city of palo alto (cmr # 2479) housing needs mandate committee staff report (2011)

8/3/2019 City of Palo Alto (CMR # 2479) Housing Needs Mandate Committee Staff Report (2011)

1/66

City of Palo Alto (ID # 2479)Housing Needs Mandate Committee Staff Report

Report Type: Meeting Date: 1/26/2012

Summary Title: Review of Alternative Scenarios

Title: Review of Alternative Scenarios

From: City Manager

Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

There is no staff report for this item.

However, there are Attachments with corresponding information.

Attachments:

Attachment A: All Scenarios Comparison - Final (PDF)

Attachment B: Alternative Scenarios Presentation - ABAG 12/11 (PDF)

h C O G d ( )


2/66

Cities_HH

Co un ty J ur is di ct io n

2010

(estimated) 2035

Growth

(2010-2035) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) IVS

Core

Concentration Focused Growth

Constrained

C or e O

Alameda Alameda 6,864 5,664 31,774 39,873 8,099 40,710 8,936 30,123 48,117 17,994 35,935 5,812 36,924 6,801 35,843 5,720 7.19 8.50 6.34 6.52

Alameda Albany 1,150 818 7,150 9,317 2,167 9,517 2,367 7,401 8,742 1,341 8,356 955 8,356 955 8,356 955 11.64 10.69 10.22 10.22

Alameda Berkeley 6,775 5,100 46,146 61,876 15,730 63,317 17,171 46,029 59,414 13,385 54,399 8,370 54,399 8,370 54,399 8,370 12.42 11.65 10.67 10.67

Alameda Dublin 7,976 6,670 15,572 32,216 16,644 35,130 19,558 14,913 33,676 18,763 28,724 13,811 25,813 10,900 30,691 15,778 5.27 5.05 4.31 3.87

Alameda Emeryville 788 585 5,770 13,260 7,490 14,187 8,417 5,694 12,310 6,616 10,929 5,235 11,351 5,657 10,931 5,237 24.24 21.03 18.67 19.39

Alameda F remont 49,265 27,451 71,004 98,564 27,560 104,274 33,271 71,004 113,484 42,480 88,385 17,381 90,095 19,091 86,504 15,500 3.80 4.13 3.22 3.28

Alameda Hayward 28,094 16,119 46,300 61,283 14,982 65,057 18,757 45,365 64,952 19,587 60,842 15,477 60,842 15,477 60,842 15,477 4.04 4.03 3.77 3.77

Alameda L ivermore 15,259 12,561 28,662 40,801 12,138 43,340 14,677 29,134 41,639 12,505 40,347 11,213 38,254 9,120 41,683 12,549 3.45 3.32 3.21 3.05

Alameda Newark 8,822 7,590 13,530 19,331 5,802 20,042 6,513 12,972 20,098 7,126 18,774 5,802 18,774 5,802 18,774 5,802 2.64 2.65 2.47 2.47

Alameda Oakland 36,029 26,867 160,567 226,019 65,453 232,163 71,597 153,791 232,800 79,009 211,512 57,721 212,510 58,719 200,004 46,213 8.64 8.66 7.87 7.91

Alameda Piedmont 1,078 847 3,810 3,820 10 3,820 10 3,801 3,850 49 4,428 627 4,428 627 4,428 627 4.51 4.54 5.23 5.23

Alameda Pleasanton 14,138 11,275 24,034 33,819 9,785 35,759 11,725 25,245 35,902 10,657 32,626 7,381 31,542 6,297 33,584 8,339 3.17 3.18 2.89 2.80

Alameda San Leandro 8,471 6,916 31,647 40,447 8,800 41,427 9,780 30,717 43,405 12,688 37,836 7,119 37,836 7,119 37,836 7,119 5.99 6.28 5.47 5.47

Alameda U nion City 12,363 8,285 20,420 25,900 5,480 27,309 6,889 20,433 25,022 4,589 24,982 4,549 24,982 4,549 24,597 4,164 3.30 3.02 3.02 3.02

Alameda Alameda County Unincorpor 278,707 201,372 51,265 63,872 12,606 66,483 15,218 48,516 64,205 15,689 60,056 11,540 56,783 8,267 60,961 12,445 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.28

Contra Costa Antioch 17,695 13,843 32,668 46,365 13,697 48,066 15,398 32,252 41,046 8,794 39,143 6,891 38,600 6,348 41,993 9,741 3.47 2.97 2.83 2.79

Contra Costa Brentwood 7,542 6,353 18,250 24,284 6,034 25,532 7,282 16,494 22,913 6,419 24,651 8,157 22,994 6,500 26,116 9,622 4.02 3.61 3.88 3.62

Contra Costa Clayton 2,468 2 ,131 3,966 4,090 124 4,119 153 4,006 4,654 648 4,538 532 4,538 532 4,538 532 1.93 2.18 2.13 2.13

Contra Costa Concord 19,417 1 5,812 46,296 65,624 19,328 69,530 23,234 44,278 73,749 29,471 61,558 17,280 61,018 16,740 68,899 24,621 4.40 4.66 3.89 3.86

Contra Costa Danville 11,560 9,378 16,574 17,920 1,346 18,202 1,628 15,420 17,350 1,930 18,299 2,879 18,054 2,634 18,515 3,095 1.94 1.85 1.95 1.93 Contra Costa El Cerrito 2,350 1,806 10,422 20,905 10,483 21,135 10,713 10,142 13,744 3,602 11,985 1,843 12,272 2,130 11,985 1,843 11.70 7.61 6.64 6.79

Contra Costa Hercules 4,195 3,063 8,361 17,431 9,070 18,186 9,825 8,115 14,173 6,058 12,768 4,653 12,768 4,653 12,999 4,884 5.94 4.63 4.17 4.17

Contra Costa Lafayette 9,811 7,441 9,589 11,068 1,479 11,356 1,767 9,223 11,532 2,309 10,868 1,645 10,719 1,496 11,000 1,777 1.53 1.55 1.46 1.44

Contra Costa Martinez 8,606 5,905 14,769 16,156 1,387 16,214 1,445 14,287 15,371 1,084 16,836 2,549 16,591 2,304 17,052 2,765 2.75 2.60 2.85 2.81

Contra Costa Moraga 5,928 5,524 5,811 6,995 1,184 7,227 1,416 5,570 6,656 1,086 6,673 1,103 6,576 1,006 6,758 1,188 1.31 1.20 1.21 1.19

Contra Costa Oakley 8,201 7,114 10,835 17,508 6,673 18,239 7,404 10,727 14,393 3,666 14,595 3,868 14,474 3,747 22,704 11,977 2.56 2.02 2.05 2.03

Contra Costa Orinda 8,111 6 ,779 6,868 8,788 1,920 8,929 2,061 6,553 7,861 1,308 7,529 976 7,490 937 7,563 1,010 1.32 1.16 1.11 1.10

Contra Costa Pinole 3,403 2,639 7,336 12,623 5,287 13,134 5,798 6,775 8,509 1,734 9,408 2,633 8,909 2,134 10,536 3,761 4.98 3.22 3.57 3.38

Contra Costa Pittsburg 10,714 7,775 20,849 36,261 15,412 38,162 17,313 19,527 28,257 8,730 29,724 10,197 28,871 9,344 30,374 10,847 4.91 3.63 3.82 3.71

Contra Costa Pleasant Hill 4,505 3,570 15,247 17,861 2,614 18,216 2,969 13,708 17,070 3,362 19,479 5,771 18,201 4,493 20,609 6,901 5.10 4.78 5.46 5.10

Contra Costa Richmond 19,357 12,682 37,897 63,439 25,542 65,681 27,784 36,093 56,884 20,791 48,346 12,253 48,346 12,253 48,232 12,139 5.18 4.49 3.81 3.81

Contra Costa San Pablo 1,634 1,284 9,975 13,027 3,052 13,387 3,412 8,761 11,786 3,025 11,108 2,347 11,108 2,347 10,620 1,859 10.42 9.18 8.65 8.65

Contra Costa San Ramon 7,520 6,188 22,061 36,682 14,621 39,247 17,186 25,284 30,737 5,453 33,378 8,094 29,476 4,192 34,367 9,083 6.34 4.97 5.39 4.76

Contra Costa Walnut Creek 12,785 8,439 33,890 40,244 6,354 40,996 7,106 30,443 37,547 7,104 37,777 7,334 34,208 3,765 38,901 8,458 4.86 4.45 4.48 4.05

Contra Costa C.C. County Unincorporated 320,507 191,685 61,016 69,382 8,366 70,315 9,299 57,706 69,256 11,550 67,629 9,923 67,027 9,321 68,154 10,448 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.35

Marin Belvedere 388 2 54 949 969 20 969 20 928 963 35 988 60 988 60 988 60 3.82 3.80 3.90 3.90

