concentration of employment in PDAs across most economic sectors will remain as in 2010. Knowledge-based and local serving jobs will be more concentrated in PDAs by 2040 than in 2010. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: This scenario follows the growth trends from the previous 30 years but with lower rates of j ob dispersal. Regional Centers and large City Centers grow but slower than other Place Types, while Suburban Centers and office parks outside of PDAs continue to grow at higher rates than the regional average. Employment by economic sector The employment growth by economic sector is based on the forecast prepared by Caltrans and adjusted to the total regional growth established by ABAG and MTC. While the same level of growth by industry is assumed in the three scenarios, the distribution by city and PDA varies across scenarios. Alternative Land Use Scenarios September 1, 2011 Employment growth by economic sector 2010 - 2040 Job growth Annual Jobs 2010 Jobs 2040 2010 - 2040 Growth Rate 2010- 2040 Total Jobs 3,270,906 4,265,736 994,831 1.01% Agriculture and Natural 22 142 22,286 144 0.02% Resources Manufacturing Wholesale and 543,974 659,580 115,606 0.71% Trans ortation Retail 325,168 402,036 76,868 0.79% Professional and Business Services/ 774,502 1,153,879 379,378 1.63% Finance Health, Education, g53 755 1 106 095 252 340 ' 0.99% Recreation Services Other: Information, Government, 751,365 921,860 170,495 0.76% Construction Distribution of Employment The employment distribution for 2010 is based on NETS data (See appenedix for description of data sources). This data provides employment information by location of a business establishment. This is a high level of geographical resolution, which allows us to capture the employment by PDA more accurately than previous zip code data. In 2010, it was estimated that PDAs encompassed an estimated 1,586,000 or 48 percent of jobs regionwide. This is 5 percent lower than the PDA share in 1990 according to ABAG analysis of the NETS data. The three scenarios assume different shares of jobs in PDAs as indicated below. Following previous trends but at a slower pace, the Outer Bay Area Scenario assumes a lower PDA share of total jobs in 2040 than in 2010. The Focused Growth and Core Concentration Growth Scenarios both assume a higher concentration of jobs in PDAs in 2040 than in 2010. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 10 September 1, 2011 Job Share in PDAs by Scenario: Past and Future Trends 1990 - 2010 - 2040 Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area PDA Job Share 1990 53% 53% 53% PDA Job Share 2010 48% 48% 48% PDA Job Share 2040 51% 50% 48% PDA Job Growth Share 2010-2040 58 % 55 % 47 % Within PDAs, the distribution of jobs varies according to sector and Place Type. The Outer Bay Area Scenario retains a similar distribution in 2010 and 2040 except for the local serving jobs, which shifts according to housing growth. The Focused Growth Scenario increases knowledge- basedjobs across all PDAs. The Core Concentration Growth Scenario increases knowledge- basedjobs in regional centers, city centers, urban neighborhoods, and mixed-use corridors in the inner Bay Area. Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Industry Group by Scenario 2010 - 2040 Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area Total region 58% 55% 47% Agriculture and Natural Resources 27% 27% 27% Manufacturing Wholesale and Transportation 43% 43% 39% Retail 61% 58% 55% Professional services/Finance 65 % 60% 45 Health, Education, Recreation Services 48% 48% 47% Other: Information, Government, Construction 67% 63% 51% Alternative Land Use Scenarios 11 September 1, 2011 Share of Regional Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 - 2040 Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Total PDA/GOA Jobs 58.3% 55.3% 46.9% Inner Ba Re Tonal Center 21.4% 19.0% 12.5% Cit Center 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% Suburban Center 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% Transit Town Center 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Urban Nei hborhood 5.1% 4.6% 3.5% Transit Nei hborhood 2.3% 2.5% 1.8% Mixed-Use Corridor 13.3% 12.1% 11.1% Em to ment Center 1.4% 1.5% 1.2% Outer Ba Re Tonal Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cit Center 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% Suburban Center 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% Transit Town Center 1.7% 1.9% 1.8% Transit Nei hborhood 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% Mixed-Use Corridor 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% Em to ment Center 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Alternative Land Use Scenarios 12 September 1, 2011 Share of Regional Professional and Business Services /Finance Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 - 2040 Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Total PDA/GOA Jobs 65.1% 60.0% 45.4% Inner Ba Re Tonal Center 29.5% 25.3% 12.8% Cit Center 4.7% 4.0% 5.1% Suburban Center 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% Transit Town Center 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% Urban Nei hborhood 4.7% 4.0% 2.8% Transit Nei hborhood 1.9% 2.3% 0.7% Mixed-Use Corridor 14.3% 12.3% 11.5% Em to ment Center 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% Outer Ba Re Tonal Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cit Center 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% Suburban Center 1.9% 2.2% 1.9% Transit Town Center 1.5% 1.8% 1.1% Transit Nei hborhood 0.6% 0.7% 1.4% Mixed-Use Corridor 1.1% 1.4% 1.5% Em to ment Center 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% Rural Town Center 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Alternative Land Use Scenarios 13 September 1, 2011 Share of Regional Retail Job Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 - 2040 Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Total PDA/GOA Jobs 61.3% 57.9% 55.0% Inner Ba Re Tonal Center 10.2% 9.2% 9.5% Cit Center 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% Suburban Center 3.2% 3.0% 3.2% Transit Town Center 5.3% 4.8% 3.6% Urban Nei hborhood 5.1% 4.4% 3.6% Transit Nei hborhood 4.5% 4.0% 3.3% Mixed-Use Corridor 16.2% 14.7% 12.1% Em to ment Center 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Outer Ba Re Tonal Center 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Cit Center 0.9% 1.2% 1.2% Suburban Center 4.1% 4.3% 6.3% Transit Town Center 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% Transit Nei hborhood 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% Mixed-Use Corridor 2.3% 2.7% 2.8% Em to ment Center 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 Rural Town Center 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Job Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 - 2040 PDA Jobs County Jobs Core Concen- tration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Core Concen- tration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Alameda 106,300 104,000 93,500 203,800 203,700 216,300 Contra Costa 38,000 41,300 46,500 96,400 104,900 126,300 Marin 6,000 6,800 7,900 31,700 34,600 35,900 Na a 300 300 300 14,600 15,600 22,000 San Francisco 206,500 178,000 127,000 206,900 179,100 127,000 San Mateo 41,900 40,300 35,200 99,600 104,000 112,700 Santa Clara 159,300 154,000 129,300 254,200 257,400 247,400 Solano 6,600 7,300 7,500 42,000 46,200 50,200 Sonoma 15,600 17,600 19,700 45,500 49,200 57,100 TOTAL 580,400 549,700 467,000 994,800 994,800 994,800 Alternative Land Use Scenarios 14 September 1, 2011 4. REGIONAL HOUSING DISTRIBUTION The three scenarios, Core Concentration, Focused Growth and Outer Bay Area Growth, address the distribution of 771,000 households by 2040 through alternative land use patterns. Each of these scenarios relates to the employment growth and the three distribution patterns described in the previous section. Levels of household growth are specifically linked to the concentration of knowledge-based and local serving jobs. The three scenarios support healthy economic growth by 2040. Shifting from the dominant development trend of single-family homes in greenfield areas over the last three decades, the three scenarios assume a higher concentration of households within multi-family housing at transit nodes and corridors with appropriate services and stores. Most of the growth is expected to be accommodated through 3 to 6 story wood-frame buildings, with the exception of major downtown areas where steel-frame buildings of more than 10 stories would be constructed. The scenarios vary in the overall share of households in PDAs as well as by Place Type and city. The distribution of household growth is based on local input and regional criteria established through the densities and scale of Place Types, transit service, employment, and net low-income commuters. In addition, in the three scenarios each city is expected to reach a minimum household growth equivalent to 40 percent of its household formation. This last factor comes from the Regional Housing Need Allocation methodology for 2014-2022, which identifies the housing needs by city to be addressed through local plans and zoning controls. Local plans and their proposed housing growth are an important component in the distribution of household growth. Local input on household growth from each jurisdiction was utilized in at least one of the three scenarios. The PDAs and the growth factors directly addressed equity in the SCS. This final approach to the alternative scenarios is the result of in-depth interactions with equity groups. PDAs cover a wide range of neighborhoods with diverse income levels, infrastructure needs, and transit service. Regional staff worked closely with local jurisdictions to identify neighborhoods appropriate for PDA designation that need public investment for current and future populations as well as areas that are ready to accommodate additional housing. Two growth factors are directly linked to equity. The low-income net in-commuters' factor recognizes the potential of cities with high employment and limited affordable housing to accommodate future household growth. Similarly, the minimum growth floor of 40 percent of jurisdictions' household formation level allows cities with good services to accommodate a portion of their own population growth. In order to appropriately address equity in the SCS, ABAG and MTC will conduct a thorough assessment of regional income levels and distribution. This report only includes some minor revisions to the income distribution factors used in Projections 2009. Current regional economic changes in the type of businesses, jobs, and labor indicate some regional income polarization. This task requires detailed attention and will be a priority over the next several weeks in preparation for the draft Preferred Scenario. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 15 September 1, 2011 Overview of household growth by scenario Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area Land use More growth in PDAs, Growth throughout Less growth in PDAs, trends particularly in Inner regional transit more growth in Outer Bay Area's major corridors and job Bay Area along transit employment centers centers corridors. and transit nodes Growth Transit service factors Employment Net low-income commuters Minimum 40% of the expected household formation rate level of for each jurisdiction rowth PDA Based on Focused Growth within PDAs Based on Focused household Growth Scenario, based on minimum Growth Scenario, growth increase household level of growth by increase household growth by 20% in Place Type. growth by 5 to 30% in Inner Bay Area, plus Outer Bay Area or minus housing depending on job value factor rowth Core Concentration Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes a concentration of households in PDAs and jurisdictions in the Inner Bay Area to take advantage of the core transit network. Focused Growth Scenario: This scenario assumes focused household growth in PDAs throughout the region's transit corridors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario: Closer to recent development trends than the other two scenarios, this scenario assumes more growth of households in the Outer Bay Area in relation to the employment growth by jurisdiction. The three scenarios vary in their share of PDA household growth from 67 to 79 percent of all regional growth. PDAs currently account for 24 percent of all households in the region. The PDA share of households increases to between 34 and 37 percent of all households in the three scenarios. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 16 September 1, 2011 Households in PDAs by Scenario: Current and Future Trends 2010 - 2040 Core Focused Outer Bay Concentration Growth Area PDA households 2010 634,730 634,730 634,730 PDA households 2040 1,239,900 1,187,740 1,154,970 PDA households growth 605,170 553,010 520,270 2010-2040 PDA share of total 37% 35% 34% households 2040 PDA household growth 79% 72% 67% share 2010-2040 In the Core Concentration Growth Scenario, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions for the most part experience a greater concentration of growth within their PDAs than in the Focused Growth Scenario, whereas in the Outer Bay Area Scenario growth is less concentrated in the PDAs. In each of the scenarios, the 40 percent housing growth threshold has a considerable affect on some of the smaller residential communities throughout the region. The concentration of households varies by Place Type. In each scenario, the greatest share of regional growth is within the Mixed-Use Corridors, followed by Regional Centers. The Core Concentration Growth Scenario brings a higher concentration of households at Regional Centers, City Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and Mixed-Use Corridors. This includes downtown areas in Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose and the San Pablo, Mission, and El Camino transit corridors. The Transit Town Centers and Transit Neighborhoods also play an important role in the Core Concentration Growth Scenario, as many of the PDAs along the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area have these Place Types. In the Focused Growth and Outer Bay Area scenarios, growth is more evenly distributed across all Place Types. The Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario shows higher growth in suburban centers such as the Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon PDAs Alternative Land Use Scenarios 17 September 1, 2011 Share of Regional Household Growth in PDA by Place Type by Scenario 2010 - 2040 Core Concentration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area TotaIPDA/GOA Share of Households 37% 35% 34% Re Tonal Center 12.6% 11.2% 10.3% Cit Center 8.4% 8.3% 7.7% Suburban Center 8.3% 8.3% 8.5% Urban Nei hborhood 7.3% 6.1% 5.1% Transit Town Center 11.2% 9.9% 9.8% Transit Nei hborhood 10.2% 9.3% 9.2% Mixed-Use Corridor 20.2% 18.3% 16.6% Em to ment Center 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 Rural Town Center 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% The distribution of growth by county varies according to their transit access and the relationship of the county to the Inner and Outer Bay Area. Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, counties have high levels of existing transit service and are primarily within the Inner Bay Area. As a result these counties have more growth in the Core Concentration Growth Scenario. North Bay CountiesMarin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma- and much of Contra Costa County are identified as part of the Outer Bay Area and many of their cities have limited transit access. Thus they display higher growth in the Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario. Household Growth by County and PDA by Scenario 2010 - 2040 PDA Households County Households Core Concen- tration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Core Concen- tration Focused Growth Outer Bay Area Alameda 132,610 121,050 111,740 167,750 172,990 164,300 Contra Costa 66,790 67,510 72,650 96,880 110,930 136,550 Marin 4,100 6,380 6,690 10,100 11,260 13,250 Napa 1,660 1,660 1,740 5,520 6,290 7,170 San Francisco 105,110 85,940 71,900 110,640 90,470 76,430 San Mateo 54,820 44,130 40,810 72,110 68,570 61,700 Santa Clara 205,960 182,220 167,280 245,990 242,060 227,120 Solano 15,440 16,390 17,230 28,740 30,860 38,690 Sonoma 18,680 27,730 30,230 33,080 37,380 45,620 TOTAL 605,170 553,010 520,270 770,810 770,810 770,830 Alternative Land Use Scenarios 18 September 1, 2011 5. NEXT STEPS The three land use scenarios presented in this report provide the preliminary analysis for the development of the SCS Preferred Scenario. The following additional tasks are pending to inform the Preferred Scenario and will be developed this fall 20ll. 1. Land use analysis o Further analysis of regional employment and population growth o Further analysis of income forecast and distribution 2. Policy Development to support the Preferred Scenario o Housing production o Infill development investments o Transit access o Complete Communities 3. Transportation network analysis 4. Performance targets results for the three Alternative Land Use Scenarios 5. Gather input from local jurisdictions and stakeholders to inform development of the Preferred Scenario Alternative Land Use Scenarios 19 September 1, 2011 APPENDIX I 1. EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Sources California Department of Transportation Sector Forecast (Caltrans) Caltrans uses an econometric model to project employment by industry out to 2040 for each county in California. The agency's model uses variables and assumptions taken from the UCLA Anderson Forecast and historic employment data from EDD. The most recent prof ections were released in March 2010. In comparison, the most recent EDD and BLS projections available date from 2008 and 2009. A complete description of the 2010 Caltrans projection methodology and data out to 2035 (2040 data was provided upon request) is available at: http://www.dot.ca. o~ v/hip/offices/ote/socio~econoic.htl. Walls & Associates /Dun and Bradstreet (NETS) Walls & Associates converts Dun and Bradstreet archival establishment data into atime-series database of establishment information called the National Establishment Times-Series (NETS) Database. ABAG has analyzed the NETS data to provide information on the spatial distribution of jobs at the jurisdiction and PDA level by employment sector, as well as changes in spatial distribution at these geographies from 1989-2009. More information on the NETS data is available at: httta://www.yourecono~ny.or~/nets/?region=malls Methodology 2010 Employment Current employment is based on total jobs established for the Current Regional Plans and Initial Vision Scenario and the Caltrans breakdown by employment sector for the region for 2010. NETS 2009 data is used to distribute jobs by geography for each sector. Scenario Employment Distribution The Caltrans forecast -scaled to match the regional constrained employment total established for the three alternative scenarios -was used for the regional growth by employment sector for all three scenarios. Each scenario follows two basic steps for then distributing employment growth by geography for each sector. 1. As a baseline, Focused Growth and Core Concnetration Growth Scenarios maintain 2010 employment distribution by Place Type and county into the future and Outer Bay Area Growth Scenarios slows down the 1989-2009 trends in distribution of jobs by Place Type and county. 2. A portion oflocal-serving jobs and knowledge-based jobs are then distributed to follow the investments and growth pattern for each scenario. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 20 September 1, 2011 Core Concentration Growth Scenario The Core Concentration Growth Scenario starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were then allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution, reflecting a share oflocal-serving jobs that follows the housing growth in the Core Concentration scenario. An additional 15% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs were located in Inner Bay PDA locations that were Regional Center, Mixed-Use Corridor, City Center, and Urban Neighborhood Place Types. This reflects a further concentration in these sectors into the transit- servedlocations where they are already concentrated, corresponding to a stronger agglomeration of the knowledge-based and other vertical-office-user jobs into these core areas. These additional office jobs were also allocated to the corresponding jurisdiction. Focused Growth Scenario The Focused Growth Scenario also starts with a baseline of maintaining 2010 employment distribution by sector by geography. 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Educational, and Recreational Services jobs were again allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction in conjunction with the housing growth distribution in the Focused Growth Scenario. The Focused Growth Scenario also includes an additional 10% of new Information, Professional & Business Services, and Government jobs locating in PDA locations, reflecting a further consolidation of office uses in PDAs. These additional office jobs were distributed to PDAs throughout the region in proportion to their existing share of these sectors. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario The Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario starts with a baseline that slows the 1989-2009 trend in job distribution by PDA Place Type (for the PDA distribution) and by County (for the jurisdiction distribution). In general this exhibits higher growth in the outer bay counties and slower growth in PDAs overall and a shift in share from inner bay PDAs to outer bay PDAs. As in the other two scenarios, 50% of new Retail jobs and 10% of new Health, Education, and Recreation jobs were allocated by PDA and by jurisdiction to match the housing growth distribution in the Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario. In this scenario, no additional office jobs were added to PDA locations. However, for the counties with both inner and outer bay designations (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties), a share of Professional & Business Services jobs were reallocated from the inner bay to outer bay jurisdictions to reflect the trend in greater dispersal of jobs within these counties. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 21 September 1, 2011 2. HOUSING DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY AND DATA Data Sources U. S. Census Bureau - 2010 Census U. S. Census Bureau -Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics (LEND) MTC Transit Coverage and Frequency by City Methodology Scenario Housing Distribution Each scenario was developed based on the three key components. Growth in Priority Development Areas: PDAs define a sustainable and equitable development framework for the SCS. Local and regional efforts support the development of PDAs as complete communities with the appropriate level of services and urban amenities for the current and future residents and workers. The minimum level of growth for each Place Type and local input were used as a basis for the level of growth in the PDAs. 2. Growth by local jurisdiction: At the city level, jurisdictions' housing levels were based on Projections 2009, with adjustments based on the 2010 Census and local feedback. Household growth by city was determined based on job concentration, transit service, and existing population and jobs. In addition, a factor based on low-wage commuters was applied to the distribution of housing in order to improve access to employment centers served by transit for low-wage workers. Growth pattern informed by the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The scenarios utilized the proposed RHNA approachi for setting a minimum level of growth in the jurisdictions to ensure each jurisdiction is doing a reasonable amount of fair share housing to meet the region's housing need. A minimum housing growth threshold for each jurisdiction was set at 40 percent of its household formation growth. The scenarios assume that RHNA, as a short term housing strategy through local general plans, will shape the long term development pattern through a minimum housing floor (jurisdictions would accommodate at least 40 percent of their future household formation). The income distribution component of the proposed RHNA methodology, which is intended to address housing affordability (whereby jurisdictions would move towards the regional distribution of income groups), was not applied for the scenarios. Analysis of regional income levels and distribution is pending. i The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RIINA) is a state mandated process for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate. See http://www.oneba ar~g/ lt? an bay area/housin~htm for more information on RIINA. Alterative Land Use Scenarios 22 September 1, 2011 Transit and Employment Criteria for Housing Distribution EXISTING JOB CENTER FOCUSED GROWTH TRANSIT TYPE (10,000+ JOBS) 2035 HOUSING BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light Yes Increase to low-range Place Type Rail density plus 25% BART, Muni Metro, VTA Light No Increase to low-range Place Type Rail density plus 