HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7323
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7323)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 10/4/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Plan Bay Area Update
Title: Status of the "Plan Bay Area" Update & Preferred Scenario Being
Developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
This is an informational report and no action is requested.
Executive Summary:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) are working together to update the regional plan regarding land use and
transportation, referred to as Plan Bay Area. The regional agencies recently released
parameters of a “preferred scenario” describing household and job growth expected in the
region between 2010 and 2040, and are currently soliciting questions and comments from local
jurisdictions.
While the City of Palo Alto has articulated concerns regarding past ABAG projections, it does
not appear that the current “preferred scenario” deviates from what the City itself expects the
future to hold. Specifically, the growth in households and jobs now projected by 2040 is lower
than past regional projections, and close to or within the range being analyzed in the City’s EIR
for the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Table 1. Comparison of the Plan Bay Area “Preferred Scenario” and Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2013
ABAG Projections
2013
Plan Bay Area
Preferred Scenario
2016
Santa Clara County
2010 Households a 604,204 597,100
2040 Households a 818,400 846,600
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2010-2040 Households (% Change) a 35.45% 249,500 (41%)
2010 Jobs 926,270 911,500
2040 Jobs 1,229,520 1,269,700
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 32.74% 358,200 (39%)
City of Palo Alto
2010 Households a 26,493 26,550
2040 Households a 34,370 29,150
2010-2040 Households (% Change) a 7,877 (29.73%) 2,600 (9.79%)
2010 Jobs 89,690 102,000b
2040 Jobs 119,470 123,200
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 29,780 (33.20%) 21,200 (20.78%)
Notes: (a) Households are not directly comparable to housing units. Household is defined as an
occupied Housing Unit. In Palo Alto, a 5% vacancy rate is assumed on Housing Units to estimate
number of Households.
(b) Staff will be requesting an explanation of this change in the baseline.
Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2016
Table 2. Comparison of the Plan Bay Area “Preferred Scenario” and Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan Update EIR Scenarios
Palo Alto
Comp Plan EIR
Scenarios 1-4a
Palo Alto
Comp Plan EIR
Scenarios 5-6 a
Plan Bay Area
Preferred Scenario
2016
City of Palo Alto
2010 Households b 26,493 26,493 26,550
2040 Households b 30,013-33,041 31,485-35,856 29,150
2010-2040 Households (% Change) b 3,520-6,548
(13.29-24.72%)
4,992-9,363
(18.84-35.34%)
2,600
(9.79%)
2010 Jobs 89,690 89,690 102,000
2040 Jobs 108,159-119,470 106,318 123,200
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 18,469-29,780
(20.59-33.20%)
16,628
(18.54%)
21,200
(20.78%)
Notes: (a) To allow an apples-to-apples comparison, Comp Plan EIR scenarios, which include growth
projections to 2030 have been extrapolated to 2040.
(b) Households are not the same as housing units, which is the metric used in the Comp Plan EIR. In Palo
Alto, a 5% vacancy rate is assumed to estimate number of Households.
Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The current update to Plan Bay Area does not include development of a new Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), and thus has no immediate effect on the City’s Housing Element.
Transportation funding priorities articulated in the plan update are not anticipated to change
dramatically, and will continue favoring Priority Development Areas (PDAs), of which the City
has one near California Avenue.
City staff will continue to monitor the regional agencies’ planning process, and will provide
additional information if adjustments to the draft preferred scenario change any of the
numbers presented in Table 1 or 2 above.
Timeline:
Anyone wishing to provide written comments on the draft preferred scenario should do so
before October 14, 2016. Staff plans to ask MTC staff a couple of questions, but not to submit
written comments.
A final preferred scenario is scheduled to be adopted by the regional agencies in November
2016, with a Draft EIR in the Spring 2017, and Final EIR with adoption of the Plan Bay Area
update in Summer 2017.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 00_09-09-2016_Plan Bay Area PPT (PDF)
Attachment B: 8.30.16_Plan Bay Area Draft Preferred Scenario (PDF)
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamrschultz/8810617814
DRAFT PREFERRED SCENARIO:OVERVIEW OF GROWTH PATTERN & INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Ken Kirkey, MTC – September 9, 2016Joint MTC Planning Committee with the ABAG Administrative Committee
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/liyanage/5584040007
Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a 244-4-year regional Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a 244vision for growth and investment.
2
Our economy is booming – but we’re not building enough housing.
3
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/swang168/388908005
Jobs added from 2011 through 2015:501,000 Housing units built from 2011 through 2015:65,000
Regionally: 1 house was built for every 8 jobs created
Big 3 Cities: 1 housing unit built for every 7 jobs created
Bayside Cities and Towns:1 housing unit built for every 15 jobs created
Inland, Coastal, Delta Cities
and Towns:
1 housing unit built for every 3 jobs created
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php
4
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/swang168/388908005
Source: http://www.trulia.com/blog/trends/elasticity-2016/
City House Price, % Change1996-2016
Housing Units
Added, % Change1996-2016
Average
Months forBuildingApproval
San Jose 295% 20% 6
San Francisco 290% 12% 10
Oakland 223% 17% 11
Source: http://dwtd9qkskt5ds.cloudfront.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TruliaPriceMonitor_Scatterplot_Jan20141.png Low supply and high demand =
Our economy is booming – but we’re not building enough housing.
This current boom is translating into new pressures on our
transportation system – even worse than the “dot com” boom.