Marin Corte Madera 2,050 1 ,183 3,948 4,721 773 4,888 940 3,793 4,454 661 4,354 561 4,161 368 4,434 641 4.13 3.77 3.68 3.52

Marin Fairfax 1,410 1,167 3,301 3,361 60 3,371 70 3,379 3,419 40 3,616 237 3,616 237 3,616 237 2.89 2.93 3.10 3.10

Marin Larkspur 1,986 1,249 8,036 8,377 341 7,750 -286 5,908 6,607 699 6,436 528 6,436 528 6,519 611 6.21 5.29 5.16 5.16

Marin Mill Valley 3,018 1,931 6,267 6,631 364 6,709 442 6,084 6,574 490 6,588 504 6,588 504 6,588 504 3.47 3.40 3.41 3.41

Marin Novato 17,819 9 ,188 20,375 21,153 778 21,350 975 20,279 21,964 1,685 21,878 1,599 21,853 1,574 21,884 1,605 2.32 2.39 2.38 2.38

Marin Ross 1,011 832 780 790 10 790 10 798 809 11 867 69 867 69 867 69 0.95 0.97 1.04 1.04

Marin San Anselmo 1,721 1,294 5,310 5,370 60 5,380 70 5,243 5,323 80 5,653 410 5,653 410 5,653 410 4.16 4.11 4.37 4.37

Marin San Rafael 10,767 6,503 23,164 28,209 5,045 28,319 5,155 22,764 27,850 5,086 25,556 2,792 25,262 2,498 26,764 4,000 4.35 4.28 3.93 3.88

Marin Sausalito 1,227 717 4,310 4,400 90 4,420 110 4,112 4,298 186 4,391 279 4,373 261 4,407 295 6.17 6.00 6.13 6.10

Marin Tiburon 2,918 1,508 3,844 4,242 398 4,305 461 3,729 4,155 426 4,032 303 4,032 303 4,032 303 2.85 2.76 2.67 2.67

Marin Marin County Unincorporated 291,592 155,293 26,162 28,900 2,738 28,247 2,085 26,193 29,078 2,885 30,110 3,917 29,483 3,290 30,704 4,511 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19

Napa American Canyon 2,604 2,094 5,761 7,392 1,632 7,428 1,667 5,657 6,826 1,169 7,402 1,745 7,347 1,690 7,670 2,013 3.55 3.26 3.53 3.51 Napa Calistoga 1,709 1,485 2,140 2,171 31 2,180 40 2,019 2,178 159 2,140 121 2,134 115 2,146 127 1.47 1.47 1.44 1.44

Napa Napa 11,548 8,729 29,440 32,019 2,579 32,569 3,130 28,166 31,925 3,759 31,328 3,162 30,830 2,664 31,769 3,603 3.73 3.66 3.59 3.53

Napa St. Helena 3,122 2,825 2,440 2,533 93 2,551 111 2,401 2,551 150 2,517 116 2,518 117 2,518 117 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89

Napa Yountville 920 607 1,110 1,230 120 1,239 129 1,050 1,237 187 1,201 151 1,153 103 1,224 174 2.04 2.04 1.98 1.90

Napa Napa County Unincorporated 484,471 353,058 10,370 10,716 346 10,754 384 9,583 10,300 717 10,576 993 10,414 831 10,718 1,135 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

San Francisco San Francisco 30,112 19,077 346,680 436,794 90,114 452,093 105,413 345,811 472,534 126,723 436,278 90,467 456,454 110,643 422,240 76,429 23.70 24.77 22.87 23.93

San Mateo Atherton 3,251 2,909 2,490 2,580 90 2,600 110 2,330 2,685 355 2,729 399 2,729 399 2,729 399 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.94

San Mateo Belmont 2,942 2,176 10,740 12,759 2,019 12,986 2,246 10,575 12,521 1,946 11,962 1,387 11,962 1,387 11,962 1,387 5.97 5.75 5.50 5.50

San Mateo Brisbane 2,112 1 ,526 1,730 5,324 3,594 5,659 3,929 1,821 4,777 2,956 3,403 1,582 3,403 1,582 2,116 295 3.71 3.13 2.23 2.23

San Mateo Burlingame 2,864 2,188 13,247 19,431 6,184 20,096 6,850 12,361 17,663 5,302 16,289 3,928 16,289 3,928 16,289 3,928 9.18 8.07 7.44 7.44

San Mateo Colma 1,253 1,091 460 1,372 912 1,392 932 564 2,894 2,330 1,085 521 1,173 609 774 210 1.28 2.65 0.99 1.08

San Mateo Daly City 4,925 3,496 31,261 43,095 11,834 45,048 13,787 31,090 45,543 14,453 38,559 7,469 38,559 7,469 36,792 5,702 12.89 13.03 11.03 11.03

San Mateo East Palo Alto 1,616 1,125 7,780 12,310 4,530 12,773 4,993 6,940 10,133 3,193 9,990 3,050 9,990 3,050 9,990 3,050 11.36 9.01 8.88 8.88

San Mateo Foster City 2,616 1,842 12,210 13,767 1,557 14,027 1,817 12,016 14,289 2,273 13,683 1,667 13,683 1,667 13,683 1,667 7.61 7.76 7.43 7.43

San Mateo Half Moon Bay 4,133 3,334 4,440 4,730 290 4,779 339 4,149 4,775 626 4,851 702 4,851 702 4,851 702 1.43 1.43 1.46 1.46

San Mateo Hillsborough 3,943 3 ,513 3,837 4,589 752 4,737 900 3,693 4,507 814 4,513 820 4,513 820 4,292 599 1.35 1.28 1.28 1.28

San Mateo Menlo Park 6,524 3,521 12,432 17,563 5,130 18,057 5,625 12,347 15,616 3,269 15,395 3,048 15,395 3,048 14,795 2,448 5.13 4.44 4.37 4.37

San Mateo Millbrae 2,082 1,660 8,308 12,910 4,602 13,208 4,900 7,994 12,476 4,482 10,172 2,178 10,881 2,887 10,172 2,178 7.95 7.51 6.13 6.55

San Mateo Pacifica 7,971 4,231 14,320 14,600 280 14,649 329 13,967 14,680 713 15,073 1,106 15,073 1,106 15,073 1,106 3.46 3.47 3.56 3.56

San Mateo Portola Valley 5,865 4 ,011 1,730 1,780 50 1,790 60 1,746 1,864 118 1,989 243 1,989 243 1,989 243 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.50

San Mateo Redwood City 13,182 7,118 29,620 41,032 11,412 42,267 12,648 27,957 41,834 13,877 37,027 9,070 38,470 10,513 36,234 8,277 5.94 5.88 5.20 5.40

San Mateo San Bruno 3,563 2,664 15,262 21,699 6,437 22,531 7,269 14,701 21,452 6,751 19,370 4,669 19,370 4,669 18,925 4,224 8.46 8.05 7.27 7.27

San Mateo San Carlos 3,603 2,875 11,909 15,707 3,798 16,157 4,248 11,524 14,758 3,234 13,926 2,402 13,926 2,402 13,863 2,339 5.62 5.13 4.84 4.84

San Mateo San Mateo 7,910 5,614 38,643 56,678 18,035 59,074 20,431 38,233 55,539 17,306 50,038 11,805 50,038 11,805 48,360 10,127 10.52 9.89 8.91 8.91

San Mateo South San Francisco 6,023 4,643 20,288 30,522 10,234 31,648 11,360 20,938 31,897 10,959 27,242 6,304 28,548 7,610 28,365 7,427 6.82 6.87 5.87 6.15

San Mateo Woodside 7,542 6,105 2,029 2,059 30 2,069 40 1,977 2,201 224 2,284 307 2,284 307 2,284 307 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.37

San Mateo San Mateo County Unincorp r 197,384 1 03,271 21,780 23,830 2,050 24,049 2,269 20,914 27,861 6,947 26,825 5,911 26,825 5,911 26,000 5,086 0.23 0.27 0.26 0.26

Santa Clara Campbell 3,641 2,836 16,892 21,002 4,110 21,609 4,717 16,163 20,311 4,148 19,107 2,944 19,107 2,944 19,048 2,885 7.62 7.16 6.74 6.74 Santa Clara Cupertino 6,962 5,377 19,830 21,588 1,758 21,910 2,080 20,181 22,440 2,259 24,141 3,960 24,141 3,960 24,141 3,960 4.08 4.17 4.49 4.49

Santa Clara Gilroy 10,247 8,881 14,330 22,118 7,788 23,329 8,999 14,175 22,772 8,597 20,616 6,441 19,882 5,707 21,265 7,090 2.63 2.56 2.32 2.24

Santa Clara Los Altos 4,079 3,408 10,670 11,968 1,298 12,150 1,480 10,745 11,940 1,195 12,902 2,157 12,902 2,157 12,902 2,157 3.56 3.50 3.79 3.79