20% Caltrain Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 25% Caltrain No Increase to low-range Place Type densi lus 20% ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, Yes Increase to low-range Place Type eBART, Dumbarton Rail density plus 10% ACE, Capitol Corridor, SMART, No Increase to low-range Place Type eBART, Dumbarton Rail density plus 5% BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, Yes Increase to low-range Place Type San Pablo Avenue, E.14th density plus 5% Street/Mission Bvd BRT Corridors: El Camino Real, No Increase to low-range Place Type San Pablo Avenue, E.14th density Street/Mission Bvd PDAs not on major corridors Yes Increase to low-range Place Type density plus 10% PDAs not on major corridors No Increase to min Place Type density minus 10% Focused Growth Scenario For the Focused Growth Scenario, the level of growth in a PDA was taken as the higher of: a. the planned level of growth in the PDA, based on jurisdictional feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, and b. the minimum level of growth based on the PDA's Place Type. The minimum level of growth for a PDA was calculated by multiplying the minimum density for the PDA's Place Type by the redevelopable acreage in the PDA, which was assumed to be 10% of net acreage. The minimum density for each PDA was scaled up or down based on transit tiers and whether the PDA is an existing job center containing 10,000+ jobs. The table below shows the distribution rules for each transit tier/job center combination. If the planned level of growth Alternative Land Use Scenarios 23 September 1, 2011 in a PDA was lower than the minimum calculated for its Place Type, the growth for that PDA was increased to the calculated minimum. At the city level, the share of growth within each jurisdictions' PDAs was capped at 95 percent of the jurisdiction's total growth. Core Concentration Growth Scenario For the Core Concentration Growth Scenario, growth was shifted to PDAs in the Inner Bay Area. First, housing growth was increased by 20 percent above Focused Growth Scenario levels for these PDAs. Next, housing levels were adjusted up or down based on a housing value factor for each jurisdiction. The housing value adjustment ranged from +15 to -15 percent, based on median home value. ABAG reduced growth in Outer Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. At the city level, housing growth within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was reduced to account for the re-distribution of housing to Inner Bay Area PDAs. Housing levels in Inner Bay Area jurisdictions were kept at their Focused Growth Scenario levels or were increased slightly to account for an increase in their PDAs' housing levels, with the share of growth within each jurisdictions' PDAs capped at 95 percent of the jurisdiction's total growth. Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario To create the Outer Bay Area Growth Scenario, ABAG first estimated the potential job increase to each jurisdiction. ABAG continued the region's trend in recent decades of jobs shifting from inner to outer counties and from PDAs to outer areas. Within Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties, a share of professional and business growth was also shifted from the Inner Bay Area to Outer Bay Area jurisdictions. ABAG increased housing growth in those Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that saw significant job growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdictions that had more than 3,000 new jobs received a 30% increase in housing growth in their PDAs over the Focused Growth Scenario, those that grew by 1,000 to 3,000 jobs received a 10% increase in their PDAs, and those that grew by less than 1,000 jobs received a 5% increase. ABAG reduced growth in Inner Bay Area PDAs to the desired levels stated by local jurisdictions in their Initial Vision Scenario feedback. However, since the City and County of San Francisco did not request a reduction from the Initial Vision Scenario, ABAG reduced each San Francisco PDA's housing growth by 20%. At the city level, Inner Bay Area jurisdictions' housing units were reduced to desired levels. These housing units were re-distributed to the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction's share of regional growth. Outer Bay Area jurisdiction growth levels may also have increased to account for an increase in units within their PDAs. The share of jurisdictional growth in PDAs within the Outer Bay Area jurisdictions was capped at 85 percent. Alternative Land Use Scenarios 24 September 1, 2011 Transportation Assumptions The following transportation network assumptions, based in part on local jurisdictional feedback on the Initial Vision Scenario, were used to develop the three scenarios: Core Focused Outer Concentration Growth Ba Area Bus service Increased frequency Increased frequency Increased frequency and capacity within and capacity within and capacity along Inner Bay and along Inner Bay and along main corridors and main corridors main corridors improved local bus ^ Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit service. service on El Camino service on El Real and E.14th Camino Real, San Street/ Mission Blvd. Pablo Ave, and E.14th Street/ Mission Blvd. Rail Increased frequency Increased frequency Expansion of and capacity along and capacity along commuter rail core network core network systems in Outer ^ Expansion of Expansion of Bay commuter rail commuter rail systems in Inner Bay systems Commute patterns Increase transit trips Increase transit trips Reduce length of within and between within and between auto trips West Bay and East West Bay and East Bay. Bay. ^ Reduce number of Reduce number of auto tri s auto tri s Alternative Land Use Scenarios 25 September 1, 2011 APPENDIX IL• TABLES Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction 26 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction KEY Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth O orfunit Area (italics) Alameda County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Alameda 20,480 7,570 8,220 7,870 Naval Air Station Transit Town Center 1,310 770 770 830 Northern Waterfront Transit Neighborhood 1,290 460 470 260 Albany 5,070 1,410 1,350 1,000 San Pablo Avenue & Solaro Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 2,880 920 830 560 Berkeley 73,780 22,300 22,100 21,430 Adeline Street Mixed-Use Corridor 940 310 280 250 Downtown City Center 14,220 6,750 5,970 6,240 San Pablo Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 730 690 670 South Shattuck Mixed-Use Corridor 1,000 280 250 160 Telegraph Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,700 570 530 500 University Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,680 520 480 450 Dublin 17,490 4,950 5,520 9,890 Downtown Specifc Plan Area Suburban Center 4,620 1,030 1,130 1,400 Town Center Suburban Center 320 220 220 270 Transit Center Suburban Center 0 160 170 200 Emeryville 10,350 6,010 5,660 5,290 Mixed-Use Core City Center 11,490 4,630 4,190 4,650 Fremont 89,280 26,360 26,320 27,770 Centerville Transit Neighborhood 2,980 1,140 1,230 670 City Center City Center 16,300 7,070 6,330 6,630 Irvington District Transit Town Center 2,670 890 930 1,020 Ardenwood Business Park Employment Center 1,970 610 680 530 Fremont Boulevard & Warm Sprinys Boulevard Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,710 3,350 3,050 2,910 Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossiny Mixed-Use Corridor 270 90 90 80 South Fremonf/Warm Springs Suburban Center 7,940 1,990 2,060 1,940 Hayward 03,960 16,050 16,650 17,440 Downtown City Center 6,200 1,950 1,790 1,820 South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor 330 140 140 120 South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood 480 320 300 280 The Cannery Transit Neighborhood 1,190 360 400 320 Carlos Bee Quarry Mixed-Use Corridor 0 40 40 40 Mission Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,450 470 440 410 Livermore 47,200 13,540 15,090 20,130 Downtown Suburban Center 2,870 910 960 1,180 Vasco Road TOD Suburban Center 5,910 1,220 1,410 1,790 Newark 10,820 4,170 4,440 4,420 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Transit Town Center 1,200 370 370 380 Old Town Mixed Use Area Transit Neighborhood 180 70 70 50 Cedar Boulevard Transit transit Neiyhborhood 170 100 90 70 Civic Center Re-Use Transit Transit Neighborhood 510 150 160 200 Oakland 190,600 64,390 58,930 57,160 Coliseum BART Station Area Transit Town Center 5,450 1,520 1,610 1,680 Downtown & Jack London Square Regional Center 92,180 34,070 35,210 26,080 EastmontTown Center Urban Neighborhood 3,570 1,270 1,130 790 Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Urban Neighborhood 8,490 2,920 2,690 2,190 MacArthur Transit Village Urban Neighborhood 10,460 3,270 3,110 2,570 Transit Oriented Development Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 33,650 12,620 11,540 10,960 West Oakland Transit Town Center 7,570 2,370 2,390 2,660 Piedmont 2,100 610 690 330 Pleasanton 52,510 14,580 16,150 21,510 Hacienda Suburban Center 9,870 3,720 4,290 4,400 San Leandro 39,350 10,750 10,800 11,300 Bay Fair BART Transit Village Transit Town Center 1,470 340 360 350 Downtown Transit Oriented Development City Center 7,910 3,220 2,890 2,960 East 14th Street Mixed-Use Corridor 7,500 2,660 2,390 2,300 Union City 19,260 4,650 4,790 4,620 Intermodal Station District City Center 340 160 150 160 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 20 20 20 20 0/d Alvarado Mixed-Use Corridor 470 210 190 180 Alameda County Unincorporated 23,480 6,420 6,960 6,170 Castro I/allcy BART Transit Neiyhborhood 2,030 530 560 330 East 7Ath Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,390 770 710 670 9/1 /2011 27 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Contra Costa County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Antioch 19,910 5,140 5,560 6,900 Hillcrest eBART Station Suburban Center 20 150 170 170 Rivertown Waterfront Transit Town Center 3,910 1,060 1,190 1,200 Brentwood 8.370 2.470 2.750 3.480 Community Reuse Area Community Reuse Area Downtown BART StationPlanninyArea North Concord BAR7Adjacent Employment Center West Downtown Planning Area Regional Center Transit Neighborhood City Center Employment Center Mixed-Use Corridor 170 0 6,910 5,940 3,300 220 550 2,160 1,590 1,010 230 600 2,400 1,770 1,140 300 710 2,550 2,680 1,380 Danville 12,750 3,490 3,780 4,850 El Cerrito 6,550 1,880 1,870 1,680 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,480 920 850 680 Hercules 4,390 1,400 1,500 1,970 Central Hercules Waterfront District Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center 900 1,280 400 400 450 430 590 450 Lafayette 10,330 2,990 3,280 4,200 Downtown Transit Town Center 6,180 1,770 1,930 1,740 Martinez 32,020 6,960 7,860 8,860 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 6,820 1,660 1,910 2,730 Mora_ga 4,180 1,270 1,380 1,890 Moraga Center Transit Town Center 1,200 460 520 400 Oakley 3,700 1,130 1,210 2,110 Downtown Employment Area Potential Planning Area Transit Town Center Suburban Center Transit Neighborhood 580 730 300 210 220 180 230 230 190 210 270 250 Orinda 5,200 1,560 1,730 2,350 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,750 840 950 790 Pino% 0,600 1,740 1,870 2,490 Appian Way Corridor Old Town Suburban Center Transit Town Center 2,460 1,410 660 360 690 390 840 400 Pittsburg 10,710 4,510 4,820 5,960 Downtown Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Railroad Avenue eBART Station Transit Neighborhood Transit Town Center Transit Town Center 1,560 150 6,500 620 200 1,670 650 220 1,820 1,010 200 1,860 Pleasant Hill 19,490 6,080 6,760 8,440 Buskirk Avenue Corridor Diablo Valley College Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood 3,510 2,950 1,170 1,610 1,360 1,910 1,680 3,550 Richmond 34,290 10,130 10,220 8,720 Central Richmond South Richmond 23rd Sfreef San Pablo Avenue Corridor City Center Transit Neighborhood Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,250 6,600 320 1,910 2,540 1,880 140 900 2,310 2,060 140 810 2,280 1,420 130 780 San Pablo 8,000 2,050 2,150 2,700 San Ramon 42,110 10,930 12,130 14,820 North Camino Ramon Transit Town Center 10,720 3,490 3,870 3,670 Walnut Creek 50,000 13,690 15,290 18,610 West Downtown Suburban Center 7,410 2,670 3,060 3,050 Contra Costa County Unincorporated 14,740 4,500 4,930 6,380 Contra Costa Centre Mixed-Use Corridor 3,470 890 1,050 1,200 Downtown ElSobrante Mixed-Use Corridor 970 280 290 370 North Richmond Transit Neighborhood 1,850 520 540 760 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Neighborhood 400 340 360 420 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,490 2,660 2,770 3,320 9/1 /2011 28 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Marie