5
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 2005 2010 2015
% CHANGE SINCE 2000
BART Ridership
per-capita
Avg. Commute Time
Caltrain Ridershipper-capita
Source: Vital Signs (MTC 2015; ACS 2014; NTD 2014)
Congested Delayper-worker
interpolated
Transit Ridership
per-capita; regional
Funding and policies are available to help us tackle transportation
challenges…
6
Transportation Strategies Land Use Strategies
State/
Federal
•Generate new state/federal revenues
•Fund projects and programs
•Condition existing funding sources
Regional Agencies
•Prioritize high-performing expansion projects
•Fund preservation and operation of system
•Generate new regional revenues
•Condition existing funding sources
•Coordinate multi-county transportation programs
•Advocate for Bay Area projects at the state and federal levels
Local
Agencies
•Build transportation projects
•Improve efficiency of operations and maintenance activities
•Generate new local revenues
•Condition local revenues
•Advocate for local projects at the regional, state, and federal levels
Other •Private Companies: operate private shuttles and provide TNC service
… but solving our land use and affordability challenges is much
more difficult.
7
Fewer regional policies available today than for transportation
Transportation Strategies Land Use Strategies
State/Federal
•Generate new state/federal revenues
•Fund projects and programs
•Condition existing funding sources
•Reform tax policies (including redevelopment)
•Subsidize affordable housing
•Streamline regulatory processes (e.g., CEQA reform)
Regional
Agencies
•Prioritize high-performing expansion projects
•Fund preservation and operation of system
•Generate new regional revenues
•Condition existing funding sources
•Coordinate multi-county transportation programs
•Advocate for Bay Area projects at the state and federal levels
•Condition existing funding sources
•Implement new regional development fees
Local
Agencies
•Build transportation projects
•Improve efficiency of operations and maintenance activities
•Generate new local revenues
•Condition local revenues
•Advocate for local projects at the regional, state, and
federal levels
•Change zoning
•Change fees and subsidies for development
•Streamline approval processes
•Implement inclusionary policies
•Adjust urban growth boundaries
•Build infrastructure to support growth (e.g.,
sewer/water, schools, etc.)
Other •Private Companies: operate private shuttles and provide TNC service •Developers:build new residential, commercial, and industrial buildings (both market-rate and affordable)
Working within these constraints – and keeping this update
limited and focused – we achieve 5 of the 13 ambitious targets.
8
TARGET ACHIEVED (5)
Note that target results are subject to change as scenarios are further refined this fall, and as scenarios are ultimately analyzed against the 2040 horizon year.
Climate Protection*
Adequate Housing
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation*
Middle-Wage Job Creation
Goods Movement/ Congestion Reduction*
RIGHT DIRECTION (5)
Healthy and Safe
Communities
Affordable Housing
Non-Auto Mode Shift*
Road Maintenance*
Transit Maintenance
WRONG DIRECTION (3)
Housing + Transportation
Affordability*
Displacement Risk*
Access to Jobs
SUMMARY OF THE
DRAFT PREFERRED
SCENARIO
PERFORMANCE
TARGET RESULTS
Performance targets highlighted in this
presentation are marked with an asterisk (*).
Refer to Attachment A of
the performance item for detailed results.
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/swang168/388908005; Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Bravo, Galtarossa, Prado, Helbig)
PPLANNINGG FORPANNLAGGGROWTH
MMAINTAININGMMINAI
EEEEXISTINGEIXISSSSYSTEMS
SSTRATEGICSS
MMMODERNIZATIONMMDEROD& EEEXPANSION
KKEYYY SSSOCIALKEYYYSS
EEEEEEEEQUITYEQFQQFFINDINGS
KKEYPPERFORMANCEPRFOERFFFFFINDINGS
The Draft Preferred Scenario combines elements The Draft Preferred Scenario combines elemenof the three scenarios evaluated so far, while of the three scenarios evaluated soof the three scenarios evaluated sobalancing local priorities as well.
9
LLANDD UUUSE TTRANSPORTATION
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/skakos/6421883439
Identifying a feasible pattern for regional Identifying a feasible pattern for regional growth was the first step in crafting the Draft growth was the first growth was the firstPreferred Scenario.
10
•Draft Preferred Scenario
• ABAG Land Use Vision
• Priority Development Area (PDA) Assessment
Refinements
AlternativeLand Use Scenarios &
Public Feedback
• Land Use RepresentationLocal General Plans
Plan Bay Area (Adopted in 2013)
The Draft Preferred Scenario builds on Plan Bay Area.
11
Main Streets
ConnectedNeighborhoods
Big Cities
Land use strategies influence the location of future housing and
jobs.
12
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/neighborhoods/4283507357; Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Mint Shirt, Creative Stall, Avery, Boatman, Gomez)
The Draft Preferred Scenario has the following key strategies for land use:
Keep current urban growth boundaries in place.
Apply inclusionary zoning in all cities with PDAs.
Assume for-profit housing developments make 10 percent of units deed-restricted in perpetuity.
Assign higher densities than currently allowed by cities to
select PDAs.
Reduce the cost of building in PDAs and TPAs through eased parking minimums and streamlined environmental clearance.
Assume subsidies stimulate housing and commercial
development within PDAs.
Similar to Plan Bay Area, the Draft Preferred focuses growth in the
core of the region.
13
25%
75%
24%
33%
43%
outside PDA
in PDA
Inland, Coastal, Delta
Bayside
Big 3 Cities
Inlan
Where will the region plan for the 820,000new households?31%
39%
30%
2010:2.6 million households
34%
38%
28%
2040:3.4 million households
Fewer strategies exist to encourage shifts in job locations –
meaning that the West Bay and South Bay remain primary centers.
14
48%
52%
14%
46%
40%
outside PDA
in PDA
Inland, Coastal, Delta
Bayside
Big 3 Cities
Where will the region plan for the 1.3 million new jobs?
Inlan
on
33%
41%
26%
35%
43%
22%
2010:3.4 million jobs
2040:4.7 million jobs
Accelerating housing production is critical to achieve this vision.
15
65,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040
Plan Bay Area 2040 – Housing Trends
Actual Production Under Construction Forecasted Increment
Local jurisdiction support is critical to realize the goals of Plan Bay
Area 2040.