Santa Clara Los Altos Hills 5,457 4,714 3,053 3,088 35 3,108 55 2,829 3,070 241 3,557 728 3,557 728 3,557 728 0.66 0.65 0.75 0.75

Santa Clara Los Gatos 6,958 5,272 12,430 13,151 721 13,287 857 12,355 13,632 1,277 14,688 2,333 14,688 2,333 14,688 2,333 2.52 2.59 2.79 2.79

Santa Clara Milpitas 8,812 6,753 19,030 38,758 19,728 42,096 23,066 19,184 44,837 25,653 31,991 12,807 31,991 12,807 31,991 12,807 6.23 6.64 4.74 4.74

Santa Clara Monte Sereno 1,025 929 1,229 1,269 40 1,279 49 1,211 1,329 118 1,515 304 1,515 304 1,515 304 1.38 1.43 1.63 1.63

Santa Clara Morgan Hill 7,547 6,385 12,399 20,040 7,641 21,140 8,741 12,326 19,518 7,192 16,479 4,153 16,146 3,820 21,088 8,762 3.31 3.06 2.58 2.53

Santa Clara Mountain View 7,774 5,750 32,114 50,348 18,234 52,407 20,293 31,957 46,505 14,548 44,415 12,458 47,079 15,122 42,976 11,019 9.11 8.09 7.72 8.19

Santa Clara Palo Alto 15,469 7,796 26,705 38,692 11,987 40,633 13,928 26,493 37,835 11,342 38,743 12,250 38,743 12,250 32,600 6,107 5.21 4.85 4.97 4.97

Santa Clara San Jose 112,699 81,984 305,087 435,585 130,498 456,367 151,279 301,366 493,121 191,755 432,253 130,887 434,400 133,034 417,871 116,505 5.57 6.01 5.27 5.30

Santa Clara Santa Clara 11,741 9,752 43,403 67,672 24,269 71,032 27,629 43,021 75,243 32,222 64,150 21,129 67,276 24,255 63,366 20,345 7.28 7.72 6.58 6.90

Santa Clara Saratoga 7,788 6,792 11,000 11,118 118 11,145 145 10,734 11,259 525 12,983 2,249 12,983 2,249 12,983 2,249 1.64 1.66 1.91 1.91

Gross Acres Net Acres

Housing Density 2040 (Households per Net Acre)Outward Growth

2010(U.S. Census)

Core ConcentraionConstrained Core

ConcentrationFocused GrowthInitial Vision

Page 1


3/66

Cities_HH

Co un ty J ur is di ct io n

2010

(estimated) 2035

Growth

(2010-2035) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) 2040

Growth

(2010-2040) IVS

Core

Concentration Focused Growth

Constrained

C or e OGross Acres Net Acres

Housing Density 2040 (Households per Net Acre)Outward Growth

2010(U.S. Census)

Core ConcentraionConstrained Core

ConcentrationFocused GrowthInitial Vision

Santa Clara Sunnyvale 14,028 1 0,328 54,170 73,425 19,255 75,943 21,773 53,384 73,911 20,527 70,165 16,781 70,165 16,781 70,165 16,781 7.35 7.16 6.79 6.79

Santa Clara S.C. County Unincorporated 606,579 433,768 31,604 37,991 6,386 38,660 7,055 28,080 35,529 7,449 38,564 10,484 35,619 7,539 41,168 13,088 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08

Solano Benicia 10,084 6,205 11,329 13,527 2,198 13,707 2,378 10,686 11,931 1,245 11,878 1,192 11,872 1,186 12,121 1,435 2.21 1.92 1.91 1.91

Solano Dixon 4,331 3 ,808 5,617 8,222 2,605 8,458 2,841 5,856 7,237 1,381 7,537 1,681 7,244 1,388 7,796 1,940 2.22 1.90 1.98 1.90

Solano Fairfield 23,932 19,853 36,061 52,476 16,415 53,556 17,495 34,484 44,945 10,461 47,003 12,519 46,447 11,963 48,903 14,419 2.70 2.26 2.37 2.34

Solano Rio Vista 4,507 3 ,992 3,540 4,737 1,197 5,012 1,472 3,454 5,200 1,746 5,358 1,904 4,878 1,424 5,781 2,327 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.22

Solano Suisun City 2,579 1,959 9,132 10,548 1,415 10,999 1,867 8,918 10,174 1,256 10,353 1,435 10,281 1,363 10,416 1,498 5.62 5.19 5.29 5.25

Solano Vacaville 17,438 13,156 32,620 41,775 9,155 43,532 10,912 31,092 39,493 8,401 36,408 5,316 36,028 4,936 41,042 9,950 3.31 3.00 2.77 2.74

Solano Vallejo 21,159 14,692 42,043 47,814 5,771 48,844 6,801 40,559 49,868 9,309 46,200 5,641 46,046 5,487 46,336 5,777 3.32 3.39 3.14 3.13

Solano Solano County Unincorporat 484,961 404,052 7,817 8,677 860 8,778 961 6,709 9,514 2,805 7,885 1,176 7,699 990 8,049 1,340 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Sonoma Cloverdale 1,672 1,322 3,211 4,639 1,428 4,901 1,690 3,182 4,484 1,302 4,227 1,045 4,138 956 4,270 1,088 3.71 3.39 3.20 3.13

Sonoma Cotati 1,202 998 2,832 3,387 555 3,419 587 2,978 3,220 242 3,449 471 3,434 456 3,520 542 3.43 3.23 3.46 3.44

Sonoma Healdsburg 2,490 2 ,019 4,390 5,284 894 5,474 1,084 4,385 5,717 1,332 5,355 977 5,234 856 5,462 1,084 2.71 2.83 2.65 2.59

Sonoma P etaluma 8,866 6,996 21,775 24,713 2,938 25,416 3,641 21,737 25,074 3,337 24,538 2,801 24,539 2,802 24,539 2,802 3.63 3.58 3.51 3.51

Sonoma Rohnert Park 4,155 3,154 15,718 20,395 4,677 21,052 5,333 15,808 18,934 3,126 19,019 3,211 18,676 2,868 19,302 3,494 6.67 6.00 6.03 5.92

Sonoma Santa Rosa 26,010 20,102 62,886 83,010 20,124 85,275 22,389 63,591 78,227 14,636 81,744 18,154 78,762 15,172 86,210 22,620 4.24 3.89 4.07 3.92

Sonoma Sebastopol 1,225 960 3,325 3,595 270 3,615 290 3,276 3,532 256 3,801 525 3,757 481 3,880 604 3.77 3.68 3.96 3.91

Sonoma Sonoma 1,679 1,310 4,476 5,036 560 5,159 683 4,955 5,464 509 5,474 519 5,474 519 5,474 519 3.94 4.17 4.18 4.18

Sonoma W indsor 4,299 3,372 8,884 13,809 4,925 14,004 5,120 8,962 10,548 1,586 10,325 1,355 10,305 1,335 12,901 3,931 4.15 3.13 3.06 3.06

Sonoma Sonoma County Unincorporat 965,252 845,140 60,933 67,505 6,572 68,313 7,380 56,951 65,041 8,090 65,278 8,327 64,590 7,639 65,886 8,935 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Alameda 475,780 338,120 557,651 770,397 212,746 802,536 244,884 545,138 807,617 262,479 718,132 172,994 712,889 167,751 709,433 164,295 2.37 2.39 2.12 2.11

Contra Costa 486,310 319,410 392,680 546,653 153,973 565,873 173,193 375,364 503,490 128,126 486,291 110,927 472,240 96,876 511,916 136,552 1.77 1.58 1.52 1.48

Marin 335,908 181,117 106,447 117,124 10,677 116,497 10,050 103,210 1 15,493 12,283 114,469 11,259 113,312 10,102 116,456 13,246 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63

Napa 504,375 368,799 51,260 56,061 4,801 56,721 5,461 48,876 55,017 6,141 55,164 6,288 54,396 5,520 56,045 7,169 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

San Francisco 30,112 19,077 346,680 436,794 90,114 452,093 105,413 345,811 472,534 126,723 436,278 90,467 456,454 110,643 422,240 76,429 23.70 24.77 22.87 23.93

San Mateo 291,303 168,914 264,516 358,337 93,821 369,598 105,082 257,837 359,964 102,127 326,405 68,568 329,951 72,114 319,537 61,700 2.19 2.13 1.93 1.95

Santa Clara 830,805 600,726 613,947 867,813 253,866 906,095 292,148 604,204 933,252 329,048 846,269 242,065 850,193 245,989 831,324 227,120 1.51 1.55 1.41 1.42

Solano 568,991 467,717 148,160 187,776 39,616 192,886 44,726 141,758 178,362 36,604 172,622 30,864 170,496 28,738 180,445 38,687 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.36

Sonoma 1,016,849 885,372 188,430 231,373 42,943 236,628 48,198 185,825 220,241 34,416 223,210 37,385 218,909 33,084 231,444 45,619 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.25