County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Belvedere 480 130 140 150 Corte Madera 8,840 1,760 1,880 2,000 Fairfax 2,430 650 700 760 Novato Ross 510 150 160 160 San Anselmo 4,180 1,210 1,320 1,380 San Rafael 42,000 11,040 12,030 12,310 Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Transit Town Center 5,800 1,730 1,940 1,770 Downtown City Center 8,830 2,590 2,930 3,060 Sausalito 7,480 2,520 2,820 2,860 Tiburon 2,980 930 1,030 1,090 MarinCountyUnincorporated 10,860 3,320 3,620 3,740 Urbanized 101 Corridor Transit Neighborhood 2,630 820 1,010 1,560 San Quentin transit Neiyhborhood 3,100 870 940 1,520 Napa County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth American Canyon 2,480 610 630 920 Highway 29 Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,040 280 290 340 Calisto_ga 2,300 570 600 790 Napa 28,740 7,270 7,730 10,950 St Helena 4,390 970 1,040 1,570 Yountville 1,440 400 430 610 Napa County Unincorporated 22,390 4,830 5,170 7,130 San Francisco County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth San Francisco 550,340 206,920 179,140 126,990 19th Avenue Transit Town Center 10,490 2,850 2,880 3,350 Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood 2,540 810 870 910 Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood 20,270 7,970 7,170 5,900 Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center 300,220 114,920 94,080 57,350 Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood 60,230 22,950 20,680 16,040 Market& Octavia Urban Neighborhood 29,780 8,760 7,900 4,810 Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood 2,900 1,380 1,230 980 Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 12,030 4,740 4,300 4,050 Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor 5,280 2,010 1,850 1,710 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of BrisbaTransit Neighborhood 1,830 1,230 1,240 460 Transbay Terminal Regional Center 7,680 4,480 3,870 2,340 Treasure Island Transit Town Center 250 650 570 450 Citywide 96,840 33,720 31,390 28,630 9/1 /2011 29 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction San Mateo County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Typo Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Atherton 2,280 710 780 780 Belmont 7,400 2,520 2,470 2,560 Brisbane 6,270 1,780 1,910 2,160 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San Francisci Suburban Center 440 190 190 110 Colma 2,540 510 490 430 Daly City 19,370 5,840 5,930 5,810 Bayshore Mission Boulevard Citywide Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor 980 3,520 12,670 430 1,110 3,430 440 1,030 3,730 450 980 3,410 East Palo Alto 2,670 880 920 920 Ravenswood Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Transit Town Center Urban Neighborhood 900 170 290 130 310 100 300 110 Foster City 13,380 3,900 4,360 4,730 Half Moon Bay 4,940 1,260 1,370 1,410 Hillsborough 2,110 660 740 740 Menlo Park 41,320 11,090 12,080 12,370 EI Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center 5,200 1,520 1,650 1,780 Millbrae 6.910 2.140 2.000 1.990 Portola Valley 1,780 500 560 580 Redwood City 58,370 17,820 18,250 21,190 Downtown City Center 7,920 3,100 2,740 2,640 Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor 5,010 1,490 1,380 1,170 Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor 2,380 830 760 700 Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor 610 360 320 300 Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3.880 1220 1.120 1.010 Bruno San Carlos 16,050 4,990 4,890 5,170 Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center 1,820 420 450 470 San Mateo 50,640 16,320 17,210 18,580 Downtown EI Camino Real Rail Corridor City Center Mixed-Use Corridor Transit Neighborhood 3,900 2,110 8,780 1,420 580 2,060 1,310 540 2,210 1,520 450 1,280 South San Francisco 38,490 11,410 12,030 13,490 Downtown LindenvillefransitNeighborhood Transit Town Center fransitNeighborhood 2,200 2,530 880 1,180 900 1,330 930 310 Woodside 2,630 570 640 660 San Mateo County Unincorporated 11,110 3,810 3,950 4,970 City County Association of Governments of San Mateo Count Mixed-Use Corridor 68,720 22,870 21,200 18,430 9/1 /2011 30 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Campbell 23,950 6,300 6,700 6,590 Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 5,850 1,640 1,820 1,380 Winchester8oulevardMasterPlan 7ransitNeighborhood 1,110 280 310 200 Milpitas 38,820 10,610 11,360 10,720 Transit Area Suburban Center 3,760 1,790 1,920 2,370 Hammond Transit Neiyhborhood Transit Neiyhborhood 710 160 160 40 McCandless Transit Neiyhborhood Transit Neiyhborhood 920 400 460 150 McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Employment Center 1,440 340 370 270 Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 720 310 290 270 Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 570 130 130 120 Tasman Employment Center Employment Center 7,560 1,740 1,870 1,050 Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 530 170 160 150 Yosemite Employment Center Employment Center 7,000 1,730 1,890 1,340 Monte Sereno 530 200 220 220 Morgan Hill 10,370 4,090 4,450 7,160 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,370 480 530 530 Mountain View 45,090 14,180 15,280 14,630 Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 710 310 340 310 Downtown Transit Town Center 5,810 2,170 2,470 2,670 East Whisman Employment Center 4,220 1,670 1,920 1,670 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,950 1,460 1,330 1,240 Moffett Field/NASA Ames Suburban Center 410 270 260 360 North Bayshore Suburban Center 6,420 2,080 2,270 230 San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 2,530 850 890 880 Palo Alto 75,380 26,630 27,820 19,360 California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 2,770 1,260 1,390 680 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,230 5,990 5,190 4,990 UniversiryAvenue/Downtown Transit Town Center 12,830 4,080 4,530 4,840 San Jose 303,730 116,760 112,610 109,040 Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 5,910 1,530 1,630 1,060 Communications Hill Transit Town Center 3,440 1,010 1,050 1,060 Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 2,110 610 610 820 Downtown "Frame" City Center 25,780 10,390 9,420 9,560 East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,970 2,910 3,250 3,930 Greater Downtown Regional Center 27,820 21,250 23,630 13,650 North San Jose Regional Center 78,840 37,840 31,970 24,660 West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 8,260 3,860 3,250 3,390 Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,220 480 450 390 Bascom Urban Villaye Mixed-Use Corridor 1,830 710 640 590 Blossom Hill/Shell Urban Villaye Mixed-Use Corridor 910 350 330 300 Camden Urban Villaye Mixed-Use Corridor 5,120 1,500 1,480 1,420 Capitol Corridor Urban Villayes Mixed-Use Corridor 2,600 1,170 1,120 1,000 Capitol/Tully/Kiny Urban Villayes Suburban Center 3,150 1,240 1,400 1,890 Oakridye/Almaden Plaza Urban Villaye Suburban Center 4,860 1,380 1,400 1,650 Saratoya TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,700 1,490 1,360 1,290 Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,550 1,500 1,410 1,280 Westyate/El Paseo Urban Villaye Suburban Center 3,010 800 840 1,030 Winchester8oulevard TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,350 2,000 1,800 1,680 Santa Clara 90,340 30,080 31,370 29,820 Central Expressway Focus Area City Center 2,550 1,030 930 950 El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 4,060 1,150 1,080 1,020 GreatAmericaParkwayPocusArea Urban Neiyhborhood 2,030 1,300 1,150 880 Lawrence Station PocusArea Transit Neiyhborhood 3,200 1,260 1,300 520 Santa Clara Station PocusArea City Center 3,430 1,040 960 830 Tasman East Focus Area Transit Neighborhood 560 310 320 180 Saratoga 9,850 3,580 3,920 3,890 9/1 /2011 31 Los Altos Hills 2,900 1,140 1,220 1,400 Los Gatos 18,900 5,250 5,570 5,370 Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County (continued) 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Sunnyvale 63,860 18,270 19,330 17,930 Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 3,310 1,550 1,380 1,320 EI Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,910 2,680 2,870 2,790 Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 3,800 1,410 1,540 1,700 East Sunnyvale lfR Mixed-Use Corridor 2,510 760 710 690 Moffett Park Employment Center 9,610 2,550 2,870 2,310 Peery Park Employment Center 5,180 1,510 1, 680 1, 250 Reamwood Liyht Rail Station Employment Center 960 230 250 190 Tasman Station lfR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,290 510 470 440 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 3,510 1,360 1,640 1,720 Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor Solano County Jursidiction or Area Name 172,750 77,640 74,000 60,440 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Total JObS 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Place Northern Gateway Employment Center 1,830 490 540 600 Dixon 4,490 1,070 1,160 1,310 Fairfield 82,840 18,060 20,310 21,420 Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Suburban Center 4,100 1,270 1,450 1,410 Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Transit Town Center 330 460 470 490 North Texas Street Core Mixed-Use Corridor 1,410 440 450 530 West Texas Street Gateway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,640 490 530 640 Rio Vista 2,010 470 540 610 Suisun Citv 3.510 1.010 1.110 1.280 Vacaville 32,290 7,600 8,230 8,740 Allison Area Suburban Center 1,040 150 180 240 Downtown Transit Town Center 2,860 700 750 880 Vallejo 34,790 8,810 9,530 10,190 Sonoma County 2010 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth 2010-2040 Job Growth Cloverdale 1,840 470 510 560 Downtown/SMART Transit Area Transit Town Center 980 300 330 330 Cotati 3,170 680 710 830 Downtown and Cotati Depot Transit Town Center 560 170 180 -190 Petaluma 27,880 7,920 8,660 10,300 Central. Turnino Basin/Lower Reach Suburban Center 2.710 750 810 970 Santa Rosa 70,ti70 18,160 19,640 22,740 Downtown Station Area City Center 8,390 2,370 3,160 3,390 Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 27,500 7,070 8,050 9,700 Sebastopol Road Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 7,990 2,270 2,680 3,070 North Santa Rosa Station Suburban Center 6,150 1,830 2,000 2,280 Sebastopol 4,980 1,270 1,340 1,470 Nexus Area Transit Town Center 3,830 1,000 1,090 1,130 Sonoma 6,090 1,590 1,700 1,880 Windsor 5,630 1,410 1,530 1,920 Redevelopment Area Suburban Center 1,180 450 500 530 Sonoma County Unincorporated 38,430 9,180 9,950 11,530 Bth Street East lndustrialArea Employment Center 660 150 160 220 Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Suburban Center 5,480 1,440 1,580 1,030 Pennyrove Urban Service Area Rural town Center 320 120 120 170 the Sprinys Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 3,220 1,020 1,090 1,260 9/1 /2011 32 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction KEY Jurisdiction (Bold Italic) Priority Development Area Growth O orfunit Area (italics) Alameda County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area JursidiCtion or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Alameda 30,120 6,800 5,810 5,720 Naval Air Station Transit Town Center 1,090 5,250 4,420 4,420 Northern Waterfront Transit Neighborhood 390 1,210 1,010 1,010 Albany 7,400 960 960 960 San Pablo Avenue & SolanoAvenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,600 820 700 700 Berkeley 48,030 8,370 8,370 8,370 Adeline Street Mixed-Use Corridor 620 310 260 260 Downtown City Center 2,570 4,900 3,980 3,980 San Pablo Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,440 1,150 960 960 South Shattuck Mixed-Use Corridor 310 130 110 110 Telegraph Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 990 510 430 430 University Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor 1,560 710 580 580 Dublin 14,910 10,900 13,810 15,780 Downtown Specific Plan Area Suburban Center 790 470 1,030 1,330 Town Center Suburban Center 3,750 2,150 2,150 2,710 Transit Center Suburban Center 620 2,580 2,580 3,350 Emeryville 5,890 5,660 5,230 5,240 Mixed-Use Core City Center 3,530 5,370 5,010 5,010 Fremont 71,000 19,090 17,380 15,500 Centerville Transit Neighborhood 5,570 1,880 1,600 1,030 City Center City Center 6,870 6,580 5,540 2,490 Irvington District Transit Town Center 4,390 2,380 2,020 2,020 Ardenwood Business Park Employment Center 0 0 0 0 Fremont Boulevard & Warm Sprinys Boulevard Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 8,540 2,640 2,230 2,180 Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossiny Mixed-Use Corridor 650 510 430 430 South Fremonf/Warm Springs Suburban Center 20 4,140 3,460 3,000 Hayward 45,370 15,480 15,480 15,480 Downtown City