16
Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Medard, Lopez, Luck, Helbig)
Big Cities
>350,000 people
Medium Cities
50,000 – 350,000
Small Cities
<50,000 people
Towns
UnincorporatedAreas
3
cities
43%
of growth
avg. 3,880 units
annually per city
35
cities
40%
of growth
avg. 310 units
annually per city
8
areas
6%
of growth
avg. 220 units
annually per area
53
cities
11%
of growth
avg. 55 units
annually per city
10
towns
<1%
of growth
avg. 15 units
annually per town
More information for local jurisdictions interested in detailed
forecasts is publicly available.
17
County Households
2010
Households
2040 (Forecast)
Employment
2010
Employment
2040 (Forecast)
Alameda 548,000 725,000 706,000 978,000
Contra Costa 376,000 491,000 360,000 473,000
Marin 104,000 116,000 121,000 138,000
Napa 49,000 56,000 71,000 79,000
San Francisco 347,000 476,000 577,000 888,000
San Mateo 257,000 316,000 343,000 475,000
Santa Clara 597,000 847,000 912,000 1,270,000
Solano 142,000 170,000 130,000 157,000
Sonoma 187,000 231,000 203,000 241,000
Total 2,607,000 3,427,000 3,422,000 4,699,000
The Draft Preferred land use pattern meets our environmental
goals, but it does not solve the region’s affordability issues.
18
Goal TARGET NoProject Main Streets Connected Neighbor.BigCities Draft Preferred
ClimateProtection 1 Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions -15%
Open Space and AgriculturalPreservation
4 Direct development within urbanfootprint 100%
Equitable Access 5 Decrease H+T share for lower-income households*-10%
Equitable Access 7 Do not increase share ofhouseholds at risk of displacement*+0%
-5%-15%-18%-20%
87%91%
+14%+13%+13%+13%
100%100%
-18%
+13%
100%
* = indicates that performance results analysis year 2035; final target results will reflect consistent horizon year of 2040
+18%+11%+13%+15%+9%
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thefatrobot/15095382616
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/luciuskwok/613513028
The Draft Preferred Scenario supports focused The Draft Preferred Scenario supports fgrowth by prioritizing transportation growth by prioritizing transportation growth by prioritizing transportationoperations, maintenance, and modernization.
19
Fortunately, the region has significant resources for improving our
transportation system – especially voter-approved sales taxes.
20
$29B $48B $42B $157B $14B $19B
Federal State Regional Local Anticipated 2016 Transportation Ballot Measures
$309 billion
Year of Expenditure $
Revenue Envelope for Plan Bay Area 2040
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beejjorgensen/3495038
All investment categories in the Draft Preferred are contingent on
approval of new sales taxes this November.
21
Breakdown of Draft Preferred Scenario Funding
$216B $74B $19B
Committed Discretionary 2016 Transportation Ballot Measures
$171B $27B $18B
Operate and Maintain Modernize Expand
$48B $19BOperate and Maintain Modernize Expand
Operate and Maintain Modernize Expand
$8B
$7B
$9B
$3B
Due to fiscal constraints, it was not possible to achieve ideal
maintenance conditions and to fund all projects submitted.
22
$122B
$47B
$36B
$35B
$188B
Funding Need Available Revenue
Transit Operations Transit Capital (Ideal)Local Streets (Ideal)Highways/Bridges (Ideal)Projects Available Revenue
Plan Bay Area 2040 Call for Projects
Funding need
for all assets at
ideal conditions
Funding for
existing transit
operations
$309 billion
$428 billion
The Draft Preferred Scenario allocates over 90 percent of funds
towards maintenance and modernization, similar to Plan Bay Area.
23
$158 billion
51%
$68 billion
22%
$54 billion
17%
$29 billion
9%
Total Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditures
(in billions of $YOE)
Operate and Maintain -
Transit
Operate and Maintain -
Roads/Freeways/Bridges
Modernize
Expand
91%
9%
Operate, Maintain, and Modernize
Expand Existing
System
$226 billion goes directly to operations and “Fix It First”, reflecting
the high performance of transit maintenance investments.
24
Strategy 1:
Operate and Maintain
$226 billion (73%)
Includes:
•Transit Operations ($122 billion)
•Transit Maintenance
($31 billion)
•Local Streets Maintenance ($25 billion)
•Bridge Maintenance
($14 billion)
Operating and maintaining the existing system remains our top
priority, despite its high costs.
25
Category Current Conditions (2015)Draft Preferred (2040)
Transit Operations Fully funds preservation of current service levels through 2040
Transit Maintenance 29% of transit assets
past useful life
12% of transit assets
past useful life
Local Road Maintenance Pavement condition
index of 66 Pavement condition
index of 69
Highway Maintenance 20%of highway lane-
miles in poor condition
20%of highway lane-
miles in poor condition
Strategy 1:
Operate and Maintain
$226 billion (73%)
Includes:
•Transit Operations($122 billion)
•Transit Maintenance
($31 billion)
•Local StreetsMaintenance
($25 billion)
•Bridge Maintenance($14 billion)
Operating and maintaining the existing system remains our top
priority, despite its high costs.
26
The Draft Preferred Scenario fully funds existing
operations in line with the original Plan Bay Area, increasing transit service by 7.5% over PBA 2013 levels.
Annual costs are 25% higher, however.
Strategy 1:
Operate and Maintain
$226 billion (73%)
Includes:
•Transit Operations($122 billion)
•Transit Maintenance
($31 billion)
•Local StreetsMaintenance($25 billion)
•Bridge Maintenance
($14 billion)
Modernization of existing transit system and highways is a high
priority as well.
27
Strategy 2:
Modernize
$54 billion (17%)
Includes:
•Core Capacity($7 billion)
•Bike/Ped Program
($3 billion)
•Goods MovementProgram ($3 billion)
•Caltrain Electrification
($2 billion)
•Mobility and AccessProgram ($2 billion)
•BART Metro($1 billion)
The share of funding allocated towards expansion projects
continues to decline – focusing primarily on high-performers.
28
Strategy 3:
Expand
$29 billion (9%)
Includes:
•High Speed Rail in BayArea
($8 billion)
•BART to San Jose($5 billion)
•Caltrain DowntownExtension($4 billion)
•Silicon Valley ExpressLanes: SR-85 + US-101
($2 billion)
The Draft Preferred Scenario includes specific strategies for equity.
29
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kukkurovaca/3847019482; Icon Sources: The Noun Project (naim, Mint Shirt, Hossain)
Fund existing bus operations through 2040$62 billion
Fund bus service increases and transit improvements$5 billion
Fund Lifeline Program and County Access Initiatives$2 billion
Assume increases in inclusionary zoning within
Priority Development Areas
Transportation investments are being targeted to benefit low-
income Bay Area residents…
30
Share of Population
Share of Investment Benefit
Transit Roadway Total
Low-Income 24%45% 26%42%
Minority 59%58% 52%57%
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALLOCATIONFOR DRAFT PREFERRED SCENARIO
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pfsullivan_1056/4487394472; https://www.flickr.com/photos/coolsashy/27398341596
… but ultimately transportation isn’t the primary challenge –
rather, it’s finding an affordable place to live.
31
Share of Population
Share of Investment Benefit
Transit Roadway Total
Low-
Income 24%45% 26%42%
Minority 59%58% 52%57%
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALLOCATION
FOR DRAFT PREFERRED SCENARIO
EQUITY MEASURE SUMMARY
FOR DRAFT PREFERRED SCENARIO
Equity Measure
BetterPerformance in Disadvantaged Communities?
Disadvantaged Communities Moving in the Right Direction?
Access to Jobs Yes Yes
Risk of Displacement Yes No
Healthy and Safe Communities Same Yes
Middle-Wage Job Creation N/A Yes
Housing + Transportation Affordability No No
Affordable Housing No No
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pfsullivan_1056/4487394472
Performance results for transportation are generally positive but
fall short on several key targets.
32
+14%-22%-14%-35%
+2%+2%
+46%-66%-9%+15%
+3%+4%
-28%
-16%
+3%
* = indicates that performance results analysis year 2035; final target results will reflect consistent horizon year of 2040
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/allaboutgeorge/5391451588
Goal TARGET NoProject Main Streets Connected Neighbor.BigCities Draft Preferred
ClimateProtection 1 Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions -15%
Economic Vitality 10 Reduce per-capita delay on freightnetwork -20%
TransportationSystemEffectiveness 11 Increase non-auto mode share*+10%
TransportationSystemEffectiveness 12 Reduce vehicle O&M costs due topavement conditions*-100%
-5%-15%-18%-20%-18%
Despite its limitations, the Draft Preferred Scenario does perform
notably better than the status quo (No Project).
33
Compared to the No Project:
•The Draft Preferred Scenario achieves 13
additional percentage points of per-capita
greenhouse gas reduction, primarily due to
the Climate Initiatives Program.
•Nearly 12,000 fewer acres of greenfield
lands are developed in the Draft PreferredScenario.
•63,000 fewer households are at risk ofdisplacement in PDAs, TPAs, and HOAs in theDraft Preferred Scenario.
•The typical driver spends $124 less per car
on auto maintenance due to smoother local
streets in the Draft Preferred Scenario.
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdodge/15336815438
If we really want to address affordability and equity If we really want to address affordability and equity challenges, action is needed by an engaged public and challenges, action is needed by an engaged public andchallengesactionisneededbyanengagedpublicandby all levels of government. Only the most aggressive by all levels of government. Only the most aggressive by all levels of government Only the most aggressivepolicies will be sufficient to deal with our housing crisis.
Housing: +12%
Housing + Transportation: +13%
Transportation:tation:+1%
Housing + Housing +
Transportation nsportat
CostsCosts
(as a share of (as a share of
income)*
* = for lowerer-r-income householdsouseholds
2005 2040
54%
of household
income
67%
of
household income
34
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arballoimages/9656613352
We want your feedback on how to craft the best We want your feedback on hoPreferred Scenario possible.
September
• Hold CountyWorkshops withPlanning Directors
October
• Comments onDraft PreferredDue (October 14)
• Revise PreferredScenario
Fall
• Adopt RevisedPreferred Scenario
•Begin CEQAReview
Spring 2017
• Release Draft Plan
• Release Draft EIR
Summer 2017
•Adopt Plan BayArea 2040
• Certify EIR
35
Bay Area Metro Center | 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 | San Francisco, CA 94105-2066
DATE: August 30, 2016
RE: Plan Bay Area 2040 DRAFT Preferred Scenario
Dear Colleagues,
The Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Scenario is now ready for review and MTC and ABAG are seeking the input of local jurisdictions to inform the development of the Final Preferred Scenario
slated for adoption in November 2016. As outlined in the attached Introduction, the Draft Preferred
Scenario builds upon the current Plan Bay Area adopted in 2013 and represents a projected pattern of household and employment growth in the Bay Area through 2040. Combined with the corresponding transportation investment scenario and incorporating additional refinements based, in part, upon local
jurisdictional feedback it will form the core of Plan Bay Area 2040 slated for final adoption in
Summer, 2017.
For many local communities, the distribution of 2040 employment and household forecasts may be
viewed as the most important output of this effort. This draft information is included in Attachment
A to the introduction, organized by local jurisdiction and split into PDA and jurisdiction totals. We
understand that some adjustments may be necessary as we continue to refine the Draft Preferred
Scenario’s assumptions. Regional Agency Staff are currently working with county-level Planning
Director organizations and Congestion Management Agencies to schedule staff-level presentations of
the Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Scenario in each county. Information on the date/time and
location of these meetings is available here: http://planbayarea.org/misc/county-planning-directors-
meetings.html.
Regional agency staff will also be available during the month of September to meet with local
planners from individual jurisdictions at the Bay Area Metro Center in San Francisco, via
teleconference, or onsite with local jurisdictions to hear feedback as to where and how the Draft
Preferred Scenario allocates the region’s growth. This dialogue will be informed by model output,
as well as local economics, pipeline projects, proposed policies, local plans and current zoning.
Requests for jurisdictional meetings should be directed to Megan Espiritu, mespiritu@mtc.ca.gov.
Any written comments on the Draft Preferred Scenario should be submitted no later than October
14, 2016. In response to this upcoming cycle of feedback, MTC and ABAG will make adjustments
as appropriate during the month of September and October, with the goal of the MTC Commission
and ABAG Executive Board adopting the Final Preferred Scenario on November 17, 2016.
Please do not hesitate to contact Ken Kirkey kkirkey@mtc.ca.gov or Miriam Chion miriamc@abag.ca.gov with any questions or comments. We greatly appreciate your involvement
and input in the development of Plan Bay Area 2040.
Best Regards,
Steve Heminger Ezra Rapport MTC, Executive Director ABAG, Executive Director
1
Introduction to the Draft Preferred Scenario for Plan Bay Area 2040
Welcome to Plan Bay Area 2040’s Draft Preferred Scenario. This vision for the nine-county
San Francisco Bay Area builds on the groundbreaking Plan Bay Area, adopted by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) in 2013 after extensive analysis and outreach. Plan Bay Area 2040
continues to be guided by Senate Bill 375, requiring California’s metropolitan areas to adopt an
integrated long range regional transportation plan (RTP) and sustainable communities strategy
(SCS) — a roadmap to reduce per-capita greenhouse gas emissions and house the region’s
population at all income levels.
Plan Bay Area 2040’s Draft Preferred Scenario largely reflects the foundation established by its
predecessor. The Plan creates a blueprint for providing sufficient housing for current residents
and newcomers alike, at all income levels. It focuses development toward Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) — neighborhoods that are close to public transit and identified by local
jurisdictions as being appropriate for smart, compact development. Lastly, it confines growth to
established communities, and protects the Bay Area’s legacy of vast and varied open spaces.
What is the Draft Preferred Scenario?
The Draft Preferred Scenario represents a projected regional pattern of household and
employment growth in 2040. Together with the corresponding transportation investment
strategy, it forms the core of Plan Bay Area 2040. The Preferred Scenario and transportation
investment strategy are evaluated against a set of regionally-adopted performance targets to
measure how well the Plan addresses regional goals including climate protection, transportation
system effectiveness, economic vitality, and equitable access. Only two targets are mandatory
for the region to achieve under Senate Bill 375 – Climate Protection and Adequate Housing. The
remaining 11 targets are voluntary, but provide a useful reference point for policymakers and the
public to consider.
For many local jurisdictions, the distribution of 2040 employment and household forecasts may
be viewed as the most important output of this effort. This draft information is included in
Attachment A, organized by local jurisdiction, and split into PDA totals. These numbers stem
from distributing ABAG’s economic and demographic forecasts through use of an advanced
regional land use model. The land use model, UrbanSim, went through an iterative set of
adjustments in response to expert reviews, public input, and dialogue with local officials. ABAG
regional planners developed a set of targets informed by local dialogue against which the model
output could be evaluated.
Simply put, the most fundamental challenge faced by MTC and ABAG when developing these
forecasts is to create a Plan that supports local plans while accommodating the region’s total
forecasted growth and meeting the state mandated sustainability goals. Thus, the Draft Preferred
Scenario must assess potential opportunities for new housing and jobs while reflecting local
aspirations and numerous local, regional, and state public policy decisions that affect growth and
protect our natural areas.
The Draft Preferred Scenario does not mandate any changes to local zoning rules, general plans
or processes for reviewing projects, nor is it an enforceable direct or indirect cap on development
locations or targets in the region. As is the case across California, the Bay Area’s cities, towns
2
and counties maintain control of all decisions to adopt plans and permit or deny development
projects. Plan Bay Area 2040 also does not establish new state-mandated Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers for each jurisdiction. RHNA operates on an eight-year
cycle, with the next iteration not due until the 2021 RTP/SCS. Because RHNA numbers are not
at stake this cycle, this update to the region’s long-range plan has been characterized as limited
and focused.
What’s new and different?
The Bay Area economy has exploded over the past four years, attracting thousands of new
people and jobs. Regional growth forecasts have been revised upward as a result. ABAG
forecasts an additional 1.3 million jobs and 2.4 million people and therefore the need for
approximately 820,000 housing units between 2010 and 2040. This represents an increase of 15
percent in the projected employment growth and a 25 percent increase in projected household
growth, relative to the last Plan.
The economic surge has been both a blessing and a challenge, offering employment
opportunities unseen since the Bay Area’s dot-com boom, while also clogging freeways and
public transit, and triggering an unprecedented housing squeeze, particularly for lower and
moderate income workers, many of whom have been displaced or are at risk for displacement.
Moving forward, some cities will welcome new residents and housing with open arms, seeing the
opportunity to revitalize depressed areas, or to make better use of prime land around transit
nodes. For other communities, accommodating future growth may be an acute challenge,
practically and/or politically. The Draft Preferred Scenario recognizes the diversity of the
region’s communities, and that there is no “one size fits all” in terms of the type of future
development desired by our residents.