,540,433 3,349,251 2,669,772 3,572,327 902,556 3,698,925 1,029,154 2,608,023 3,645,969 1,037,946 3,378,840 770,817 3,378,840 770,817 3,378,840 770,817 1.10 1.09 1.01 1.01

Page 2


4/66

Scenario Results

MTC Planning Committee and ABAG Administrative Committee


5/66

Where we are in the SCS

process: Adopted Performance Targets (Jan 2011)

Approved Scenario Definitions (July 2011)

Reviewed Project Performance Results (Nov 2011)

Develop Scenario Details/Test Target Results (Dec 2011)

Public Workshops/Tradeoff Discussions (Jan 2012)

Develop/Approve Preferred SCS (Feb May 2012)

Release/Adopt SCS/SCS EIR (Nov 2012 Apr 2013)


6/66

Five Scenarios

1. Initial VisionTransportation 20352. Core ConcentrationCore Transit Capacity3. Focused GrowthCore Transit Capacity4. Constrained Core Concen.Core Transit Capacity5. Outward GrowthTransportation 2035

All scenarios focus growth as compared to past

trends There is no business as usual scenario

Performance target results highlight areas wherepolicy is needed


7/66

Land Use Scenarios

1 Initial Vision Scenario As defined in Spring 2011

2Core Concentration Concentrates housing and job growthat selected Priority Development Areas (PDAs) along the cortransit network.

3Focused Growth Recognizes the potential of PDAsthroughout the region with an emphasis on major transitcorridors.

4Constrained Core Concentration Concentrates housingand job growth at selected PDAs along the core transitnetwork.

5Outward Growth Higher levels of growth in inland areas othe Bay Area; closer to past trends.

E l f Si ifi t P j t T t d


8/66

Examples of Significant Projects Tested

Roadway

Regional Express Lanes Network

Freeway Performance Initiative

San Mateo and Santa Clara ITS

Fremont-Union City East-West Con

I-680/Rt 4 Interchange Impvts. + SRWidening

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Stage 2

Jameson Canyon Impvts. Phase 2

SR-29 HOV Lanes + BRT

New SR-152 Alignment

I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (Airbase to I-68

Transit

AC Transit Grand Mac-Arthur BRT

Irvington BART Infill Station

Alameda-Oakland BRT + Transit AcImpvts.

AC Transit East Bay BRT

I-680 Express Bus Frequency Impv

Caltrain 6-Train Service + Electrific(SF to Tamien)

Van Ness Ave. BRT

SMART (San Rafael-Larkspur)

BART Extension from Berryessa toJose/Santa Clara

Transpor t a t ion 2035 Netw ork

Starts with the 2010 transit and roadwaynetwork

Keeps investment levels formaintenance, transit and roadwayexpansion, and bike/pedestrian atroughly same levels as in T2035

Tests T2035 projects proposed to becarried over into Plan Bay Area

Considers project performanceassessment results

E l f Si ifi t P j t T t d


9/66

Examples of Significant Projects Tested(includes most T2035 Network projects)

Roadway

SR-84/I-680 Interchange Impvts + SWidening

Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane

US-101 HOV Lanes (Whipple Ave toChavez St)

Transit

BART Metro Program

Dumbarton Corridor Express Bus

BART Bay Fair Connection

BART to Livermore Phase 1

Golden Gate Ferry Service FrequenImpvts.

SFMTA Transit Effectiveness

Better Market Street

Geneva Ave BRT and Southern InteTerminal

Parkmerced Light Rail Corridor

Oakdale Caltrain Station SamTrans El Camino BRT

VTA El Camino BRT

Service Frequency Impvts. on AC TMuni, ferries, BART, and Caltrain

Core Capac i t y Transi t Net w ork

Starts with the 2010 transit and roadwaynetwork

Keeps T2035 investment levels formaintenance and bike/pedestrian, butreduces roadway expansion and boostscore capacity transit service

Tests most T2035 Network projects and

includes a 46 percent increase in transitfrequency impvts. from 2010 network (at atotal 28-year operating and capital cost of$53 billion)

Not financially constrained due to cost oftransit frequency impvts. exceedingavailable revenue Only $15 billion of the needed $53 billion is available ($10

billion in operating efficiencies per TSP and $5 billion innew revenue)

Considers project performance assessment


10/66

SB 375 Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Targets The Air Resources Board established per capita

reduction targets for passenger vehicle and light-

duty truck emissions relative to a 2005 baseline(excludes vehicle or clean fuel regulations)

Bay Areas target for 2020 is a 7 percentreduction

Bay Areas target for 2035 is a 15 percentreduction


11/66

Each of the five scenariosexceeds the 2020 target.

The year 2035 resultexceeds, in each scenario,the year 2020 result.


12/66

The last time we spoke Year 2035, Current Regional Plans: -10.6 percent

Year 2035, Initial Vision Scenario: -11.6 percent

And now Year 2035, Initial Vision Scenario: -8.2 percent

Model version 0.1 instead of version 0.0 (~2 pct points)

Additional 100,000 employed residents (~1 pct point)

Transit network built from 2010 rather than 2005 (~ pct point)

No headway improvements made to transit network (~ pct poin

Minor differences in roadway and transit capital projects

Wh i th littl i tiQ


13/66

Scenario Population HouseholdsEmployedResidents

J

Year 2010 7,150,000 2,610,000 3,150,000 3,27

(1) Year 2035, InitialVision

9,430,000 3,570,000 4,310,000 4,49

(2) Year 2035, CoreConcentration

9,180,000 3,470,000 4,270,000 4,49

(3) Year 2035, FocusedGrowth

8,980,000 3,280,000 3,860,000 4,10

(4) Year 2035,Constrained CoreConcentration

8,980,000 3,280,000 3,860,000 4,10

(5) Year 2035, OutwardGrowth

8,980,000 3,280,000 3,860,000 4,10

Why is there so little variation amongGHG emission reductions?

Q:


14/66

Workers travel more than nworkers. Because a largeshare of the population woscenarios 1 & 2, the GHGcapitanumber is misleadinlow relative to scenarios 3

5. The GHG per workermeilluminates these differenc


15/66

Q: What is the impact of transport?

T-2035 network performsslightly worse on GHG

relative to the no build

Core capacity networkperforms slightly better onGHG relative to the nobuild


16/66

1. The Bay Area has a mature transportationsystem that we are investing heavily tomaintain.

Do not expect to see dramatic shifts, even withlarge expenses on transit frequency improvement

2. Generally speaking, the greenhouse gasemissions subject to this analysis are afunction of

the amount of passenger vehicle travel; and,

the speed of the traveling vehicles.

Roadway projects can relieve heavycongestion, which is good for GHG, but also allowvehicles to travel at faster speeds, which can be


17/66

Generally speaking, vehicles perform optimally ataround 45 mph and perform well between 30 and60 mph.


18/66

In Scenario 2, transit boardingsincrease by over 100 percentrelative to 2005.


19/66

But transit, along with the othernon-automobile travel modes, are

still expected to be utilized forless than 20 percent of all trips.

Policy Initiatives


20/66

Initiative Per-Capita CO2EmissionsReductions (2035)

Smart Driving Campaign1

(changing driver behavior to improve fuel economy; ~$27 m over 5 yrs)1.4%

Bicycle Network(build out of the regional bike network; ~$2,200 m over 28 yrs)

0.5%

Safe Routes to Schools/ Pedestrian Network(expansion of the SR2S and a continued TLC program; $500 m over 5 yrs)

0.3%

Vanpool Incentives(significant increase in the monetary incentive; ~$37 m over 10 yrs)

0.9%

Electric Vehicle Strategy(consumer incentives, education, and charger installations to accelerate EVadoption; ~$170 m over 10 yrs)

1.0%

Commuter Benefit Ordinance(mandatory pre-tax transit passes or employer operated shuttles; admin cost)

0.3%

Telecommuting(no specific policies identified at this time)

1.4%

Parking Pricing(modest pricing throughout the region with higher pricing near transit; meter &enforcement cost)

0.7%

Policy Initiatives

T t P f S i


21/66

Target Performance: Scenarios

1

2

3a

3b

3c

4

5

TARGET GOALBEST

RESULTWORES

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)per capita -15% -9% -8

Adequate Housing 100% 100% 98

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)(premature deaths due to emissions) -10% -32% -23Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)(tons of particulate emissions; includes road dust)

-30% -13% -6

Particulates in CARE Communities(achieve greater reductions) Yes

Collisions(fatalities & injuries) -50% +18% +26

Active Transport (time spent walking/biking) +70% +20% +10 BEST WO


22/66

6

7

8

9a

9b

10a

10b

10c

TARGET GOALBEST

RESULTWORES

Open Space/Ag. Preservation(development within urban footprint) 100% 98% 90

Low-Income H+T Affordability(for households less than $60,000) -10% -4% +9

Gross Regional Product (GRP) +90% +134% +11

Non-Auto Mode Share 26% 20% 18

VMTper capita -10% -7% -5

Local Road Maintenance(PCI) +19% +5% +5

Highway Maintenance(distressed lane-miles) -63% +30% +30

Transit Maintenance -100% +138% +13


23/66

Bay Area Economic Forecast:

2035 Gross Regional Product (in billions)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Year 2035

$1,126 $1,142

$1,036 $1,039 $1,038

Year 2035 Year 2035 Year 2035 Year 203

TARGET

90% GROWTH

$487

Year 2005

Equity Analysis: Overview


24/66

Equity Analysis: Overview

1

2

3

4

5

MEASURE POPULATIONBASE-YEAR

BESTRESULT

WORSRESUL

Housing + TransportationAffordability% of income spent

HH < $30K 77% +10% +12

HH > $30K 41% +6% +6

Displacement Risk

rent-burdened households at risk fordisplacement from future growth

COC n/a 30% 40

REMAINDER n/a 7% 10

VMT DensityDaily VMT on major roads

COC n/a 2,800 3,1

REMAINDER n/a 1,000 1,1

Non-Commute Travel Time COC 12 +3% +6REMAINDER 13 +2% +5

Commute TimeCOC 25 +8% +12


25/66

1. Land use patterns with higher levels of focused

growth in the regions core tend to perform better.2. Performance varies only slightly across scenarios

because all of the scenarios represent differentapproaches to focused growth.

3. Transportation policy is critical to building completecommunities. However, the transportationscenarios have little direct impact on GHG reductioregionwide.

4. We will likely need to assess further land use,

transportation-related, and other policy measures tomeet the GHG and other targets.

5. Equity Analysis Scenario assessment identifiesareas that require further regional and local policy

Key Takeaways


26/66

Next Steps

Adopted Performance Targets (Jan 2011)

Approved Scenario Definitions (July 2011)

Reviewed Project Performance Results (Nov 2011)

Developed Scenario Details/Tested Target Results (Dec 2011)

Public Workshops/Tradeoff Discussions (Jan 2012) Develop/Approve Preferred SCS (Feb May 2012)

Release/Adopt SCS/SCS EIR (Nov 2012 Apr 2013)


27/66

BayArea

=aTO: MTC Planning Committee 1ABAG Administrative Committee

FR: Deputy Executive Director, Policy, MTCExecutive Director, ABAG

II

DATE: 1113 /2012

RE: Update on Proposed OneBayArea Grant - Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ FundingBackgroundThe OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) represents a significant step toward integrating the region's federaltransportation program and its land-use and housing policies by:

Rewardingjurisdictions that accept housing allocations and produce housing with additionaltransportation dollars. Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area by promotingtransportation investments in priority development areas (PDAs) and by initiating a pilotprogram in the North Bay Counties that will support open space preservation in priorityconservation areas (PCAs).


28/66

Planning Committee Memo - Update on Proposed OneBayArea GrantPage 2 of 4

projects funded directly within the PDA limits, comment letters recommended allowing projectsthat support or provide benefit to PDAs count towards the PDA requirements. There wererequests to exempt certain OBAG program eligibility categories from the PDA requirements,such as streets and roads rehabilitation, regional bicycle, and Safe Routes to School. A reasoncited was that transportation needs do not always align geographically with PDAs.

2. Priority Conservation Areas: Some comments cal.1for expanding the eligible use of PCA fundingbeyond planning purposes in order to fund capital projects such as farm-to-market and openspace access needs . Additional comments call for expanding the regional pilot programeligibility beyond the four North Bay counties.3. Low Income Housing and Protections for Communities of Concern: Comments recommendmodifying the OBAG funding formula to reward jurisdictions that zone for or produce lowincome housing units. In addition, some stakeholders also cited the need for policies that willprevent displacement of low-income residents, which was noted as a potentially unintendedoutcome of new housing and transportation investments in PDAs.4. Performance and Accountabi lity: In the areas of performance and accountabil ity, manycomments asked for more flexibility , such as reasonable progress toward, instead offinalapproval of, required policy actions, in the first round of OBAG funding . The reason cited waslimited time and staff resources to enact new policies in the timeframe proposed.5. Regional Program: We received requests to continue funding the Safe Routes to School Program


29/66

PlalU1ing Committee Memo - Update on Proposed OneBayArea GrantPage 3 of 4

recommends that all jurisdictions receiving OBAG funding be required to pass a non-bindingresolution of intent to align these three elements. Staff also recommends that CMAs prepareand adopt a PDA development strategy to guide transportation investments that aresupportive of PDAs. Specific requirements will be developed as part of the next round ofplanning agreements between MTC and the CMAs.

Clarify Eligibility for Programs: Staff is proposing to clarify that both pedestrian and allbicycle facilities would be eligible for OBAG funding and CMA planning costs wouldpartially count towards PDA targets (50% or 70%), in line with its PDA fundingrequirement.2. Pll0ri ty Conservation Areas (PCAs)

Focus on North Bay through Competitive Pilot Program: Staff recommends that the $5million pilot program continue to be limited to the North Bay Counties and be conducted as aregional competitive program. However, eligibility would be expanded from planning toland / easement acquisition, farm-to-market capital projects, and open space access projects.

Leverage Additional Funding: A priority for these funds should be to paxtner with stateagencies and private foundations to leverage outside funds for these projects, particularly forland acquisition and open space access. ABAG and MTC would pursue these leveragingopportunities.

3. Low-Income/Workforce Housing Reward counties for low-income/workforce housing production: Staff recommends revising


30/66

Planning Committee Memo - Update on Proposed OneBayArea GrantPage 4 of 4

Next StepsBased on the Committee's direction at this meeting, staff will modify the proposal and return to theCommittee in March 2012 to present the draft program policies. The Commission will then considerapproval of the final OneBayArea Grant Program in May 2012. Throughout this process, staff willcontinue to seek further feedback from stakeholder and technical working groups. The OBAGdevelopment schedule will continue to be coordinated with the activities leading to approval of thePlan Bay Area preferred alternative which are italicized in the schedule below:

an ayBAG/PI B Area Deve opment S h d Ie u e Outreach / Define preferred scenario Joint Planning I ABAG Administrative Committee to review initialJanuary 2012 responses and potential revisions to address major comments for the One

Bay Area Grant Release guidance for applying project pelformance assessment results to theFebruary 2012 Plan Bay Area investment strategy Release revised Draft Cycle2 One Bay Area Grant proposalMarch 2012 Release preliminary preferred scenario for Plan Bay Area (includes

investment strategy) Commission Approves Cycle 2 One Bay Area GrantMay 2012 MTC / ABAG approves preferred scenario for Plan Bay Area


31/66

Attachment A: Comment Letters Received in Response to the

OneBayArea Grant Proposal Released on July 8, 2011

Letter # Date Organization From

1 03/31/11STA (Solano Transportation Authority) - re SB 375 Open

Space & Ag LandHarry Price, Chair, STA; Mayor, City of Fairfield

2 06/21/11City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo

County (C/CAG) - Letter 1Richard Napier, Executive Director

3 07/05/11 TAM (Transportation Authority of Marin) Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director

4 08/05/11Marshall_NCTPA TAC (Napa County Transportation &

Planning Agency)Rick Marshall, Chair, NCTPA TAC

5 08/12/11City/Council Association of Governments of San Mateo

County (C/CAG) - Letter 2Richard Napier, Executive Director

6 08/25/11 Cortese_Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Dave Cortese, President, Board of Supervisors

7 08/31/11 Town of Los Gatos Greg Larson, Town Manager

8 08/31/11 City of Half Moon Bay Naomi Patridge, Mayor

9 08/31/11 City of Millbrae David F. Quigg, Mayor


32/66


20 10/12/11 City of Lafayette Carl Anduri, Mayor

21 10/26/11 City of Morgan Hill Steve Tate, Mayor

22 10/26/11 County of Sonoma Efren Carrillo, Chairman, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors

23 10/28/11

Bay Area Business Coalition

[Bay Area Council, Bay Planning Coalition, BIA Bay Area,

Contra Costa Council, East Bay EDA, Jobs & Housing

Coalition, North Bay Leadership Couyncil, Silicon Valley

Leadership Group, SAMCEDA, Solano EDC}

In order of organizations named in adjoining column:

Jim Wunderman, President & CEO; John Coleman, Executive

Director; Paul Campos, Senior VP, Govt. Affairs; Linda Best,

President & CEO; Karen Engel, Executive Director; Gregory

McConnell, President & CEO; Cynthia Murray, President & CEO;

Carl Guardino, President & CEO; Rosanne Foust, President &CEO; Sandy Person, President

24 11/03/11 Greenbelt Alliance Stephanie Reyes, Policy Director

25 11/04/11 SFCTA (San Francisco County Transportation Authority) Ross Mirkarimi, Chair of the Board