Center 2,540 3,390 3,070 3,070 South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor 170 1,300 1,170 1,170 South Hayward BART Urban Neighborhood 1,660 2,670 2,420 2,420 The Cannery Transit Neighborhood 410 830 750 750 Carlos Bee Quarry Mixed-Use Corridor 30 610 550 550 Mission Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 910 2,410 2,200 2,200 Livermore 29,130 9,120 11,210 12,550 Downtown Suburban Center 920 2,860 2,860 3,700 Vasco Road TOD Suburban Center 330 670 2,500 3,250 Newark 12,970 5,800 5,800 5,800 Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Transit Town Center 140 2,800 2,430 2,430 Old Town Mixed Use Area Transit Neighborhood 580 440 380 380 Cedar Boulevard Transit transit Neiyhborhood 0 980 850 850 Civic Center Re-Use Transit Transit Neighborhood 200 400 340 340 Oakland 153,790 58,720 57,720 46,210 Coliseum BART Station Area Transit Town Center 3,440 2,510 2,250 2,130 Downtown & Jack London Square Regional Center 10,630 10,650 9,490 9,490 EastmontTown Center Urban Neighborhood 5,960 2,460 2,250 1,100 Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Urban Neighborhood 12,840 7,080 6,350 4,930 MacArthur Transit Village Urban Neighborhood 8,030 4,140 3,710 3,370 Transit Oriented Development Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 60,970 22,640 20,470 14,620 West Oakland Transit Town Center 9,030 6,300 5,720 5,720 Piedmont 3,800 630 630 630 Pleasanton 25,250 6,300 7,380 8,340 Hacienda Suburban Center 1,270 2,820 3,120 4,050 San Leandro 30,720 7,120 7,120 7,120 Bay Fair BART Transit Village Transit Town Center 630 820 730 730 Downtown Transit Oriented Development City Center 3,930 3,930 3,490 3,490 East 14th Street Mixed-Use Corridor 4,490 1,510 1,370 1,370 Union City 20,430 4,550 4,550 4,160 Intermodal Station District City Center 1,030 880 750 650 Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor 0 180 150 150 Old Alvarado Mixed-Use Corridor 290 180 160 160 Alameda County Unincorporated 48,520 8,270 11,540 12,440 Castrol/allcyBART Transit Neiyhborhood 1,400 570 500 160 East 7Ath Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,740 2,060 1,820 1,790 9/1 /2011 33 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Contra Costa County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area JursidiCtion or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Antioch 32,250 6,350 6,890 9,740 HillcresteBARTStation Suburban Center 150 2,430 2,430 2,680 Rivertown Waterfront Transit Town Center 1,430 2,060 2,060 2,250 Brentwood 16.490 6.500 8.160 9.620 17 Community Reuse Area Transit Neighborhood 0 9,030 9,030 11,740 DowntownBARfStationPlanninyArea City Center 2,080 3,910 3,910 5,030 North Concord BARfAdjacent Employment Center Employment Center 10 0 0 0 West Downtown Planning Area Mixed-Use Corridor 0 600 600 770 Moraaa 5.570 1.010 1.100 1.190 Oakley 10,730 3,750 3,870 11,980 Downtown Transit Town Center 520 1,290 1,290 1,360 Employment Area Suburban Center 560 980 980 1,030 Potential Planning Area Transit Neighborhood 980 1,400 1,400 1,470 Orinda 6,550 940 980 1,010 Downtown Transit Town Center 330 370 370 390 Pino% 6,780 2,130 2,630 3,760 Appian Way Corridor Suburban Center 510 630 630 700 Old Town Transit Town Center 680 230 390 430 Pittsburg 19,530 9,340 10,200 10,850 Downtown Transit Neighborhood 1,600 2,180 2,180 2,270 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Town Center 0 2,430 2,430 2,560 Railroad Avenue eBART Station Transit Town Center 3,600 3,370 3,370 3,530 Pleasant Hill 13,710 4,490 5,770 6,900 Buskirk Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,670 170 700 760 Diablo Valley College Transit Neighborhood 730 320 320 350 Richmond 3ti,090 12,250 12,250 12,140 Central Richmond City Center 4,700 4,050 3,780 880 South Richmond Transit Neighborhood 3,250 2,310 2,150 1,690 23rd Sfreef Mixed-Use Corridor 640 970 900 900 San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 1,710 1,620 1,510 1,510 San Ramon 25.280 4.190 8.090 9.080 North Camino Ramon Transit Town Center 40 2,400 2,400 3,090 Walnut Creek 30,440 3,760 7,330 8,460 West Downtown Suburban Center 1,270 1,960 1,960 2,480 Contra Costa County Unincorporated 57,710 9,320 9,920 10,450 Contra Costa Centre Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 450 450 470 Downtown ElSobrante Mixed-Use Corridor 1,670 560 560 580 North Richmond Transit Neighborhood 1,030 2,460 2,460 2,570 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Transit Neighborhood 1,020 3,940 3,940 4,130 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,950 3,070 3,180 3,320 9/1 /2011 34 Waterfront District Transit Town Center 640 1,090 1,090 1,150 Lafayette 9,220 1,500 1,650 1,780 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,890 810 810 850 Martinez 14,290 2,300 2,550 2,760 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Marie County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Belvedere 930 60 60 60 Corte Madera 3,790 370 560 640 Fairfax 3,380 240 240 240 Larkspur 5.910 530 530 610 Novato 20,280 1,570 1,600 1,610 Ross 800 70 70 70 San Anselmo 5,240 410 410 410 San Rafael 22,760 2,500 2,790 4,000 Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Downtown Transit Town Center City Center 1,900 2,420 820 1,170 820 1,840 860 1,930 Sausalito Tiburon MarinCountyUnincorporated 4,110 3,730 211,190 260 300 3,290 280 300 3,920 300 300 4,510 Urbanized 101 Corridor San Quentin Transit Neighborhood transit Neiyhborhood 4,290 110 580 1,530 2,190 1,530 2,290 1,610 Napa County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth American Canyon 5,6110 1,690 1,750 2,010 Highway 29 Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 400 1,660 1,660 1,740 Calisto_ga 2,020 120 120 130 Napa 28,170 2,660 3,160 3,600 St Helena 2,400 120 120 120 Yountville 1,050 100 150 170 Napa County Unincorporated 9,580 830 990 1,140 San Francisco County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth San Francisco 345,810 110,640 90,470 76,430 19th Avenue Transit Town Center 4,790 3,080 2,490 2,490 Balboa Park Transit Neighborhood 1,190 2,350 1,870 1,500 Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Urban Neighborhood 10,470 15,000 12,030 9,790 Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Regional Center 89,850 32,810 27,770 23,950 Eastern Neighborhoods Urban Neighborhood 31,650 8,720 7,230 6,110 Market& Octavia Urban Neighborhood 11,130 7,650 6,150 5,010 Mission Bay Urban Neighborhood 3,200 3,280 2,630 2,140 Mission-San Jose Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 29,360 6,220 5,120 4,290 Port of San Francisco Mixed-Use Corridor 110 2,900 2,300 1,840 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of Brisba Transit Neighborhood 1,510 8,370 6,630 5,320 Transbay Terminal Regional Center 190 5,500 4,410 3,580 Treasure Island Transit Town Center 590 9,240 7,320 5,880 Citywide 161,770 5,520 4,520 4,530 9/1 /2011 35 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction San Mateo County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area JursidiCtion or Area Name P18ce Typo 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Atherton 2,330 400 400 400 Belmont 10,580 1,390 1,390 1,390 Brisbane 1,820 1,580 1,580 300 San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San Francisci Suburban Center 0 1.420 1.160 20 Colma 500 610 520 210 Daly City 31,090 7,470 7,470 5,700 Bayshore Mission Boulevard Citywide Transit Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor 1,550 2,070 27,470 2,420 1,360 3,690 2,060 1,180 4,230 2,060 1,180 2,460 East Palo Alto 0,940 3,050 3,050 3,050 Ravenswood Woodland/Willow Neighborhood Transit Town Center Urban Neighborhood 970 1, 290 1,070 1, 230 930 1,110 930 1,110 Foster City 12,020 1,670 1,670 1,670 Half Moon Bay 4,150 700 700 700 Hillsborough 3,090 820 820 600 Menlo Park 12,350 3,050 3,050 2,450 EI Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Transit Town Center 1,010 1,030 770 770 Millbrae 7.990 2.890 2.180 2.180 Pacifica 13,970 1,110 1,110 1,110 Portola Valley 1,750 240 240 240 Redwood City 27,960 10,510 9,070 8,280 Downtown City Center 990 5,320 4,150 4,150 Broadway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,710 770 600 380 Middlefield Mixed-Use Corridor 2,170 640 500 410 Mixed Use Waterfront Mixed-Use Corridor 210 1,350 1,050 1,050 Veterans Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 150 990 770 770 San Bruno 14,700 4,670 4,670 4,220 Transit Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 4,140 3,330 2,800 2,800 San Carlos 11,520 2,400 2,400 2,340 Railroad Corridor Transit Town Center 440 0 0 0 San Mateo 38,230 11,810 11,810 10,130 Downtown City Center 500 650 520 520 EI Camino Real Mixed-Use Corridor 840 1,210 970 970 Rail Corridor Transit Neighborhood 140 6,580 5,310 5,310 South San Francisco 20,940 7,610 6,300 7,430 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,510 3,640 3,030 3,030 Lindenville transit Neighborhood transit Neighborhood 0 860 710 710 Woodside 1,980 310 310 310 San Mateo County Unincorporated 20,910 5,910 5,910 5,090 City County Association of Governments of San Mateo Count Mixed-Use Corridor 38,460 15,470 12,420 10,560 9/1 /2011 36 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County Los Altos Hills 2,830 730 730 730 Los Gatos 12,360 2,330 2,330 2,330 Milpitas 19,180 12,810 12,810 12,810 Transit Area Suburban Center 750 8,140 6,910 6,910 Hammond Transit Neiyhborhood Transit Neiyhborhood 300 690 580 580 McCandless Transit Neiyhborhood Transit Neiyhborhood 0 410 340 340 McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Employment Center 0 0 0 0 Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 340 770 660 660 Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 210 40 40 10 Tasman Employment Center Employment Center 0 0 0 0 Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 0 860 730 730 Yosemite Employment Center Employment Center 30 0 0 0 Monte Sereno 1,210 300 300 300 MorganHill 12,330 3,820 4,150 8,760 Downtown Transit Town Center 510 1,200 1,200 1,550 Mountain View 31,960 15,120 12,460 11,020 Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 650 1,200 950 950 Downtown Transit Town Center 1,170 1,200 960 960 East Whisman Employment Center 250 290 230 230 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,330 2,690 2,170 2,170 Moffett Field/NASA Ames Suburban Center 180 2,770 2,210 1,940 North Bayshore Suburban Center 350 2,640 2,110 1,330 San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 1,480 3,580 2,870 2,870 Palo Alto 2ti,490 12,250 12,250 6,110 California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 750 2,360 1,720 800 El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,090 5,380 3,930 1,570 UniversiryAvenue/Downtown Transit Town Center 1,820 3,590 2,630 1,250 San Jose 301,370 133,030 130,890 116,500 Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 1,850 5,540 5,100 4,640 Communications Hill Transit Town Center 6,540 3,670 3,390 2,780 Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 0 3,390 3,120 2,840 Downtown"Frame" City Center 16,980 12,660 11,710 10,720 East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,750 4,850 4,480 4,100 Greater Downtown Regional Center 3,670 8,320 7,720 7,100 North San Jose Regional Center 10,420 37,200 34,260 31,220 West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Mixed-Use Corridor 4,730 15,820 15,040 14,230 Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 260 1,630 1,500 1,360 Bascom Urban Villaye Mixed-Use Corridor 1,810 990 910 840 Blossom Hill/Shell Urban Villaye Mixed-Use Corridor 700 1,280 1,180 1,070 Camden Urban Villaye Mixed-Use Corridor 920 1,150 1,060 960 Capitol Corridor Urban Villayes Mixed-Use Corridor 4,210 7,270 6,700 6,110 Capitol/Tully/Kiny Urban Villayes Suburban Center 1,410 2,610 2,400 2,190 Oakridye/Almaden Plaza Urban Villaye Suburban Center 2,650 8,760 8,070 7,360 Saratoya TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,710 1,310 1,200 1,100 Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,210 4,580 4,230 3,850 Westyate/El Paseo Urban Villaye Suburban Center 1,010 2,920 2,690 2,450 Winchester8oulevard TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 4,150 2,430 2,250 2,060 Santa Clara 43,020 24,260 21,130 20,350 Central ExpresswayPocusArea City Center 0 4,640 3,880 3,880 El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,650 1,300 1,110 1,110 GreatAmericaParkwayPocusArea Urban Neiyhborhood 0 3,940 3,300 3,300 Lawrence Station PocusArea Transit Neiyhborhood 0 7,190 6,020 6,020 Santa Clara Station PocusArea City Center 450 3,890 3,260 3,260 Tasman East PocusArea Transit Neighborhood 0 2,090 1,750 1,750 Saratoga 10,730 2,250 2,250 2,250 9/1 /2011 37 Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area JursidiCtion or Area Name P18Ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Campbell 