To address the challenges of planning for an increasingly complex region, MTC and ABAG have
continued to evolve technical methods for creating regional scenarios. UrbanSim incorporates
current zoning for 2 million individual land parcels across the Bay Area, as well as available
information about current regional and local economic and real estate market trends. UrbanSim
is an ambitious project which compiles a large amount of data at a very detailed geographic
resolution. The detailed level of UrbanSim output is used for the analysis of performance
measures.
UrbanSim builds upon the methodology used by the Agencies in the prior Plan. The prior
methodology combined a land use allocation process based on observed historic growth patterns
with jurisdictional expectations described in local plans. This time, UrbanSim also incorporates
zoning tools, the most recent PDA assessment, and household, business, and developer choice
models. The agencies ran the model hundreds of times, testing the effects that different regional
strategies could have on affecting the distribution of housing and employment growth. The
output was measured against a set of growth targets put together by ABAG regional planners
working with planners from local jurisdictions. Overall, the growth allocation results of the
UrbanSim model align fairly closely with these growth targets at a summary level as well as for
most localities, though, there are substantial differences for some individual localities. The
extent of the differences between local plans and the UrbanSim output is a discussion for the
agencies, regional stakeholders, and individual jurisdictions.
3
The Draft Preferred Scenario accommodates 100 percent of the needed housing units, and offers
a rationale that these units can be built given future market conditions and existing or expected
policies to support focused growth at the local, regional or state level.
How did we get here?
In May 2016, MTC and ABAG released three alternative land use and transportation scenarios
illustrating the effects that different housing, land use, and transportation strategies would have
on the adopted goals and performance targets. The three scenarios represented a progression of
plausible regional futures, from more intense housing and employment growth in the urban core
— called the “Big Cities Scenario”; to more evenly apportioned development among PDAs in
medium-sized cities with access to rail services — labeled the “Connected Neighborhoods
Scenario”; to a more dispersed development pattern, with more relative growth occurring outside
of PDAs — known as the “Main Streets Scenario.”
The release of the scenarios initiated a public process in May and June 2016 to garner input from
the public, stakeholders, community groups, and local officials, via public open houses in each
county, an online comment forum as well as an online interactive quiz (the “Build a Better Bay
Area” website). By July, MTC and ABAG had received comments from more than 1,100
residents. During this time period, the agencies received direct feedback from the local
jurisdictions on the scenarios.
Additionally, the results of a 2015 PDA Assessment have also directly informed our confidence
in the Draft Preferred Scenario. This assessment examined 65 of the nearly 200 locally
identified PDAs. The analysis evaluated the likelihood of housing actually being built in each
PDA, by examining local planning and permitting processes; community support for
development; market forces, including the attractiveness of the area to investors, developers and
builders; the capacity of water and sewer systems and other infrastructure; and the availability of
financing. The PDA Assessment was a reality check. It found that under existing conditions —
meaning with current zoning laws, policies and market conditions — only about 70 percent of
housing allocated to PDAs in Plan Bay Area 2013 would get built with these results being
boosted to nearly 90 percent with a range of fairly aggressive policy and investment strategies.
The results of the Draft Preferred Scenario align with the results of the PDA Assessment,
providing added confidence in the regional forecast’s consideration of both market conditions
and local policy.
Strategies included in the Preferred Scenario
Beyond built-in assumptions on local planning and market conditions, the Draft Preferred
Scenario also works to incorporate a number of regional land use strategies, which can affect
land use patterns by changing a community’s capacity for new development or incentivizing a
particular type or location of growth. This combination of strategies is necessary to create a
Draft Preferred Scenario that can achieve or move toward the region’s adopted targets.
The land use strategies incorporated in the Draft Preferred Scenario include the following:
Current urban growth boundaries are kept in place.
Inclusionary zoning was applied to all cities with PDAs, meaning that these jurisdictions are
assumed to allow below-market-rate or subsidized multi-family housing developments.
4
All for-profit housing developments are assumed to make at least 10 percent of the units
available to low-income residents, in perpetuity (via deed restrictions).
In some cases, PDAs were assigned higher densities in the future than are currently allowed.
The cost of building in PDAs and/or Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) is assumed to be reduced
by the easing of residential parking minimums and streamlining environmental clearance.
Subsidies are assumed to stimulate housing and commercial developments within PDAs.
These measures are not prescriptive— again, there are many potential public policy options that
could help the region attain its adopted targets. Rather, these strategies should be considered as
illustrations of what it would take to keep the Bay Area an economically vibrant, diverse and
sustainable region in the year 2040.
Moving Forward
Although the levels of new housing and jobs may appear daunting, the challenge becomes much
more achievable when viewed through the long-range lens of a 25-year plan. For instance, a
medium-sized city of 50,000 residents slated to absorb 1,000 more new housing units by 2040
than previously anticipated would in actuality need to only add 40 units a year to meet the target.
That yearly figure could be reached by adding two 10-unit apartment buildings (or one 20-unit
building) per year, and creating another 20 accessory dwelling units associated with single-
family homes each year. In other words, in nearly all cases, jurisdictions should be able to
absorb their housing allotments while fully retaining the character of their communities.
It is important to keep in mind that the process of refining the Bay Area’s ideal development
pattern is nearly continuous to stay synced with the four-year mandated update cycles— we will
revisit all the assumptions in the adopted Preferred Scenario as we launch the next update to Plan
Bay Area. We learn more with each cycle, and are able to take those lessons and apply them to
the forecasting and modeling as well as our public outreach methods for the next cycle.
Such assurances aside, regional planners and policymakers understand that some adjustments
may be necessary as we continue to refine the Draft Preferred Scenario’s assumptions. To this
end, a careful balancing act regarding future growth patterns is as much an art as a science, and
we look forward to working with local planners and policymakers, stakeholders and members of
the public in the coming weeks to advance our mutual understanding of the development climate
and capacity in various jurisdictions, and to refine and improve this Draft Preferred Scenario.