26 11/15/11 City of Napa Jill Techel, Mayor

27 11/18/11

OBAG Comment Letter: Asian Pacific Environmental

Network, Bay Localize, California WALKS, Causa Justa::Just

Cause, Chinatown Community Development Center, Council

of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO), East Bay

Housing Organizations (EBHO), Genesis, Green Youth

Alliance, Greenbelt Alliance, The League of Women Voters of

the Bay Area, National CAPACD, Public Advocates,

TransForm Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Urban

(no names provided)


33/66


38 12/21/11 San Mateo County Health System SaraT L. Mayer, Director

39 12/23/11

City of Oakland

City and County of San Francisco

City of San Jose

Bay Area Rapid Transit District

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

Fred Blackwell, Assistant City Administrator

Jose Campos, Chief of Citywide Planning

Laurel Prevetti, Assistant Planning Director

Carter Mau, Executive Manager of Budget and Planning

Timothy Papandreou, Deputy Director for Sustainable Streets

Tina Spencer, Director of Service Development and Planning

Tilly Chang, Deputy Director for Planning


34/66

OneBayArea Grant


35/66

Overview

Priority Development Areas

Priority Conservation Areas

Performance and Accountability Northern County Hold Harmles Revised Funding Framework Funding AugmentationR i l P D t il

Proposed Revis ions :


36/66

Proposed Revis ions :Pr ior i t y Developm ent Area Overall Requirement:

Reduce 70% requirement to 50% for the North

Require PDA growth strategy to be adopted byplanning agreements)

Link RHNA, PDAs, and zoning policies. Jurisdiresolution of intent to align these three elemen

Eligible Projects:

Allow a project to count toward the PDA targetprovides proximate access to a PDA Clarify expanded eligibility for pedestrian and b

j li i d h i l bik k



37/66

Proposed Revis ions :Pr ior i t y Conservat ion Area

North Bay Pilot Program:

Limited to 4 North Bay counties

Project Eligibility for MTC/ABAG Selection

Planning

Land / easement acquisition

Farm to market capital projects

Open space access Secure matching funds from state agenciefoundations



38/66

Proposed Revis ions :Perform anc e and Ac c oun t

1. Supportive Transportation and Land Us

Move from a menu approach (2 of 4) to 1

Complete Streets Compliance:

For Cycle 2, amendment to the circulaGeneral Plan to comply with the CalifoStreets Act of 2008 by July 1, 2013.

Complete Streets checklist to be revis

review and input prior to county proje

2 Retain Housing Element Requirement:

P d R i i


39/66

Proposed Revis ions :Low -Inc om e/Work forc e Ho

Revised Funding Formula:

Add weighting to formula to recognize very lowcategories.

Direct 25% overall, or 50% of housing share, oincome categories

County

% Change From July Propos

to Reflect Low Income Housi

Weighting

Alameda -3

Contra Costa -1

Marin 2



40/66

Proposed Revis ions :Count y Funding Levels

Hold Harmless:

Add $3 million for address Marin, Napa, anso that all counties see either growth or e

levels as compared to Cycle 2 status quo

Proposed OBAG


41/66

Proposed OBAGFunding Augm ent a t ion

Increase from $211 million to $250 millio

Add $18 million in federal STP/CMAQ fund

Add $18 million in 2012 STIP TE funds (ca

bicycle facilities and other enhancement p

Add $3 million for hold harmless for MaSolano


42/66

Revised Funding Fram ew o

Regional Regional

1 Regional Planning 26 5

2 Regional Operations 74 74

3 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI) 66 66

4 Transit Capital Rehabilitation 125 125

5 Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation 7 70 3

6 Climate Initiatives 40 25

7 Regional Bicycle Program 20

8 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) 64 32 15

9 Priority Conservation Area Planning Pilot 5

10 MTC Res 3814 Transit Payback Commitment 25 25

11 T i S i bili P j

STP/CMAQ ($591M)RTIP/TE ($18M)Air District ($6M)

CMA Block

Grant

One

Bay Area

Cycle 2

Status Quo

Cycle 2

OneBayArea

Existing Framework(as updated Jul 8, 2011)

Original ProposaJul 8, 2011New Act Cycle 2 Funding


43/66

Regional Program Det a i l

Regional Program Area

Climate Initiatives

Safe Routes to School

Climate Strategy

Transportation for Livable Communities


44/66

Cl im at e In i t ia t ives Program

Safe Routes to Schools($10 million):

Continue Safe Routes to

School program to supplementOBAG investments and focuson non-infrastructureprograms that may or not be inPDAs

Climate Strategy Reserve($10 illi )

SR2S Fund DTotal Student

(milli

Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

NapaSan Francisco

San Mateo

Transpor t a t ion for L ivab le


45/66

Transpor t a t ion for L ivab leCommun i t ies

PDA Planning($15 million)

Focus on PDAswith high potential

for residentialdisplacement

Address CEQA,entitlements, andcommunity risk

reduction planning Will fund roughly

40 plans


46/66


47/66

OneBayArea Grant Flex ib i

Program and ProjectCategories

Priority DevelopmentAreas

Planning Activities XUp to 50% (North Counties)

Up to 70% (Remaining Counties)

Augment Regional SafeRoutes to School

X

Streets and RoadsRehabilitation

X

Transportation for Livable X


48/66

Count y Funding at Augm ent

County

Cycle 2

Status Quo

GrantProgram

July Initial

Proposal

Revised

50%-25%-

(Pop-RHNHousing

Productio

Alameda $25 $42

Contra Costa $17 $31

Marin $5 $6Napa $3 $4

San Francisco $12 $25

San Mateo $11 $17

Cycle 2 OBAG

($ millions)


49/66

($ millions)

Total

Funds

PDA/"Anywhere"

Split

W

P

Alameda $48 70/30Contra Costa $36 70/30

Marin $9 50/50

Napa $6 50/50

San Francisco $30 70/30

San Mateo $20 70/30Santa Clara $66 70/30

Solano $16 50/50

Count y Funding Geograph

P d OBAG S h d l


50/66

Proposed OBAG Sc hedu le

December 2011: Release scenario analysis result

January 2012

Public outreach on scenario results

Joint Planning / ABAG Administrative Comm

comments and staff recommendations

February 2012

Release Guidance for applying Project PerformaInvestment Strategy

March 2012 Release Final Draft Cycle 2 One Bay Area Gr

Release Preliminary Preferred Scenario for Plan


51/66

Attachment C: Revised Funding Distribution

County

Cycle 2

Status Quo

GrantProgram

July Initial

Proposal

Revised*

50%-25%-25%

(Pop-RHNA-

Housing

Production)

Alameda $25 $42 $48

Contra Costa $17 $31 $36

Marin $5 $6 $9

Napa $3$4

$6San Francisco $12 $25 $30

San Mateo $11 $17 $20

Santa Clara $28 $55 $66

S l $9 $14 $16

Cycle 2 OBAG

($ millions)

Attachment D


52/66

# CountyHCD Report

dtd 12/ 21/ 11Alameda County1 Alameda2 Albany3 Berkeley X4 Dublin X5 Emeryville X6 Fremont X

7 Hayward X8 Livermore X9 Newark X10 Oakland X11 Piedmont X12 Pleasanton13 San Leandro X

14 Union City X15 Alameda County Unincorporated X

Contra Costa County16 Antioch X17 Brentwood

Bay Area Jurisdictions' General Plan

Housing Element Compliance



53/66

# CountyHCD Report

dtd 12/ 21/ 11


40 Mill Valley

41 Novato42 Ross X43 San Anselmo44 San Rafael X45 Sausalito46 Tiburon47 Marin County Unincorporated

Napa County48 American Canyon X49 Calistoga X50 Napa X51 St. Helena X52 Yountville X53 Napa County Unincorporated

San Francisco County

54 San Francisco XSan Mateo County

55 Atherton X56 Belmont X57 Brisbane X


H i El t C li


54/66

# CountyHCD Report

dtd 12/ 21/ 11


80 Los Altos Hills X

81 Los Gatos82 Milpitas X83 Monte Sereno X84 Morgan Hill X85 Mountain View IN REVIEW86 Palo Alto87 San Jose X88 Santa Clara89 Saratoga X90 Sunnyvale X91 Santa Clara County Unincorporated X

Solano County92 Benicia93 Dixon X94 Fairfield X

95 Rio Vista X96 Suisun City X97 Vacaville X98 Vallejo X99 Solano County Unincorporated X

SCS Alternative Scenarios Local Government Feedback QuestionnaireSCS Alternative Scenarios Local Government Feedback QuestionnaireSCS Alternative Scenarios Local Government Feedback QuestionnaireSCS Alternative Scenarios Local Government Feedback Questionnaire


55/66

C a a s a ba Q s aC a a s a ba Q s aC a a s a ba Q s aC a a s a ba Q s a

In June 2011, MTC and ABAG approved five alternative Plan Bay Area land use and transportation scenarios for evaluation and testing to

demonstrate how the region might achieve a set of performance targets for the environment, the economy, and social equity.