16,160 2,940 2,940 2,880 Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 1,140 1,430 1,180 1,180 Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Transit Neighborhood 580 160 130 130 Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction Santa Clara County (continued) Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Sunnyvale 53,380 16,780 16,780 16,780 Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 1,730 1,840 1,510 1,510 EI Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,350 5,310 4,400 4,400 Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 1,560 2,900 2,380 2,380 East Sunnyvale lfR Mixed-Use Corridor 0 3,340 2,730 2,730 Moffett Park Employment Center 20 0 0 0 Peery Park Employment Center 110 10 10 10 Reamwood Liyht Rail Sfafion Employment Center 0 0 0 0 Tasman Station lfR Mixed-Use Corridor 850 1,660 1,350 1,350 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 28,080 7,540 10,480 13,090 Valley Transportation Authority: Cores, Corridors, and Station Mixed-Use Corridor 68,650 43,880 42,860 38,920 Solano County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Northern Gateway Employment Center 0 120 120 140 Dixon 5,860 1,390 1,680 1,940 Fairfield 34,480 11,960 12,520 14,420 Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Suburban Center 600 380 910 950 Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Transit Town Center 90 6,510 6,510 6,820 North Texas Street Core Mixed-Use Corridor 1,600 1,880 1,880 1,970 West Texas Street Gateway Mixed-Use Corridor 1,020 2,590 2,590 2,720 1,420 1.360 Vacaville 31,090 4,940 5,320 9,950 Allison Area Suburban Center 550 140 570 590 Downtown Transit Town Center 220 750 750 780 Vallejo 40,560 5,490 5,640 5,780 Waterfront& Downtown Suburban Center 980 870 870 910 Solano County Unincorporated 6,710 990 1,180 1,340 Sonoma County Core-Constrained Focused Outer Bay Area Jursidiction or Area Name P18ce Type 2010 Total Households 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth 2010-2040 HH Growth Cloverdale 3,180 960 1,040 1,090 Downtown/SMART Transit Area Transit Town Center 1,040 810 900 940 Cotati 2,980 460 470 540 Downtown and Cotati Depot Transit Town Center 830 450 450 470 Healdsburq 4,380 860 980 1,080 Petaluma 21,740 2,800 2,800 2,800 Central. Turnino Basin/Lower Reach Suburban Center 750 1.610 1.610 1.760 Santa Rosa (13,590 15,170 18,150 22,620 Downtown Station Area City Center 2,080 1,220 6,860 7,540 Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 6,910 1,590 4,280 4,670 Sebastopol Road Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,750 3,250 3,250 3,560 North Santa Rosa Station Suburban Center 3,940 3,350 3,350 3,660 Sebastopol 3,280 480 520 600 Nexus Area Transit Town Center 1,150 200 500 520 Sonoma 4,9110 520 520 520 Windsor 8,970 1,330 1,360 3,930 Redevelopment Area Suburban Center 2,040 1,290 1,290 1,350 Sonoma County Unincorporated 511,950 7,640 8,330 8,940 Bth Street East lndustrialArea Employment Center 80 20 20 20 Airport/L arkfield Urban Service Area Suburban Center 2, 850 1,110 1, 250 1,380 Pennyrove Urban Service Area Rural town Center 630 670 670 730 the Sprinys Rural Mixed-Use Corridor 6,580 1,680 1,680 1,810 9/1 /2011 38 t eayA~,e' SCENARIO ANALYSIS HOW WERE THE SCENARIOS DEFINED AND HOW DO THEY DIFFER? In June 2©11, MTC and ABAG approved five alternative flan Bay Area land use and transportation scenarios for evaluation and testing to demonstrate how the region might achieve a set of performance targets far the environment, the economy and social equity (see inside for details). These scenarios place varying degrees of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs}, which are defined as land near public transit that local officials have determined to be most suitable for development. Likewise, the scenarios recognize Priority Conservation Areas, places local officials have deemed worth keeping undeveloped for farm land, parks or open. space. The first two scenarios assume stronger economic growth and financial resources, along with a higher level of 'housing growth to meet forecasted demand. The remaining three scenarios fall somewhat chart of meeting future housing demand but reflect input received from local jurisdictions on the level of growth they think can reasonably be accommodated. SCENARIOS LAND USE TRANSPORTATIt3N PATTERN NETWORK Housing and job growth is concentrated in the PDAs, based on local land use Transportation 2035 priorities, available transit service, and access to jobs. The scanario is based Plan IVetwork - on input Pram local jurisdickions on the level of growth they can reasonably Investment strategy in accommodate given resources, local plans, and community support. 7l] NiTC's adopted long-range percent of the housing would be accommodated in PDAs. More than half of transportation plan. job growth is expected to occur in the region's 10 largest cities. Housing and jab growth is concentrated in locations that are served by Cvre Capacity Transit frequent transit services and within a 45-minute transit commute of Oakland, Network -Increases San Francisco, and San Jose. Also identifies several "game changers," ar transit service Frequency ~~ rr ;,.,.~~ ii places with capacity for a high level of growth if coupled with supportive along the core transit policies and resources. These areas include the Tasman Corridor in Santa network Clara County, lands east of Oakland Airport to the Coliseum, the Concord Naval weapons Station, and the San Francisco Eastern Waterfront, among others. Overall, 7~ percent of the housing and B1 peroent of the job growth is expected within the PDAs. Distributes growth most evenly throughout the region's transit corridors and Cvre Capacity Transit job centers, focusing mast household and job growth within the PDAs. Network - 70 percent of the housing production and around 5S percent of the See description above. employment growth would be accommodated within PDAs. Provides mare housing near transit stations and more local services in existing downtown areas and neighborhood centers. Places more household and job growth in these PDAs situated slang several Core Capacity Transit transit corridors ringing the Bay in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Network - counties, and in portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Some See description above. ` ~'' ~ 79 percent of the housing production and 58 percent of the employment ' ° ~ ..,, - growth would be accommodated within PDAs. By concentrating more growth ' r ~ ` "i"" ' ' ~ ~ ~ ``i `''' in the major downtowns and along key transit corridors, this scenario goes even further than the Focused Growth scenario in trying to maximize the use of the care transit network and provide access to jobs and services to most of the population. Closer to recent development trends, places mare growth in the cities and Transportation 2035 PDAs in the inland areas away from the Bay than those considered in the Rlan Network - Focused Growth or the Constrained Core Concentration scenarios. Most See description above, housing and employment growth would sfill be accommodated in areas closest to the Bay, but with clusters of jobs and housing in key transit- served locations in the inland areas away from the Bay. Some 67 percent of housing production and 53 percent of employment growth would be in PDAs. while increased use of public transit waul'd be limited in inland areas, some shorter commutes could be expected as jobs are created closer to residential communities. V W O V W Sd l J 7 ~ o i I L p ~ ~ ® \ ~ j V QJ N i v X w - - ~ O: a+ A 'u O ~ w d O yl Ip _ u m w 3 E ® w ~ ~ ~ ° ... T.... o ~ .................... .................... .................... ...................' ........... ~ d~ y ~ yL in i O6C M a ~~ nr.° Z Z ;I io O W Q r f ~U~4"a 'O C C C.1 ~o ~ ~- d '6 N 6iC = T W'4 ~ C d fL II ~oa° ~ Z .. I u ~ o Q OG F '.~ fl~' ~ ~ - O ~"- T Yi- ~ Ol d a C ~ U Ul N h O ~ i ~~ ~ s _ i F O N o s ~ ~ i ~ a e N O S ~ ~ ~ ~ N '' i ._ - r c ~ O H ~ ~ O J O - _ ZF ~ © ian °,aa ~ iWi ~ U c c a a w ., O: a .. 0 W J ~ ~.=r~~ _ ~ W m w .. Q it O ~ o N `l O O H F ~ { - ° ~o O + .... .. ................... ... .. .......... . ___.__ -_ _ U . u5n$mcyv U l ~ N G N •- Vl ~ C p,Q ~ .s' d o~ q ,~ 3 0 o ~+ z~.. mBz.c o O ~, Q~Q Z W y~ ~ .i ~. C ~ v > ~ ~,, ,' m v ~ a~a ~' O °.9a~~ ~ ~ 1~ C 7 ° C ~ _ - - p o _ T ~~ W L .~ i ?r V~% p "r ~ O L Imp 'C ~ Vim o O -. Q d d ~ ~ ~„ m C ~ .c s a o O ~ _ o u°'i v m c v x m ;.°~ ~ ~oc m o- . ; .0 0 c R h ~ C d vl d o O ' + .......... ........ ... . u ~ y R 7 '~. Vi 9 ~ T ~ _ ° O . . ....... ..................... ..................... .. ......... y •.~++ p K C ~ w u W ~ ~~ ~ Y~ ~Fy _i q C C y, Z E4Lny ~'~ ui` m W o - ~ a rnnw ~5 E ~ x u v m o i ~. y ~ o ® ~ c ~ w ~ m _ , _ C°u am E L O a+ u1 o - __ L m r ~ ~ 7 u m y w u w ® R C _ L a~~~ 'y ~ v m a~'avaxi°ac£i o 9- __ W (' ~~ ~ ymL p~ ~ `0 © d u c .N - o O o - x a ~ rn O Z Q i L ~ V U ~ _` o f. ~~q~ ~~ I' Of i _ 'y~ d W © J F ' '" aE „' o I -X 1N^', 9 u~ =~/ wEvQc~ z m n~ m s In a i ® _ ;i, ~ ~U - - Irk ~ .~ ' , _ Y ~L /) I . l.) o `In - J; Q1 J O Il, - , . . sys p .:f Q 1~,~ 1 ~~ (j tJ U ', N a °y' t 3 `u' rn WHAT ARE THE TARGETS AND HOW ARE THEY MEASURED? 1. Reduce per-capita C02 emissions from cars and light- duty trucks by 15% SB 375 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARS) to set targets for reducing emissions from cars and light-duty trucks. CARB adopted this target for use in Plan Bay Area; the target results are based on a measurement of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles for a typical weekday, on apex-person basis. 2. House 100°to of the region`s projected 25-year growth by income level (very-low, low, moderate, above-moderate) without displacing current low-income residents SB 375 requires regions to plan For housing all projected population growth, by income level, to prevent growth in in-commuting. This target's results reflect the percentage of year 2035 total housing demand that can be accommodated in the nine-county Bay Area. Only the first two scenarios are able to meet this target, as they assumed higher in-region population levels. In the other three scenarios, some households must live outside the Bay Area (particularly in the San Joaquin County) and commute into the region for employment. 3a. Reduce premature deaths from exposure to fine particulates (PM2.5) by 10°10 The Bay Area currently does not meet the federal standard for fine particulate matter, which is extremely hazardous to health. The targeted reduction for PM2.S reflects the expected benefit from meeting the federal standard. This target's performance was assessed by Bay Area Air Quality Management District {BAAQMD) staff; their analysis considers the impacts of fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions, as well as NOx emissions that produce secondary PM2.5. Note that all direct PM2.5 emissions from vehicles were considered, but road dust and brake/tire wear were not included. 3b. Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PM10) by 30% The Bay Area currently does not attain the state standard for coarse particulate matter. The targeted reduction for PM10 is consistent with the reduction needed to meet the state standard and achieve key health benefits. The target results reflect tailpipe emissions and road dust from all vehicles, but do not include coarse particulates from brake and tire wear. 3c. Achieve greater particulate emission reductions in highly impacted areas A "Yes" rating for this target means that highly impacted areas achieve greater reductions in particulate emissions than the rest of the region. The target assessment identified CARE communities as "highly impacted areas", CARE communities are defined by BAAQMD as lower-income communities in the Bay Area with high levels of particulate emissions from roads and ports. 4. Reduce by 50% the number of injuries and fatalities from all collisions (including bike and pedestrian) This target is adapted from the State's 2006 Strategic Highway Safety Plan and reflects core goals of improving safety and reducing driving, The target measures the tots[ number of individuals injured or killed in traffic collisions, regardless of transport mode. 5. Increase the average daily time walking or biking per person for transportation by 7D% (for an average of 15 minutes per person per day) This target relates directly to U.S. Surgeon General's guidelines on physical activity, for the purposes of lowering risk of chronic disease and increasing life expectancy. The target results are based on the average time spent walking or biking on a typical weekday, only for transportation purposes {i.e. does not include recreational walking or biking). 