Attachment A: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts
Attachment A: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts
Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Total 30,100 41,700 29,200 39,600
PDA 1,850 6,000 6,900 15,200
Total 7,350 7,850 4,400 5,600
PDA 300 550 2,100 2,450
Total 46,500 55,700 90,300 139,400
PDA 6,700 13,300 28,500 42,000
Total 14,900 23,300 18,100 31,400
PDA 3,100 8,500 5,000 14,000
Total 5,600 14,300 15,850 20,550
PDA 2,400 10,500 13,500 16,850
Total 70,000 89,900 86,200 114,500
PDA 23,000 41,200 38,200 46,000
Total 45,100 53,200 60,900 92,400
PDA 4,350 8,600 7,600 10,300
Total 28,600 30,900 42,600 48,800
PDA 850 2,100 23,800 27,750
Total 12,900 15,450 17,300 25,600
PDA 200 2,150 200 450
Total 157,200 235,000 179,100 257,500
PDA 115,500 190,500 158,200 229,400
Piedmont Total 3,800 3,850 1,800 1,750
Total 24,700 34,600 60,100 69,900
PDA 1,300 8,000 12,500 19,600
Total 30,800 38,500 49,700 66,800
PDA 4,700 11,700 9,750 11,000
Total 20,300 24,200 21,000 30,700
PDA 500 3,450 250 250
Total 50,000 56,300 28,850 33,700
PDA 10,450 12,850 6,850 8,850
Total 548,000 724,700 705,500 978,300
PDA 175,100 319,300 313,400 444,000
Pleasanton
Alameda
Alameda County
Unincorporated
Albany
Berkeley
Dublin
Emeryville
Fremont
Hayward
Livermore
Newark
Oakland
San Leandro
Union City
County Total
Alameda
August 30, 2016 Attachment A
Draft Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
AlamedaAlameda Total 32,400 41,900 20,200 25,400
PDA 1,400 5,200 2,050 2,300
Brentwood Total 16,800 29,700 11,600 12,150
Clayton Total 3,950 4,050 2,000 2,100
Total 45,000 66,000 54,200 95,200
PDA 4,000 22,200 10,200 41,400
Total 15,300 16,550 11,800 12,450
PDA 1,350 2,000 6,300 6,600
Total 10,300 11,950 5,300 5,750
PDA 750 2,000 3,800 4,550
Total 8,300 10,600 4,850 6,050
PDA 900 2,650 1,150 1,500
Total 9,200 10,750 9,050 9,650
PDA 1,700 2,700 6,650 7,250
Total 14,250 15,450 20,800 26,200
PDA 700 850 6,800 9,650
Total 5,600 5,750 4,500 5,800
PDA 30 40 1,400 1,650
Total 10,600 16,700 3,350 6,050
PDA 800 6,400 1,550 4,050
Total 6,500 7,050 4,850 5,150
PDA 250 550 2,650 2,800
Total 6,550 7,300 6,850 9,000
PDA 350 950 5,250 6,950
Total 19,400 27,400 11,800 16,400
PDA 5,150 8,900 4,600 6,100
Total 13,500 14,000 16,300 19,600
PDA 850 950 5,750 7,100
Total 36,700 56,500 30,800 63,500
PDA 8,600 22,300 13,400 37,000
Total 8,950 9,600 7,400 10,000
PDA 2,000 2,350 4,850 6,700
Total 24,400 31,100 47,900 46,100
PDA 200 5,800 25,650 22,400
Total 30,400 38,200 51,050 54,550
PDA 4,950 9,550 27,400 29,500
Total 57,800 70,700 0 0
PDA 4,400 16,100 0 0
Total 375,900 491,200 360,200 472,700
PDA 38,300 111,500 138,200 209,400
Antioch
Concord
Contra Costa County
Unincorporated
Richmond
Danville
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Contra Costa
Oakley
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
San Pablo
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
County Total
Page 2 of 6
August 30, 2016 Attachment A
Draft Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
AlamedaAlamedaBelvedere Total 900 1,000 300 300
Corte Madera Total 3,900 4,350 6,650 7,450
Fairfax Total 3,400 3,550 1,550 1,700
Larkspur Total 5,850 6,300 7,450 8,800
Mill Valley Total 5,900 8,150 6,000 6,600
Novato Total 20,150 21,350 26,400 29,500
Ross Total 800 900 350 400
San Anselmo Total 5,200 5,450 3,300 3,650
Total 22,550 25,950 43,300 49,100
PDA 1,650 2,750 9,000 10,100
Sausalito Total 4,150 4,500 5,200 5,800
Tiburon Total 3,600 3,850 2,850 2,900
Total 27,450 30,600 17,500 21,350
PDA 1,500 2,050 650 750
Total 103,900 115,900 120,800 137,600
PDA 3,150 4,800 9,650 10,850
Total 5,400 7,000 5,450 8,150
PDA 400 1,500 1,350 1,700
Calistoga Total 2,050 2,400 2,200 2,650
Total 28,100 30,250 34,000 36,500
PDA 350 1,200 5,300 6,300
St. Helena Total 2,400 3,000 5,700 5,650
Yountville Total 1,100 1,200 2,750 2,750
Napa County
Unincorporated
Total 10,200 11,850 20,550 23,250
Total 49,200 55,700 70,700 79,000
PDA 800 2,700 6,600 8,050
Total 347,100 475,500 576,900 887,800
PDA 184,000 302,300 473,800 765,000
Marin
Napa
San Francisco San Francisco
San Rafael
County Total
County Total
American Canyon
Napa
Marin County
Unincorporated
Page 3 of 6
August 30, 2016 Attachment A
Draft Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
AlamedaAlamedaAtherton Total 2,350 2,500 2,150 2,300
Total 8,800 9,600 7,900 10,000
PDA 2,500 2,850 3,500 4,450
Total 1,800 6,300 5,200 17,600
PDA 0 4,400 0 10,900
Total 12,250 13,800 28,000 38,300
PDA 6,950 8,300 11,500 15,700
Total 850 1,250 3,950 4,900
PDA 700 1,050 1,450 1,950
Total 30,700 37,000 18,400 23,150
PDA 8,500 13,500 4,650 5,800
Total 6,950 9,950 5,100 7,000
PDA 800 2,200 950 1,750
Foster City Total 11,900 14,250 15,800 21,800
Half Moon Bay Total 4,200 4,700 4,900 5,200
Hillsborough Total 3,750 3,950 2,100 2,300
Total 12,300 17,800 34,600 45,000
PDA 200 1,050 6,200 7,950
Total 7,950 11,000 5,900 12,900
PDA 600 3,350 2,800 9,100
Pacifica Total 13,900 14,300 5,950 7,300
Portola Valley Total 1,700 1,750 2,700 3,000
Total 27,800 36,000 59,200 85,000
PDA 600 6,700 20,700 27,600
Total 14,600 18,300 12,900 15,350
PDA 3,700 6,750 9,300 11,300
Total 13,200 13,700 16,300 21,700
PDA 50 100 1,200 1,650
Total 37,900 49,200 51,000 67,600
PDA 11,200 19,200 25,300 34,000
Total 20,450 23,450 38,800 55,400
PDA 5,300 7,650 8,250 11,350
Woodside Total 2,050 2,500 1,950 2,150
Total 21,400 24,500 20,600 27,500
PDA 2,400 2,950 3,200 4,100
Total 256,900 315,800 343,300 475,300
PDA 43,500 80,100 99,000 147,600
San Mateo
Belmont
Millbrae
Redwood City
County Total
South San Francisco
Menlo Park
San Mateo County
Unincorporated
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Page 4 of 6
August 30, 2016 Attachment A
Draft Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
AlamedaAlameda Total 16,550 18,950 25,200 31,800
PDA 600 1,650 5,250 6,950
Total 20,900 24,450 26,800 53,100
PDA 2,250 4,900 9,800 13,950
Total 14,000 19,600 17,850 20,800
PDA 1,400 3,350 4,500 5,300
Total 10,500 12,000 14,050 16,750
PDA 0 200 2,200 2,650
Los Altos Hills Total 2,850 3,050 1,550 1,750
Los Gatos Total 11,900 12,400 19,000 21,250
Total 19,000 30,800 42,000 56,400
PDA 800 8,800 5,700 9,900
Monte Sereno Total 1,250 1,350 550 550
Total 12,550 15,500 19,250 20,700
PDA 250 900 1,550 1,400
Total 31,800 58,500 48,500 69,600
PDA 5,800 29,300 25,200 39,000
Total 26,550 29,150 102,000 123,200
PDA 500 950 3,850 4,800
Total 297,700 440,600 387,700 502,600
PDA 67,200 201,700 229,200 299,400
Total 42,100 54,900 102,900 189,100
PDA 300 6,200 10,200 13,100
Saratoga Total 10,650 11,000 8,750 9,500
Total 52,600 80,700 65,800 116,000
PDA 6,200 32,000 21,900 29,000
Santa Clara County
Unincorporated
Total 26,100 33,600 29,500 36,500
Total 597,100 846,600 911,500 1,269,700
PDA 85,300 289,800 319,200 425,500
Santa Clara Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Milpitas
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
County Total
Page 5 of 6
August 30, 2016 Attachment A
Draft Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
AlamedaAlameda Total 10,700 11,800 12,900 18,600
PDA 600 900 2,050 2,050
Total 5,850 6,950 4,850 6,100
PDA 450 550 300 350
Total 34,200 38,700 43,100 51,600
PDA 2,300 5,000 6,450 7,100
Rio Vista Total 3,700 10,400 2,350 2,450
Total 9,000 9,650 2,500 3,000
PDA 1,100 1,550 1,100 1,300
Total 31,000 33,050 29,300 35,000
PDA 850 2,250 4,900 4,950
Total 40,950 45,050 30,900 35,300
PDA 400 1,150 2,600 3,050
Solano County
Unincorporated
Total 6,900 14,700 4,250 4,400
Total 142,300 170,300 130,200 156,500
PDA 5,700 11,400 17,350 18,800
Total 3,250 5,250 1,750 1,600
PDA 800 2,850 550 500
Total 3,050 3,550 2,700 3,000
PDA 350 700 700 700
Healdsburg Total 4,400 4,700 8,400 9,900
Total 21,800 27,100 30,000 35,700
PDA 500 4,450 3,500 4,050
Total 15,000 21,100 12,050 13,350
PDA 1,300 5,300 4,250 4,900
Total 63,800 78,800 76,400 91,700
PDA 16,800 30,300 41,100 48,600
Total 3,300 5,000 5,000 5,050
PDA 2,050 3,750 4,650 4,650
Sonoma Total 4,900 6,250 7,150 8,050
Total 9,050 10,550 7,600 9,200
PDA 1,100 2,300 900 1,200
Sonoma County
Unincorporated
Total 58,300 68,600 51,700 63,900
Total 186,800 231,000 202,700 241,400
PDA 23,000 49,700 55,800 64,600
Total 2,607,000 3,427,000 3,422,000 4,698,000
PDA 559,000 1,172,000 1,433,000 2,094,000
Sonoma
Regional Total
Solano
Vacaville
Vallejo
Cloverdale
Cotati
Petaluma
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Suisun City
County Total
County Total
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Windsor
Page 6 of 6