1. Initial Vision Scenario

2. Core Concentration

3. Focused Growth

4. Constrained Core Concentration

5. Outward Growth

Detailed information about the scenarios can be found here:

Alternative Land Use Scenarios and Initial Vision Scenario

Results of the targets and equity analyses

These scenarios place varying degrees of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). All scenarios reflect input received from local jurisdictions

on planned levels of growth and land use characteristics. 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 reflect a lower level of housing and employment

growth given the limitations of available resources, local plans, and community support.

Two different transportation network options were tested within the five scenarios: the "Transportation 2035 Network" and the "Core Capacity Transit

Network." The Initial Vision and Outward Growth Scenarios were paired with the Transportation 2035 Network, and the Core Concentration,

Focused Growth and Constrained Core Concentration Scenarios were paired with the Core Capacity Transit Network. More information about the

transit networks utilized in the scenarios can be found here:

Scenario Results presentation (pp. 3-6)

Th i t i d l t f th P f d S i t b d t d i M 2012 All t diff t th t f d



56/66

Additional information that may be useful when completing the survey

When answering the following six questions, you may wish to consider the level of growth and transportation investment in your jurisdiction. We

have posted scenario growth data for each jurisdiction and PDA on your respective SCS Basecamp websites.

MTC recently released the results of the Transportation Project Performance Assessment Draft Results. The project performance assessment is

designed to identify high

and lowperforminguncommitted transportation projects. Unlike committed projects, which already have committed

revenues and are mandated by statute or an administering agency, uncommitted projects must undergo the assessment to identify their relative

performance for potential inclusion in the Plan Bay Area scenarios. Projects were evaluated using two primary methodologies. First, all projects are

subject to a targets assessment, which determines how the projects perform relative to the performance targets adopted by MTC and ABAG.

Second, the approximately 80 largest projects undergo an additional benefitcost assessment to compare the monetized project benefits and

project costs, gauging their costeffectiveness.

Information on the transportation projects that are associated with your jurisdiction can be found here:

Plan Bay Area Draft List of Projects

The draft results of the project assessment can be found here:

Transportation Project Performance Assessment Draft Results

Should you have any questions regarding transportation projects and the Draft Project Performance Assessment, please contact your CMA or MTC.



57/66

The three constrained scenarios (Constrained Core Concentration, Focused Growth, and Outward Growth) each put forth a distribution of 770,000

new households and 995,000 new jobs throughout the region by 2040, while the two vision scenarios assumes a higher level of economic growth

(1.46 M new jobs) and a higher level of housing (1.03 M new households) to meet forecasted demand.

The performance of each scenario against the Performance Targets and Equity Measures varies as described here:

Scenario Targets Analysis Overview and Scorecard

Equity Analysis Overview and Scorecard

The scenarios were also measured against a set of regional sustainability indicators to assess how future development might relate to current

conditions. The Regional Indicator Analysis will be posted to your Basecamp website.

1. Given your know ledge of the SCS , regional issues, growth distribution within the

scenario, and relative performance in the targets and eq uity analysis, which of the five

scenarios do you feel best accom plishes regional goals? Please rate the scenarios below. Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Uncertain

Initial Vision nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Core Concentration nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Focused Growth nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Constrained Core

Concentration

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Outward Growth nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj



58/66

2. Which of the five scenarios do you feel best accomplishes local goals? Please rate the

scenarios below.Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Uncertain

Initial Vision nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjCore Concentration nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Focused Growth nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Constrained Core

Concentration

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Outward Growth nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Please explain:

55-



59/66

3. In building the alternative scenario housing distributions, ABA G considered several

factors that are important in accommodating jobs and housing growth. Which do you feel

are most important to your comm unity or to the regional growth distribution? Please rate

the factors below.Extremely

Important

Somewhat

Important

Somewhat

UnimportantU ni np or ta nt Not Sure

Transit service coverage and frequency nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Proximity to employment nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Provision of minimum amount of housing to

accommodate natural growth within your community

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Appropriate level of density for your PDA Place Type nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Workforce housing nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Other (please specify)

55

66



60/66

4. The performance of each scenario against the targets and equity measures varies, as

described here:Scenario Targets Analysis Overview Equity Analysis Overview Which of the SCS Performance Targets and Equity Measures are most important to your

jurisdiction? Please rank the choices be low (1 = m ost important). Rank

Climate Protection 6

Adequate Housing for Regions Population 6

Reduction in Deaths from PM 6

Reduction Pedestrian Injuries/Fatalities6

Increase in Walking/Biking 6

Open Space & Agricultural Preservation 6

Reduction in Housing and Transportation Costs 6



61/66

Two different transportation network options were tested within the five scenarios:

l Transportation 2035 Network that mirrors the investment strategy from the adopted Transportation 2035 Plan, wherein approximately 80

percent of the projected 25-year revenue goes toward maintenance of the existing transportation system and 20 percent is for priority

roadway, transit and bike/pedestrian improvements, and

l Core Capacity Transit Network that allocates approximately 80 percent of the projected 25-year revenue to maintenance and operations of

the existing system and roughly 16 percent to core capacity transit improvements (such as service frequency improvements). Other priority

roadway and bike/pedestrian improvements are also included with the remaining 3 percent.

The transportation network included for each scenario varies as described here:

Scenario Results presentation (pp. 3-6)

Information on the transportation projects that are associated with your jurisdiction and the draft results of the project performance assessment, to

can be found here:

Plan Bay Area Draft List of Projects

Transportation Project Performance Assessment Draft Results

5. Do you feel the transportation network assumed in the scenario you chose is

appropriate? Is the level of transit and transportation infrastructure in the three scenarios

sufficient to support growth in your jurisdiction? If not, what is missing? Please provide

any com ments you may have on the transportation network and its relation to the land use



62/66

6. Please provide your nam e, contact information, and the jurisdiction you represent.*Name:

Jurisdiction:

Title:

Email Address:

Phone Number:


63/66


64/66

HOW WERE THE SCENARIOS DEFINED AND HOW DO THEY DIFFER?

In June 2011, MTC and ABAG approved ve alternative Plan Bay Area land use and transcenarios for evaluation and testing to demonstrate how the region might achieve a set

f f h i h d i l i ( i id f

SCENARIO ANALYSIS1. Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15%SB 375 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to settargets for reducing emissions from cars and light-duty trucks.CARB adopted this target for use in Plan Bay Area; the target resultsare based on a measurement of pounds of carbon dioxide emissionsfrom passenger vehicles for a typical weekday, on a per-personbasis.

to avoid both excess sprawl and elimination of key resource lands.The target results are based on the percentage of total housing unitslocated within the year 2010 urban footprint (dened as existingareas of development, as well as areas within existing urban growthboundaries).

7. Decrease by 10% the share of low-income and low er-middle income residents household income consumed bytransportation and housing

WHAT ARE THE TARGETS AND HOW ARE THEY MEASURED?


65/66

performance targets for the environment, the economy and social equity (see inside for

These scenarios place varying degrees of growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs),are dened as land near public transit that local ofcials have determined to be most sudevelopment. Likewise, the scenarios recognize Priority Conservation Areas, places locahave deemed worth keeping undeveloped for farm land, parks or open space. The rst scenarios assume stronger economic growth and nancial resources, along with a highehousing growth to meet forecasted demand. The remaining three scenarios fall somewhof meeting future housing demand but reect input received from local jurisdictions on of growth they think can reasonably be accommodated.

2. House 100% of the regions projected 25-year growth byincome level (very-low, low, moderate, above-moderate)without displacing current low-income residents

SB 375 requires regions to plan for housing all projected populationgrowth, by income level, to prevent growth in in-commuting. Thistargets results reect the percentage of year 2035 total housingdemand that can be accommodated in the nine-county Bay Area. Onlythe rst two scenarios are able to meet this target, as they assumedhigher in-region population levels. In the other three scenarios,some households must live outside the Bay Area (particularly in theSan Joaquin County) and commute into the region for employment.

3a. Reduce premature deaths from exposure to neparticulates (PM2.5) by 10%

The Bay Area currently does not meet the federal standard forne particulate matter, which is extremely hazardous to health.The targeted reduction for PM2.5 reects the expected benetfrom meeting the federal standard. This targets performance wasassessed by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)staff; their analysis considers the impacts of ne 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 coarseparticulate matter. The targeted reduction for PM10 is consistentwith the reduction needed to meet the state standard and achievekey health benets. The target results reect tailpipe emissions androad dust from all vehicles, but do not include coarse particulatesfrom brake and tire wear.

3c. Achieve greater particulate emission reductions inhighly impacted areas

A Yes rating for this target means that highly impacted areas

achieve greater reductions in particulate emissions than the rest ofthe region. The target assessment identied CARE communities ashighly impacted areas; CARE communities are dened by BAAQMDas lower-income communities in the Bay Area with high levels ofparticulate emissions from roads and ports.

4. Reduce by 50% the number of injuries and f atalities fromall collisions (includin g bike and pedestrian)

This target is adapted from the States 2006 Strategic HighwaySafety Plan and reects core goals of improving safety and reducingdriving. The target measures the total number of individuals injuredor killed in trafc collisions, regardless of transport mode.

5. Increase the average daily time walking or biking perperson for transport ation by 70% (for an average of 15minutes per person per day)

This target relates directly to U.S. Surgeon Generals guidelines onphysical activity, for the purposes of lowering risk of chronic diseaseand increasing life expectancy. The target results are based on theaverage time spent walking or biking on a typical weekday, only fortransportation purposes (i.e. does not include recreational walkingor biking).

6. Direct all non-agricultural development (100%) withinthe urban footprint (existing urban development andurban growth boundaries)

SB 375 requires consideration of open space and natural resourceprotection, which supports accommodating new housing andcommercial development within existing areas of urban growth. Theintent of this target is to support inll development while protectingthe Bay Areas agriculture and open space lands. By focusing onareas with existing urban development, as well as areas specicallyselected for future growth by local governments, the target seeks

This target aims to bring Bay Area housing and transportation costsin line with the national average, as the regions costs are currentlysignicantly higher than the rest of the country. The target focuseson cost impacts for low-income and lower-middle income residents(with household income less than $60,000 in year 2000 dollars).

8. Increase gross regional product (GRP) by 90% anaverage annual growth rate of approximately 2% (incurrent dollars)

This target is a key indication of the regions commitment to advancePlan Bay Area in a manner that supports economic growth andcompetitiveness. Growth patterns and transportation investments

in the scenarios affect travel time, cost and reliability. The PlanBay Area Economic Impact Assessment, developed by consultantCambridge Systematics, reects on the cost of on-the-clock traveland access to labor, suppliers, and markets. Any resulting increasesin productivity make the region more competitive for attracting newbusinesses and jobs; this increases employment and wages, whichare also reected in the GRP target.

9a. Increase non-auto mode share by 10%

Mode share can be interpreted as the percent of trips made by aparticular travel mode (walk, bike, drive, etc.); this target reectsthe Plan Bay Area goal of reducing trips made using automobiles.The target benets from service and infrastructure improvementsfor the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. The numerictarget shown in the table reects the resulting 10% mode shareincrease from the forecasted 2005 non-auto mode share of 16%.This updated target language has been proposed to replace thepreviously adopted non-auto travel time reduction target.

9b. Decrease automobile vehicle miles traveled per capitaby 10%

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita reect both the total numberof auto trips and the average distance of auto trips; this target would

be supported by increased transit service, more opportunities foractive transportation, and reduced travel distances between originsand destinations. Given signicant trafc congestion in the region, itis critical to reduce VMT per person. The target results are based onmodel output for total auto vehicle miles traveled and are adjustedbased on the total population for the relevant scenario.

10a. Increase local road pavement condition index (P CI) to75 or better

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) reects the quality of theroadway surface the more cracks and potholes form, the lower thePavement Condition Index. The target reects a goal of reaching astate of good repair on local roadways, which form the backbone ofthe transportation network in Priority Development Areas (i.e. keyareas for focused growth in the Plan).

10b. Decrease distressed lane-miles of state highw ays toless than 10% of total lane-miles

This targets performance is based on anticipated state fundingfor highway maintenance. The region must maintain the existinghighway infrastructure in order to suppor t the goals of Plan Bay Area.

10c. Reduce share of transit assets exceeding their usefullife to 0%

This target reects a goal of replacing all transit assets on-time(i.e. at the end of their useful life); failure to do so would resultin unreliable transit service. As frequent, reliable transit serviceis critical to support focused growth, this target reects the needto maintain existing transit service in a state of good repair. Thisupdated target language has been proposed to replace the previouslyadopted average transit asset age target.

2

1 InitialVision

CoreConcentration

3 FocusedGrowth

4ConstrainedCoreConcentration

5 OutwardGrowth

Housing and job growth is concentrated in the PDAs, based on local land usepriorities, available transit service, and access to jobs. The scanario is basedon input from local jurisdictions on the level of growth they can reasonablyaccommodate given resources, local plans, and community support. 70percent of the housing would be accommodated in PDAs. More than half of

job growth is expected to occur in the regions 10 largest cities.

Housing and job growth is concentrated in locations that are served byfrequent transit services and within a 45-minute transit commute of Oakland,San Francisco, and San Jose. Also identies several game changers, orplaces with capacity for a high level of growth if coupled with supportivepolicies and resources. These areas include the Tasman Corridor in SantaClara County, lands east of Oakland Airport to the Coliseum, the ConcordNaval Weapons Station, and the San Francisco Eastern Waterfront, amongothers. Overall, 72 percent of the housing and 61 percent of the job growth is

expected within the PDAs.Distributes growth most evenly throughout the regions transit corridors and

job centers, focusing most household and job growth within the PDAs.70 percent of the housing production and around 55 percent of theemployment growth would be accommodated within PDAs. Provides morehousing near transit stations and more local services in existing downtownareas and neighborhood centers.

Places more household and job growth in those PDAs situated along severaltransit corridors ringing the Bay in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Claracounties, and in portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Some79 percent of the housing production and 58 percent of the employmentgrowth would be accommodated within PDAs. By concentrating more growthin the major downtowns and along key transit corridors, this scenario goeseven further than the Focused Growth scenario in trying to maximize the useof the core transit network and provide access to jobs and services to most ofthe population.

Closer to recent development trends, places more growth in the cities andPDAs in the inland areas away from the Bay than those considered in the

Focused Growth or the Constrained Core Concentration scenarios. Mosthousing and employment growth would still be accommodated in areasclosest 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 ofhousing production and 53 percent of employment growth would be in PDAs.While increased use of public transit would be limited in inland areas, someshorter commutes could be expected as jobs are created closer to residentialcommunities.

TransporPlan NetwInvestmeMTCs adotransporta

Core CapNetwork transit seralong the network

Core CapNetwork See descr

Core CapNetwork See descr

TransporPlan Netw

See descr

SCENARIOS LAND USEPATTERN

TRANSNE

CLIMATE ADEQUATE HEALTHY & SAFE OPEN SPACE & EQUITABLE ECONOMIC TRANSPORTATION

TARGETS SCORECARD

TARGETSScenarios were

assessed to

determine their


66/66

-8%

-8%

-9%

-9%

-8%

-23%

-27%

-32%

-32%

-31%

-6%

-9%

-13%

-13%

-11%

+5%

+5%

+5%

+5%

+5%

+15%

+20%

+14%

+15%

+10%

100%

100%

98%

98%

98%

98% 131%

92% 134%

92% 113%

92% 113%

113%90%

19%

20%

19%

19%

18 %

+30%

+30%

+30%

+30%

+30%

+26%

+23%

+19%

+18%

+20%

-4%

+8%

+9%

+9%

+9%

-6%

-6%

-6%

-7%

-5%

12

3

4

5

InitialVision

CoreConcentration

FocusedGrowth

ConstrainedCoreConcentration

OutwardGrowth

PROTECTION HOUSING COMMUNITIES AGRICULTURAL

PRESERVATION

ACCESS VITALITY SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS

Reduce CO2emissionsper personfrom carsand light-duty trucks

Houseprojectedregionalgrowth

Reduceprematuredeaths fromexposureto fne

particulateemissions

Reducecoarseparticulateemissions

Achievegreaterparticulateemissionsreductionin highly-impactedareas

Reduceinjuries andfatalitiesfrom allcollisions

Increase theaverage dailytime walkingor biking perperson

Directnew non-agriculturaldevelopmentwithin urbanfootprint

IncreaseGrossRegionalProduct(GRP)

Increasenon-automode share

Reducevehiclemilestraveled(VMT) perperson

Improvelocal roadpavementconditionindex (PCI)

Reduceshare ofdistressedstatehighwaylane-miles

-15% 100% -10% -30% Yes -50% +70% 100% -10% +90% 26% -10% +19% -63%NUMERIC

GOALS*

SCENARIOS

determine their

impacts on the

Bay Area. This

table shows how

each scenario

performs with

regard to

the adopted

Plan Bay Area

performance

targets.

* Percent changes reect differences between 2005 and 2035 conditions. ** Alternate target used. Target results shown with white stripes signify that result is going in the wrong direction with respect to the adopted target.

1 2 3a 3b 3c 4 5 6 7 8 9a 9b 10a 10b**

Reducehousing andtransporta-tion costsas share oflow-incomehouseholdsbudgets

0 0 0

-63% +63%-15% 0 0 100% -40% 0 -30% 0 -50% +50% 0 70% 0 100% -10% +10% 0 +140% 0 26% -10% 0 0 +19%

city of palo alto (cmr # 2479) housing needs mandate committee staff report (2011)

Documents