6. Direct alt non-agricultural development (100°1a) within the urban footprint (existing urban development and urban growth boundaries) SB 375 requires consideration of open space and natural resource protection, which supports accommodating new housing and commercial development within existing areas of urban growth. The intent of this target is to support infill development while protecting the Bay Area's agriculture and open space lands. By focusing on areas with existing urban development, as well as areas specifically selected for future growth by local governments, the target seeks to avoid both excess sprawl and elimination of key resource lands. The target results are based on the percentage of total housing units located within the year 2DlD urban footprint (defined as existing areas of development, as well as areas within existing urban growth boundaries). 7. Decrease by 10°/a the share of low-income and lower- middle incnme residents' household income consumed by transportation and housing This target aims to bring Bay Area housing and transportation costs in fine with the national average, as the region's costs are currently significantly higher than the rest of the country. The target Focuses on cost impacts for low-incnme and lower-middle income res€dents (with household income less than $6D,DD0 in year 2DD0 dollars). S, Increase gross regional product (GRP) by 90a/° - an average annual growth rate of approximately Z°/a (in current dollars) This target is a key indication of the region's commitment to advance Plan Bay Area in a manner that supports economic growth and competitiveness. Growth patterns and transportation investments in the scenarios affect travel time, cast and reliability. The Plan Bay Area Economic Impact Assessment, developed by consultant Cambridge Systematics, reflects on the cost of on-the-clock travel and access to labor, suppliers, and markets. Any resulting increases in productivity make the region more competitive for attracting new businesses and jobs; this increases employment and wages, which are also reflected in the GRP target. 9a. Increase non-auto mode share by 10% Mode share can be interpreted as the percent of trips made by a particular travel mode (walk, bike, drive, etc.); this target reflects the Plan Bay Area goal of reducing trips made using automobiles. The target benefits from service and infrastructure improvements far the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. The numeric target shown in the table reflects the resulting 1D% mode share increase from the forecasted 2005 non-auto mode share of 16°/0. This updated target language has been proposed to replace the previously adopted non-auto travel time reduction target. 9b. Decrease autnmobile vehicle miles traveled per capita by 10% Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita reflect both the total number of auto trips and the average distance of auto trips; this target would be supported by increased transit service, more opportunities for active transportation, and reduced travel distances between origins and destinations. Given significant traffc congestion in the region, it is critical to reduce VMT per person. The target results are based on model output for total auto vehicle miles traveled and are adjusted based on the total population for the relevant scenario. 10a. Increase local road pavement condition index (PCI) to 75 or better The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) reFlects the quality of the roadway surface -- the more cracks and potholes form, the lower the Pavement Condition Index. The target reflects a goal of reaching a state of good repair on local roadways, which form the backbone of the transportation network in Priority Development Areas (i.e. key areas for focused growth in the Plan}. 10b. Decrease distressed lane-miles of state highways to less than 10a/° of total lane-miles This target's performance is based on anticipated state funding for highway maintenance. The region must maintain the existing highway infrastructure in order to support the goals of Plan Bay Area. 10c. Reduce share of transit assets exceeding their useful life to 0% This target reflects a goal of replacing all transit assets on-time {i,e. at the end of their useful life); failure to do so would result in unreliable transit service. As frequent, reliable transit service is critical to support focused growth, this target reFlects the need to maintain existing transit service in a state of good repair. This updated target language has been proposed to replace the previously adapted average transit asset age target. ~'''~ BayArea ~~~f.ar~ To: MTC Planning Committee, ABAG Administrative Date: December 2, 2011 Committee Fr: ABAG and MTC Executive Directors Re: Plan Bay Area: Draft Scenarios Assessment Results In June 2011, the MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative committees approved moving forward to evaluate five alternative scenarios to demonstrate how the region might achieve the Plan Bay Area performance targets. This memorandum summarizes the underlying land use and transportation assumptions for the scenarios (Table 1). Detailed descriptions of the land use and transportation assumptions are included in Attachments C and D. At your December 9 meeting, staff will present preliminary results of the performance targets analysis and equity analysis for the scenarios. This will mark the beginning of a public process to review and comment on the alternative scenarios and will help the Commission and ABAG define a draft preferred scenario slated-for approval in Spring 2012. Table 1: Overview of Land Use and Transportation Assnmptioins in Five Scenarios LAND USE PATTERN TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 1. Initial Vision Scenario - As defined in Spring Transportation 2035 Networl~ - 2011 Investment strategy in Transportation 2035 2. Core Concentration -Concentrates housing and Core Capacity Transit Network - jobgrowth at selected Priority Development Areas Increases transit service frequency ' (PDAs) along the core transit network in the Inner along the core transit network: Bay Area. 3. Focused Growth -Recognizes the potential of Core. Capacity Transit Network PDAs throughout the region with an emphasis on See description above. major transit corridors. 4. Constrained Core Concentration -Concentrates Core Capacity Transit Network housing and job growth at selected PDAs along ~ See description above. the core transit network in the Inner Bay Area. 5. Outward Growth -Higher levels of growth in Transportation 2035 Network inland areas of the BayArea; closer to ast trends. See description above. Scenario Definitions The primary purpose of the scenario assessments is to compare and contrast the interaction between land use policy and transportation investment strategies as measured by a set often specific performance targets related to the economy, the environment and equity. These targets are described in Attachuzent A. In October 2011, the MTC Planning Committee approved a set of five additional measures for the Equity Analysis, as shown in Attachment B. In addition; the SCS Ad Hoc Committee on Performance Measures recommended a set of indicators that describe how growth can be compatible with complete communities. Analysis will be available for all scenarios on the Plan Bay Area website (http /lwww.onebayarea.org/~lan bay areas. MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee, December 2, 20I 1 Draft Scenario Assessment Results, Page 2 The specific land use and transportation definitions for the scenarios were developed based on considerable input from the Regional Advisory Working Group, Regional Planning Committee, Partnership Technical Committee, and MTC Policy Advisory Council. In particular, MTC and ABAG staff held two detailed workshops on this topic in August. Results of MTC's transportation project performance assessment also informed the investments included in the two transportation networks. Relationship between Alternative Scenarios and the Preferred Alternative The primary purpose of the scenario assessments is to compare and contrast the interaction between land use policy and transportation investment strategies as measured by the performance targets. The preferred SCS scenario alternative will be developed based on a mix of alternative scenario components that best achieve the targets and can demonstrate financial feasibility. Next Steps Staff will release the scenario assessment at your December 9 meeting. This release marks the beginning of a public process to review and comment on the alternative scenarios. MTC and ABAG will hold a series of public workshops throughout January 2012 to discuss tradeoffs and gauge support among the land use scenarios and supportive transportation programs and projects. Input received will help us define a draft preferred land use forecast and investment strategy far release in March 20I 2.followed by approval by MTC, and ABAG in May 2012. The draft preferred scenario will be subject to environmental review and other analyses throughout the remainder of 2012. Pian Bay Area is slated for final adoption in Apri12013. ~~- . ~ Ezra Rapport Steve H er Attachments Attachment A: Plan Bay Area Performance Targets Attachment B: Equity Measures for Alternative Scenarios Attachment C: Land Use Scenario Definitions - Attachment D: Transportation Network Definitions ER/SH:LK J:ICOMMITTE1Planning Committee120111December1112 Scenario Assessment-draft.doc Attachment A: Plan Bay Area Performance Targets (Adopted by MTCIABAG in January 2011) ~~ ~ •• • Target #z: Reduce per-capita COz emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by i5% •~ ~^ ~ • Target #z: Haase 300% of the region's projected z5-year growth by income level {very-low, low, moderate, above-moderate) without displacing current low-income residents .~ Target #3: Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions: • Reduce premature deaths from exposure to fine particulates (PMz.~) by ~o% • Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PMio) by 30% • Achieve greater reductions in highly impacted areas Associated Indicators • Incidence of asthma attributable to particulate emissions • Diesel particulate emissions *MTC, ABAG and the BAAQMD will monitor the indicators by collecting data on actual conditions overtime. These are distinguished from the targets, which will be forecastfor the scenarios in zo21 using regional land use, travel and air quality models. Target #4: Reduce by 5o%the number of injuries and fatalities frorrm all collisions (including bike ant! pedestrian) Target #~: Increase the average daily time walking or biking per person for transportation by 50% {for an average of i5 minutes per person per day) •• •• ~ '• • Target #6: Direct all non-agricultural development within the urban footprint (existing urban development and urban growth boundaries} •a • ~: Target #7: Decrease by io% the share oflow-income and lower-middle income residents' household income consumed by transportationond housing •~ . . Target #8: Increase gross regional product (GRP) by go%- an average annual growth rate of approximately z% (in current dollars) •• ••~ • Target #g: Decrease average per-trip travel tune by lo% for non-auto modes • Decrease automobile vehicle miles traveled per capita by 10% Target #zo: Maintain the transportation system in a state of good repair: Increase local road pavement condition index (PCq to 75 or better Decrease distressed Pane-miles of state highways to less than 10% of total lane-miles • Reduce average transit asset age to 50% of useful life Attachment B: Equity Measures for Alternative Scenarios (approved by MTC in October 2011} - - - • - •.. - -. . - •.. T; e e= d~ e; o ~sin a ho ces~~ t nTM.d~ jTrar~sp~ anon ~ iY s ~ .- ~ `'~ °- ,_ ~ _, ~ __ ~ ~, . : ,~_ . ~ :,:>~ ~.. Housing + Transportation What is the extent of any current and future- •Low-income households (a1i) Affordability year disparity between target and non-target vs. all other households populations? . Which scenario(s) reduce the share of income spent on housing and transportation by the greatest amount for the target population? • Which scenario(s) provide similar or better results for the target population compared to the rest o the po elation? __ r' ~ - ~_ `e e: Gro`~wm 1F `` u~_tabl - ~ ' -_ _ - ~. _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~. Displacement Risk Which scenario(s) resultin the feast .Communities of concern us: displacement risk forlow-income households? dllothercommunities • Which scenario(s) accommodate the greatest Low-income households (all) number of low-income households? Theri~e~M~akin tFie,lobs-Housn Connection = 3. Commute Travel Time Whatis the extent of anycurrentand future- .Communities of concern vs. year disparity between target and non-target all other communities populations? ~ - Low-income households (all) • Which scenario(s) reduce commute travel time by the greatest amount for the target populations? • Which scenario(s) provide similar or better results for the target population compared to the rest o the population? Theme: h~ealfh~~Com~unities: - - - - - 4.VMT Density Whatis the extent of any current and future- .Communities of concern vs. yeardisparity between target and non-target _ all other communities populations? . Which scenario(s) reduce VMT Density by the greatest amount for the target population? • Which scenario(s) provide similar or better results farthe target population compared to the rest o the o elation? Theme~tab~e£Mobiht _ -- _ = ,~~ £# _ 5. Non-commute Trammel Time What is the extent of any current and future- .Communities of concern vs. yeardisparitybetweentargetandnan-target all othercornmunities' populations? Low-income households (all) • Which scenario(s) reduce average trip time for non-mandatory travel by the greatest amount for the target populations? . Which scenario(s) provide similar or better results for the target populations compared to the rest o the population? Attachment C: Land Use Scenario Definitions (adopted by MTCIABAG in duly 2011} In July, ABAG's Executive Board and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a framework for Five Alternative Scenarios, which will be used to inform the development of the Preferred Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy {SCS}. Scenarios 1 and 2 are based on unconstrained growth, assume very strong employment growth (approx. 1.5 million jobs), and unprecedented funding to support affordable housing and neighborhood development (approx. 1 million households). Scenario 1, the Initial Vision Scenario was released in March 2011. Scenario 2, the Core Concentration Scenario provides for a more concentrated development pattern along transit corridors. The Core Concentration Scenario addresses the distribution of more than one million households and nearly 1.5 million jobs by 2040. This scenario aims to channel new growth into the traditional urban and inner suburban core of the region to 1) revitalize older neighborhoods, 2) preserve natural and agricultural lands, 3) fully utilize the region's major fixed transit investments, and 4) build dynamic moderate density concentrations of exployment and housing in key clusters ringing the Bay. These two scenarios arc essential to identify the challenges and policies required to achieve an ideal sustainable development path. The land use patterns for Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 are based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning assumptions (approx. 770,000 households and 1 million jobs). They provide a range of housing and employment distribution patterns across places and cities that support equitable and sustainable development. These three scenarios assume a strong economy that can support adequate affordable housing production. They also assume targeted local and regional strategies and additional funding to support sustainable and equitable growth. ^ Scenario 3: Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas and Growth Qpportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major regional transit corridors. ^ Scenario 4: Constrained Core Concentration Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Priority Development Areas in the Inner Bay Area along the region's core transit network. ^ Scenario 5: Outward Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in inland parts of the Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. (This scenario was previously named "Outer Bay Area " Growth Scenario) w e~ r i ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z y O ~ ~p ~ ~ O _~ rA ~ ~ ~ N y ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ f?, ~ ~ ~' C = ~ O t° o ~ ~ _ ~C . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~= ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~D Q -- ~p ~ y ~~ ~ O N s ~'. ~ Ca N ~ ~ y ~ ~~ O ~D m ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ o W ~ ~ ~ N a ~ ~ N N ~ y o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ' ~ O ~ N y ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ z , ~ o r° cQ ~ ,~ . ~. ~ O ~ N n ~ O ~ ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ca o ~ , ~p O ~ t1 c7 . ~ O 7C ~ !~ y ,~ N ~ ~ ~+ ~ 0 -~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 3 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O n p ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ C. ca y ~D O' N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ Q y . C ~, 3 ~ ~• ~a y ~ ~ ~ O G a y ~ N ~~ O rA ~~ N ~ ao N ~ ~ ~ c~a ~• O Q ~ o 0 ~~ !*h ~G y~ 1^h ii 1~F 0 ^ ` ~ ,~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ . . . . , . .. . ._ ~ . n ^ _ ^ ~ ' 70 . ^177 ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ O n n - ~ y a, N ~ q ~ m ~- m C ~ : ~ ~ C ' ,~ N O W ~. ,A. N Q ~ . SD ~ . n ~ . ~ ~ Q LQ ' fA O o c~ ' ~ u, :. c~ ~ , ~ . ~ ~ y ~ ~ o r+ -- ~ - o0 ' p' cD n .3 O ;' C f y ~ f~ ~ ~ ~D . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ LQ O ~ ~ `C ~ ~ N ~ fD O .~ O - 7 -p y H' ~ ~ W ~: ~ ~ 3 .~ O. ~ ~, Q ~ rt ' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' O ~ ~ ~`~ .fA-~. .~ ~- ~ .- ~ : ~ n :. O gyp ' ~• ~ u, '"h ~ : !! •a 3 . r ~p ~p '"~' ~• ~•. a ~ ~ ~ _ 00. c y a ~ - 7` _ C7 ~ c ~ ~ y ~ rt ~~. ~ CQ . -.l ~ gyp.. ~ . ~ n O . ~ ~ C7 ~ 3 ~ C) _ - Oo. ~A ~D m ~ ~ . - - - c FiT " V W O V J ~ ~I LI QJ v c > a o c W ~ 'm m c +' ~ C 1L ~ ~ p ,. - o M I - _-- _ - ~ V7 ~ v F ~ ~ ,. ~' W ~ ~ ° __ F- o ~ = U ~~ o M c L ~ 01 C yv-, ~ __ ~ c u L N 7 [ O ly U a>~ E~ ~ ~ U ~ L O = Lf1 v c ~ o U C OI W E ai v ~ ~ W ~ a o " ~ .-i i ' - 1 - $ a- ~, ° ~ f``y ~ ~ ~ o ............ O J `0 o v ~ V; v~~ a c ZQ ~a~,Y ~~ O OG ~ p ~ C > ~ E ~ ZH a E> E,~ I i -. U a i a, r . O O O ~ N a o ---- N M - G - C ~ ~ c m ~ ,~ rn ~ 'm ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `" ~ ~ ° _ ~ O .ti W~ ti L E m _ G v" u E o a", F ~ U E U p °o N - _ G > v ~~ f6 E o ~ ~ Q>~ ~ E E~ pry ~~' o U ° ,., o - o ao ~~ ~~, °~ ~v O i v ~ ~ ~ ' ¢: ~ ~ o ' W ~ o y ~ e e ~ v .L ~ n ~ U W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... .................. r ....... ........._ ........................ . ...-.-.-.......... . ... a o~~v~ v ~ E o ~ o 0 °L ~ ~ v a a O cn oL~w E V u° ° f ~ ,' ~- N ,~ o - ~ v o O ~ Z c o U S N - O o'~ ~ i - o 1~ r C '~'~ ~ i v N Zap aQ ~~Y - Q I- H v ~ "' OG m E 16 ~ i o o '~ -- ' ;'- _ ' C7 O Q ~ -a zap ~ ~ o 0 - M ~ ~ v- ~ tA Z O ° ~' a c N ~ LL ~ .N y = L x~a ~~ ° o v T _ Y O ~ _. .~ _` SIB;!. d - -- °j c ~ ~ O ~ :rr ~ ~ C ~ ~ ` ~ ~ C 1 ~ L 31 Ui 17 U V to ~ N ~ r7 O (U !J ~ ~0~1 O _ R _ ~~ ~ _ 'J N (V W n -Q N ' O N O to ti N (U H aI _- `.~ L - U rll f - 6~ Z r - L , ~ L- V CA - _ _. -. n N J v O ~ U V ~~ LI- 7 L v N ~ V y ~ O t1J U S J ir. :J .UI vl O V J ro .~, E 0 ~. Y W~ ~~1 1. ~] O C II~~ VJ FJ ~~ ® o ~ u ~ ~~ ~ ~- =P E~ O C m E U a ~ n ~ ~ .~ ~ i ~ ~° m ran I .1 I P' ~ N u ~ !:7 r~ Ca C' ID H ~- ~ {V L [P yj t; ~1 ~ d ~1 ® 0 ~ '~ i i LL ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ r- r ~ o u~ b~ i I , .~ ~~ a fF, _ _ i aa ~} 'i ~~ ~~ i !:. S 3 ~ s .,: ° ® ~_ ~ [ Ifl e id] ~ _ _ ~ - . ~ . ~~ ~ Q ~ _ V !© ~`/ ~~ I ,~+e .G] i O f`V I~ ~_ C i~ Itl C I~ 'L' 7 L 1 f ~ _ ~ ~ i,~ V LL ~ ~ O I- U ~~ ~~ ~i - - °I '_ ~~ ~ r~ ~ CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Phone: (925) 833-6650 Fax: (925) 833-6651 City Council (925) 833-6650 City Manager (925) 833-6650 Community Development (925) 833-6610 Economic Development (925) 833-6650 Finance/Admin Services (925) 833-6640 Fire Prevention (925) 833-6606 Human Resources (925) 833-6605 Parks & Community Services (925) 556-4500 Police (925) 833-6670 Public Works/Engineering (925) 833-6630 ~`~?ilri ~~ 201 February 8, 2012 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Association of Bay Area Governments Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Subject: Local Government Feedback on Alternative Scenarios To Whom It May Concern: At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting Staff presented the alternative land use scenarios and performance targets analysis to the Dublin City Council and solicited their feedback. Of all of the land use scenarios, the Core Constrained Scenario, while underestimating household growth in each of Dublin's three Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Citywide, most closely aligns with the level of household growth anticipated in the City's General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (see Table 1 on next page). The Focused Scenario is also relatively close to the level of household growth anticipated in Dublin except that it overestimates households in the Downtown Dublin PDA. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report were adopted in February 2011 and increased the development potential in the Downtown Dublin PDA by 661 units. Any additional housing development would require an amendment to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, environmental review and an evaluation of infrastructure needs. A funding source would also need to be identified to cover the costs associated with a Specific Plan amendment, environmental review and infrastructure upgrades. www.dublin.ca.gov Table 1. Household Growth Estimates (2040) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) City Initial Core Focused Core Outward Estimates Vision Concentration Scenario Concentration Growth Scenario Unconstrained Constrained Scenario Scenario Scenario Downtown 2,309 1,643 1,822 1,262 2,127 1,6341 Dublin PDA Town 7,120 7,503 5,895 5,895 6,460 5,949z,s Center PDA Transit 2,454 3,736 3,204 3,204 3,970 3,4004 Center PDA Totalln 11,883 12,882 10,921 10,361 12,557 10,983 PDAs Total 23,247 20,794 17,803 15,452 18,134 17,7185 Outside PDAs Citywide 35,130 33,676 28,724 25,813 30,691 28,701 Total X334 existing units as of 2011; 1,300 new units per the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ZBased on approved entitlements and units remaining per the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 385 units could be added if the Area GPublic/Semi-Public site is converted to residential 41,800 units at the Dublin Transit Center and 1,600 units at Camp Parks/SunCal 52,021 units maybe added if the following are entitled: Doolan Canyon (1,990), Positano P/SP(12) and Area F P/SP (19) With respect to employment growth, all five land use scenarios grossly underestimate future employment growth in the Town Center PDA and Transit Center PDA (see Table 2 on next page). For the purposes of comparison, Dublin assumes full build out by 2040 whereas the three constrained land use scenarios (Focused Scenario, Core Concentration Scenario and Outward Growth Scenario) reflect very little employment growth over the next 30 years (2010-2040). In the Town Center PDA and Transit Center PDA, the constrained land use scenarios assume only +200 additional jobs over the next 30 years. Failure to recognize the job growth potential within the Transit Center PDA undermines the value of this PDA and its close proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. In the Town Center PDA, vacant land designated for general commercial at the intersection of two major thoroughfares, Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, makes this a prime location for retail and has generated a lot of interest within the development community. It is unrealistic to assume that this land will remain vacant for the next 30 years. Table 2. Employment Growth Estimates (2040) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) City Initial Core Focused Core Outward Estimates Vision Concentration Scenario Concentration Growth Scenario Unconstrained Constrained Scenario Scenario Scenario Downtown 14,189 9,505 5,749 5,644 6,018 5,952 Dublin PDA Town 2,387 765 548 545 593 3,014 Center PDA Transit 1,735 204 171 161 204 9,028 Center PDA Total In 18,311 10,474 6,468 6,350 6,815 17,994 PDAs Total 18,169 22,045 16,592 16,083 20,554 26,907 Outside PDAs Citywide 36,480 32,519 23,060 22,433 27,369 44,901 Total The City thanks you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Alternative Scenarios. We respectfully request that local plans be taken into greater consideration when looking at projected household and employment growth over the next 30 years. We hope that our comments provide additional insight and are reflected in the household and job growth allocations in the Preferred Scenario. Sincerely, Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director CC: Joni Pattillo, City Manager Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager Jeff Baker, Planning Manager Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner