.03 Initial Vision Scenario COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
,•'
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT 1 N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. .3 Agenda Date: Apri112, 2011
Application: N/ A
Applicant: None ,
Property Location: N/ A
Application Summary: Initial Vision Scenario - Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Sustainable Communities
Strategy Update
Recommendation:
Report is provided for informational and discussion purposes only.
Background:
In 2008, the State legislature enacted SB375 requiring the Bay Area Regional
Transportation Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy that integrates land-
use planning and transportation planning. Together, the Regional Transportation Plan
and the Sustainable Communities Strategy are being referred to as Plan Bay Area. For
the 25-year period covered by Plan Bay Area, the Sustainable Communities Strategy
must identify areas in the Bay Area sufficient to house all of the region's population,
including all economic segments of the population. It will also attempt to coordinate the
resulting land-use pattern with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita
greenhouse-gas emissions from personal-use vehicles. The Initial Vision Scenario (IVS)
for Plan Bay Area is a preliminary look at the areas where the growth in the regiori s
population might be housed.
Discussion:
On May 11, 2011, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) released the Initial Vision Scenario
(IVS). The purpose of the IVS is to articulate how the Bay Area region can grow over
the next 25 years (2010-2035) in a sustainable manner. The IVS is based on demographic
projections of household growth in the Bay Area. It is important to remember that these
projections are not a forecast of growth since they do not take into consideration
constraints such as limited infrastructure, housing subsidies, etc.
3-1
Under the NS assumptions, the Bay Area is anticipated to grow from about 7,350,000
today to about 9,430,000 by the year 2035. According to the IVS, this population growth
would necessitate approximately 902,000 new housing units. The IVS takes a
preliminary look at where these new units might be accommodated. Santa Clara
County is estimated to grow by 253,866 households during the 25 year period with
Cupertino being estimated to grow by 1,758 households during the same timeframe.
The only cities showing a lower estimated household growth are Los Altos Hills, Monte
Sereno, Saratoga and Los Gatos. (Staff has attached relevant tables for review).
The NS also looks at job growth over the same time period. Cupertino is estimated to
show a 4,770 jobs increase in comparison to the countywide increase in jobs of 380,001.
Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Saratoga, and Los Gatos are the only cities
showing less job growth than Cupertino.
Over the next several months, ABAG and MTC will seek input through elected official
briefings, local government staff discussions and public workshops. The comments
received through the outreach effort will assist the agencies in developing and testing a
range of detailed scenarios that achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
The IVS kicks off a two-year conversation among local jurisdictions and regional
agencies on what will eventually become the Sustainable Communities Strategy. ABAG
and MTC have a goal to adopt the complete SCS by Apri12013. More information on
the Initial Vision Scenario can be found at the One Bay Area website,
http: / / onebayarea.or�/ plan_bay_area/ .
Initial Vision Scenario Tables:
Initial Vision Scenario - Total �Iouseholds anr� Household Growth by County
2010 2035 Household Percent
Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Alameda 557,651 770,397 212,746 38.2%
Contra Costa 392,680 546,653 153,973 39.2%
Marin 106,447 117,124 10,678 10.0%
Na a 51,260 56,061 4,801 9.4%
San Francisco 346,680 43fi,794 90,114 26.0%
San Mateo 264,516 358,337 93,821 35.5%
Santa Clara 613,947 867,813 253,866 41.3%
Solano 148,160 187,776 39,61 fi 26.7%
Sonoma 188,430 231,373 42,943 22.8%
Regional Total 2,669,772 3,572,327 902,556 33.8%
3-2
Initial �'ision Scenario - Total Jobs and Job Growth b�� Countv
Percent
Coun 2010 Jobs 2035 Jobs Job Growth Chan e
Alameda 675,591 925,449 249,859 37.0%
Contra Cos#a 345,931 479,373 133,442 38.6%
Marin 129,fi79 151,�97 21,418 16.5%
Na a 70,136 88,838 18,703 25.7%
San Francisco 544,755 713,651 168,897 31.0%
San Mateo 330,135 452,226 122,091 37.0%
Santa Ciara 858,399 1,238,400 380,001 44.3%
Solano 126,328 176,711 5�,383 39.9%
Sonoma 190,369 267,588 77,219 40.6%
Regional Total 3,271,321 4,493,333 1,222,012 37.4%
'' Employment by jurisdiction within each County can be found in Seclion 3.
Initial Vision Scenario - Santa Clara County Total Households and Household Growth
by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Santa Clara Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Cam bell 16,892 21,002 4,110 24.3%
Cu ertino 19,830 21,588 1,758 8.9%
Gilro 14,330 22,118 7,788 54.3%
Los Altos 10,670 11,968 1,298 12.2%
Los Altos Hiils 3,053 3,088 35 1.1 %
Los Gatos 12,430 13,151 721 5.8%
Mii itas 19,03� 38,758 19,728 103.7%
Monte Sereno 1,229 1,269 40 3.3%
Mor an Hill 12,399 20,040 7,641 61.6%
Mountain View 32,114 50,348 18,234 56.8%
Palo Alto 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9%
San Jose 305,087 435,585 130,498 42.8%
Santa Clara 43,403 67,672 24,269 55.9%
Sarato a 11,000 11,118 118 1.1 %
Sunn ale 54,170 73,425 19,255 35.5%
Santa Clara County
Unincor orated 31,604 37,991 6,386 20.2%
Countywide Total 613,947 867,813 253,866 41.3%
3-3
Initial Vision Scenario - Santa Clara County Total Jobs and Job Grox►th by .Iurisdictiort
2010 2035 Job Percent
Santa Clara County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Campbell 22,099 26,897 4,798 21.7%
Cupertino 30,513 35,283 4,770 15.6%
Giiroy 16,652 22,666 6,014 36.1 %
Los Altos 10,250 11,511 1,261 12.3%
Los Altos Hills 1,845 1,937 93 5.0%
Los Gatos 18,275 20,700 2,425 13.3%
Milpitas 46,784 55,624 8,840 18.9%
Monte Sereno 400 532 132 33.1 %
Morgan Hill 12,698 20,806 8,109 63.9%
Mountain View 50,074 64,507 14,434 28.8%
Palo Alto 73,303 78,163 4,860 6.6%
San Jose 342,799 593,219 250,420 73.1 %
Santa Clara 103,186 138,386 35,200 34.1%
Saratoga 6,826 7,279 453 6.6%
Sunnyvale 72,392 96,408 24,016 33.2%
Santa Clara County
Unincorporated 50,304 64,481 14,177 28.2%
Countywide Total 858,399 1,238,400 380,001 44.3%
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA):
AB375 requires the RHNA be consistent with the SCS and the RHNA must thus align
with the IVS. Currently, the SCS Housing Methodology Committee is meeting to
discuss possible options for aligning the RHNA methodology with the IVS. Staff
anticipates that the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
will issue the Housing Determinations to ABAG in October 2011. Before the Housing
Needs Determinations are released, the Housing Methodology Committee will continue
analyzing the RHNA distribution models and release the draft RHNA methodology in
July 2011 for review with adoption projected for September 2011. After HCD, releases
the Housing Needs Determinations, then the numbers will be plugged into the adopted
RHNA model and the draft RHNA plan will be released for review in January 2012.
Cities will have an opportunity to challenge the RHNA allocations before the plan is
adopted in September 2012.
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Approved b .
-�.
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
Attachment 1: Initial Vision Scenario Overview
3-4
,c�-. 1 �.�, � { � � ��� '`•� � � � f�� � � �� a�`;, �,�,•«sy �- 'a� .. . ' � _
#", �. ' l s �. � � � : g�` �,- y."`"��.�' ,' ,r ���'�i. S. '� "dt.2 -
`� '� ,,,. t � � � .r �.�� ��, �'�'*' "` °" ' 5 - � �,�'•��a��t'.�� � ' - -
. _
a � ... �����; �r �` :� �� Yy'7 ' � �.,+ �
.r�. � _ "i'+,. 'rt`K���.F. , �,_; � .� , ��'"- _
'F`-� � - _ �*� �`` :>`� - -�` _ ` � � �� Cfl - . .
�'�� _ , °��� ��.� � � � c ` � f�, 7 _ �
_ . � � �
y.._ s � � � �- ���' -. `` ��2� ���t' ° a s
'i°`.�., '3 - s �� `5' t ��.�'�"'� � �j - - � � F �' � } '� �" � .... . . . . s'
�' _ ^�' .�` '� .S-. � � . .. � � x' ,A; `�`%',� . ' .. � -
.. � ,..` ..: _: �,p.� ' � -` � : .. . _ _
��� .�b'�-^; � 0 m a �+'�� � � '` sa ��d .. � °r� � ` R �' � �' ,I- +,�. '°'] - - .
g e �� �� ,�.e.� ' d \ ^""s*� Y �„�Fiiti � � i.:
� .,VC,y� d. - �„�a"�✓ . , � � � x u ..� �" � � � ��„ � ``. .� 7 ..r _
. �� �ari = r� .����-`�`' �1 :✓' '�.�.'°`.c �:-4� �� ,'�C ^'� - ... �.. � � �r � `'�"'c yy -. . . .
��:�.,`°`�- C� -°� :: ��.. � ' � rs r - .-b 3 � .. ; - r � - ..' . .
'"'� �"� �}. � ..� .r+�. \ � '�' . r" ��` �w ^'� �� a 7 �� Y� - . . _. -- �
�.`.s�' � � r����'�`' � � �.� 'X` r � µ �s'�'�.. `u r ���f � -�. � � � _
�
4 � '
. �-;�' x. � ,µ�' , .. "'r. ..x.w�j.. T �'�`vha-.+R.:. -.-� �, .
_}��,� .i+' ,r,r�� .�,,�,. ...,,,;». , r, a'� �• y � �
' ti , _..
.-
�, ... -�-<. � e.. ,�n5 ` - �. �. , _ _ :i," /
,. } ' '
� ._ � h . .. � ., b
� ��' "�' �' _:
�_.:.�,. �� .. � . ... , . �, ,,._: „ �,x.-+- ..�., s� � �: _
� z _,
- �c. .:_ ._J.,.- ... .- �t. .�= :.. _ -.< _.', ,. , -�.. . ..� . � ...:.
'� i ' " - � .-..� _ ' ' -
.
� � ,s -..._ . ' , .
, � y
�11
, .. e .� �.. . ; . . . � �4`� -r, �
y � .-
-
`� _ �
:
�.
� : , .,
� " . -...� ..,. . _.-�--��-,..:, - -.i-�„' " -..,- � � �.. . '°`
� _ . . --� _ .._...._..-_._. - -, -... . . .
• �. _ .,_
� P �I � 4 . .., . .. _ . .
i J
� � ' �� _ �' `
� " � - � ��
$��^ �� -. i � :�' I � � ��'�
�l � L , �� t
, .
_ - _ TT � ^��t r�` ..« = ' - : : � _ - -- . . o
� . _. . . '�,?k, r .,�" a7 +ef' =s..Y f ' 1�.�.�. t � � _
.
. _ �:.,. - � i - .� . . .
c Y . >,",..�r:�.-�.Whw'�a ..�7 � . c_� J 4.: � �.' ;�� --
`�.. "��.�'--:� �-� �: .;� � t _ i �, �, z °_
� ��t11'� ` r". ' - •rr - _,
f -� �r .�- . , -�-- � , :�r
:�, � _` _ . . �� �== � � � =�- ,�..., -�� ` �`. --�r' � �"e` T � ' � ' •
, �
e . . e �, �':� _ .
- - ' _ ,� _ � '�' �.,�
� �
� __ __ � ,� ` " 5. �� � �. _ ^ � �. f 3 �� � � �
_. _ _ ,
f �' t ,, _ _ � a
, �
� � _
; _ � _ ' �
... »:..: ..,...� .- z � _ - Ea'r`+�..�
.�c^ � �
� � �
- �� - _ �. . � -� � - � . . ' - � �"' `�. ' • �-_ `" yt ',`�y � a �""�+au� ...
.��, "+� J � � .s�.. �.
: ..,. -. . � - - .. .
� t � ' � � ' ,�;�'� �2+. / ove ..; � -
.,` _ _ } � � �� ` " � ,�, r`�'�' r� �' �� �.� � �
m n '+! i �.. _ - ?*�;���, � ,,'..' �,,. ` -._ •.'-...�.; ,
-
_,
, �, ..
x-„
�:
�
•-•� � 1 YwT-
�
�-- '
- �r �
. � . �.. . . , �. ' �. '
. . ., .- :' _ . ._ _ '._ .._ _ - .. -`+
;p �-
, � "
_ � . . . .;. . _.: . .�� .n,w+>swrv �.... . � � �y
� ,. �� �� .-. .
. �, T S E �. ,: 0 .
Pr _ - _ _ � � �. .. �. . �. �, n v. _ . � �- t .rr,,�"�" �,� . ..-
_ .� 3 ' ��rk , �+�".�.� �
.. . . _ . .. �' . -� � � � . ` ""�;. � s. _
. _ . - y " � . _ . . - � � w.' � � � ^��' � �� ""' � y.r ; � -T ��� . • �� . _
. .. �
. . : ' _ .. .:� .
� �.._ ..,.... .. ... . . . ._.�.: .. . _.SanFr+�. �..�r : _-'. - +•-�r .�3 � 1.*... c - - _ . .. _ - _
.. .� . . . " . . . � . `�� i .. - . ��`} L '.,.� r . � � �- �, Y..
�' . ' � - . �. . . . . . - �' . . �;� ..r � y; ���� - -_
. . � , : . �. . . : . . � . . � . � � �. . `' - . y ,'�. �,_ - "+�.- � �u>., - ar'c � � — - - -
�� a
� x, ' — "' L. ti ,,,.,,, .,x-
,. �. ---
- • � - _ �� - -
.. �. � �'-.
�..
°-. - � - - - -
,
_ �, -- � ,� '+±:,_
v �
� ' a.w,M+..�.. �, � _ _
.
_ . -�
4 ..:� �`" r � ,! ��,, ` � a �� ,;
- . — ,:i .� �.-a __ -:..�� . �:°',,.'�' . _ _ , 4"`7
� �
_.
.
... .. ; � ._ . ,
,
. . . . . _ � . > � � �J6* � � �- _
' ' . . .. - - � lr[ . r z ' _ -_ � ' _
, .. . _. . . . � . �. ����. � . . . -_a . .. -£ - p , �i1 . _ - _ _ .
�^ .� „�,,.�+= A i a m e ci-a
� ^�'as ,�._„
. . � ___ .. -- �" � --.-�
. . • _ . . , _ _ =�a.M-- ,; � w"'-- _ _
_, •
_ . _r
� �
,
- � , .._ �, �_ �
_ __ _ ,�
-�--" } _ - -
_ . , .
. — ` �_
_ _ „; � ,a.. �'=e ,..._ --- :, �.. . -
. . �:,.c . � � �� w-.� �. --
. , :� �'`��o �:. ,
�.. x � �
�� 4 t i:.� .: '�� _... :
- � % �ri . �" � � �
r4 .
} . . - . . . _.- �. �. �-- � Y. .
Fk .�: -:.- ; ;,. _, '.::� ��. �� � i � ~, _����. .�<� - Santa�Clar
,� .. __: � ��,� .� , e.,,� _ � . � -
�� �
.. �
. _: y
. �- ., , _ ... , :.,_ . :-.. ., .- - . .� � � .` � i �_ k � _
��. . .. . � ... .. '-, :,� � . � .^ t _ �
. . . - � k � � � .�vS �T � '�'^t � -R
. .. . - __ .:. _ ._" . �_•�i��Y-,.��� ...^7 ' � - G'� _
�
wr' „�_ . . . . _,..� ... .. �: ,S' d �,.n -. . .
� _... -�. . .. ,. __ . ...
_ � . _ � �.:-_ � .
r L
,L .... -. _��`
" � ,..
� ... � . . . . . .' £^ f �A . 4 4��..', _ 8� - � _ . .
� � 5 ae �� � '` x '-�" °,,�
'�' '.,,, - _
�.
. � ,
:�_ _
r �' Maf�. °~ �.� ��,,
_ _ .,, . - .a. �' . � �: � �..-
��� ,���.�� �-�.� ~� -
� � � _ ,� * - ;�,� , � - . � ,,
-� �-�' _ - 5,',-� ��
. ,,. ,.
,� .,;. .� _ .: .,.
� _ . �' . - , _
,
_. _ __ � . . _ . � _ ._.. _ �
.. . -
. _ ..
. . --.�.
�� x
x
_ _
x s �
� �-... '. - � - e�.' � �� � , ti � .� - -
'r ,=:.. �#+w ' �'� = � - - • °a ..t� �""' �*+� �,�,`. � , ,:�;;`.\
� -r - � _ +a� � �:. " ` \ .
` � , i �` r- � �1
�. � ;� ..: _ �� � � �.�.
.. _ . . . . ,.�..�r .. Y ��s.n � � .. \
�.:� .. Y � - � - y� �'�4ex,z � 2' �.." 'm`.f, . . '
-;v` '�-� .. '� . , '� -
� W,'�ma�.nr � £ad' R..+.. v'z�... 3 a�;� _ '�r..'" i�'�"b ,�.b�, si v
rv
..�MM:y.,�k`'�'y`"+u�,. ',� .:.�...e-._ � ^i�iv:�'a . �� " . ._s...�r-'�.T,'z,r�+�._��...... .... r '_ :� Y.�.
'*"' � BayArea
�' �
��, IL
Overview of the Initial- Vision Scenario
In 2008, Senate Bi11375 (Steinberg) was enacted. The state law requires that our Regional
Transportation Plan contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy (together, Plan Bay Area)
that integrates land-use planning and transportation planning. For the 25-year period
covered by Plan Bay Area, the Sustainable Communities Strategy must identify areas
within the nine-county Bay Area sufficient to house all of the region's population,
including all economic segments of the population. It must also attempt to coordinate the
resulting land-use pattern with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita
greenhouse-gas emissions from personal-use vehicles (automobiles and light trucks).
The Initial Vision Scenario for Plan Bay Area is a first-cut proposal that identifies the areas
where the growth in the region's population might be housed. This proposal builds upon a
rich legacy of integrative planning in the Bay Area. For over a decade, the region and its
local governments have been working together to locate new housing in compact forms
near jobs, close to services and amenities, and adjacent to transit so that the need to travel
long distances by personal vehicle is reduced. Compact development within the existing
urban footprint also takes development pressure off the region's open space and
agricultural lands. We have referred to this type of efficient development as "focused
growth," and the regional program that supports it is called FOCUS. (See Table 1.)
Planning for New Housing and Supporting Infrastructure
The Initial Vision Scenario is constructed by looking first at the Bay Area's regional
housing needs over the next 25 years. This analysis was performed using demographic
projections of household growth. It is not a forecast of the region, and does not take into
account many factors that constrain the region's supply of new housing units, such as
limitations in supporting infrastructure, affordable housing subsidies, and market factors.
The principal purpose of the Initial Vision Scenario is to articulate how the region could
potentially grow over time in a sustainable manner, and to orient policy and program
development to achieve the first phases of implementa�ion. Under the assumptions oi the
Initial Vision Scenario, the Bay Area is anticipated to grow by over 2 million people, from
about 7,350,000 today to about 9,430,000 by the year 2035. This population growth would
require around 902,000 new housing units. The Initial Vision Scenario proposes where
these new units might be accommodated. (See Tables 2-12 and maps.)
This Initial Vision Scenario is designed around places for growth identified by local
jurisdictions. These places are defined by their character, scale, density, and the expected
housing units to be built over the long term. Using "place types," areas with similar
characteristics and physical and social qualities, ABAG asked local governments to
1
3-7
identify general development aspirations for areas within their jurisdictions. These places
were mostly the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) already identified through the
FOCUS program. They also included additional Growth Opportunity Areas, some similar
to PDAs and others with different sustainability criteria.
Based on local visions, plans and growth estimates, regional agencies distributed housing
growth across the region, focusing on PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas. ABAG in
some cases supplemented the local forecast with additional units based on the typical
characteristics of the relevant locally-selected place type. ABAG also distributed additional
units to take advantage of significant existing and planned transit investment, and it
assigned some units to locally identified areas that present regionally significant
development opportunities for greater density.
The Initial Vision Scenario accommodates 97 percent of new households within the
existing urban footprint. Only 3 percent of the forecasted new homes require "greenfield
development" (building on previously undeveloped lands). Priority Development Areas
and Growth Opportunity Areas contain about 70 percent of the total growth (743,000
households).
Among counties, three take the lion's share of growth: Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra
Costa absorb a little over two-thirds of the total. These same counties also are anticipated
to take the majority of the region's job growth (64 percent). (See Tables 13 — 22.) The
region's three major cities do a lot of the heavy lifting. Thirty-two percent of the forecast
and proposed housing growth occurs in San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland. Seventeen
percent goes to medium-sized cities like Fremont, Santa Rosa, Berkeley, Hayward,
Concord, and Santa Clara.
The analysis embodied in the Initial Vision Scenario is founded on the location of housing.
Employment forecasting and distribution in this Scenario is not directly related to land use
policy. Employment location can have a strong influence on travel demand, vehicle miles
traveled, and vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions. In light of these factors and considering
economic competitiveness, transit sustainability, and a balanced relationship between
employment and housing, regional agencies will be embarking, with local partners, on
further analysis regarding appropriate employment locations in relation to future housing
growth and the transportation network. This will inform the development of the detailed
scenarios.
The Initial Vision Scenario reflects the transportation investments from MTC's current
Regional Transportation (known as the Transportation 2035 Plan). To support the
increased housing growth, it also includes some tentatively proposed improvements to the
region's transit network. These include increased frequencies on over 70 local bus and
several express bus routes, improved rail headways on BART, eBART, Caltrain, Muni
Metro, VTA light-rail, and Altamont Commuter Express, and more dedicated bus lanes in
San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, all resulting in overall growth in transit capacity.
However, the Bay Area's transit system is financially unsustainable with operators unable
to afford to run the current service levels into the future, much less expanded headways
contemplated under the Initial Vision Scenario. MTC's Transit Sustainability Project will
propose a more sustainable transit system for inclusion in the detailed scenarios to be
tested.
2
3-8
Measuring Performance Against Targets
The Initial Vision Scenario results in a 12 percent per capita greenhouse gas emissions
reduction from personal-use vehicles in 2035, compared to a 2005 base year. This
reduction falls short of the region's state-mandated 15 percent per capita greenhouse gas
emissions reduction target. It's clear that additional strategies will need to be employed if
we want to attain the greenhouse gas targets, and other targets previously adopted by
ABAG and MTC.
MTC and ABAG have adopted a set of Plan Bay Area performance targets to describe in
specific, measureable terms the region's commitment and progress toward the "three E"
principles of sustainability (Economy, Environment, and Equity). The Initial Vision
Scenario meets some regional targets, including accommodating all the projected housing
need by income level (in other words, no more in-commuting by workers who live in other
regions); reducing the financial burden of housing and transportation on low-income
households by providing more affordable housing; and housing the majority of new
development within the existing urban core. Also, more residents are projected to ride
transit, walk and bike more than existing residents because much of the new housing is
located close to services, amenities and jobs, and adjacent to transit in complete
communities. (See Figure 1 for the target results.)
The Initial Vision Scenario brings more residents into the region, thus increasing the total
amount of travel. New residents will still drive for some trips. Even though vehicle miles
traveled per capita in the Bay Area are projected to be lower in the Initial Vision Scenario
than it is today, total miles driven within the region are projected to increase. With more
Bay Area residents and more miles driven within the region, we can also expect an
increase in the total number of injuries and fatalities. Health impacts from exposure to
particulate emissions from automobiles and trucks are likewise projected to worsen with
more driving; however, state and federal efforts to clean up heavy duty truck engines will
more than off set the increases from automobiles, resulting in overall reductions sooty
particulate pollution.
Finally, it must be said that while bringing more people into the Bay Area will increase the
amount of driving and collis ions within the reg ion, it is still a net win in the larger sense.
The amount of overall driving and greenhouse gas em issions statewide is certainly less
than if the new residents were commuting to Bay Area jobs from communities in
neighboring regions that do not offer such amenities.
Next Steps
The Initial Vision Scenario is offered as basis for discussion with local governments,
stakeholders, and the general public about how the Bay Area can accommodate all its
population growth over the next quarter century. It is by no means a fait accompli. Over
the next several months we will seek input through elected official briefings, local
government staff discussions, and public workshops. The comments received will assist
ABAG and MTC in developing and testing a range of detailed scenarios that achieve the
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
3
3-9
The purpose of the SCS is to forge consensus in the Bay Area on a preferred long-term
regionwide growth pattern. Under SB 375, local governments are explicitly not required to
update their general plans in accordance with the SCS. The SCS does not carry the same
authority as Regional Housing Needs Allocation but it will inform the distribution of
housing at the local level. The adopted SCS land development pattern will help guide
regional policies and investments that are made pursuant to the Regional Transportation
Plan. These regional policies and investments are intended to create financial and other
incentives to implement the adopted land pattern in the SCS. ABAG is currently working
with its Housing Methodology Committee to develop a methodology for distributing
regional eight-year housing targets to Bay Area local jurisdictions; the methodology will
be adopted by ABAG later this year.
The Initial Vision Scenario kicks off a two-year conversation among local jurisdictions and
regional agencies on what ultimately will become the Sustainable Communities Strategy,
as a part of Plan Bay Area. During that time, the regional agencies will engage local
agencies and the public to help identify and assess several detailed Sustainable
Communities Strategy scenarios that demonstrate ways that land-use strategies,
transportation investments, pricing and other strategies could achieve our adopted goals
and targets. The scenarios also will need to address how the Bay Area's land-use plans can
assist adaptation to climate change. The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to
coordinate regional agencies' initiatives and requirements related to sea-level rise, air
quality, and other climate change related issues.
These detailed scenarios will lead to selection of a preferred scenario early next year that
would include an integrated transportation investment and land-use plan; this plan would
also undergo a detailed environmental impact review that local agencies could use to
streamline environmental assessments of their own local development projects as provided
for in SB 375. Finally, the ABAG and MTC boards would be asked to adopt the complete
Plan Bay Area, including a Sustainable Communities Strategy, by Apri12013.
(See Figure 2.)
The regional agencies look forward to further dialogue on these assumptions with our local
government and transportation partners, stakeholders, and the general public.
Attachments
4
3-10
Table 1
San Francisco Bay Area Demographic Overview
2010-2035
Employed
Scenario Households Po ulation Residents Jobs
2010 2,669,800 7,348,300 3,152,400 3,271,300
Actual
2035 Current Regional + 635,400 +1,717,900 +881,600 +1,129,200
Plans
2035 PDA Growth + 266,800 + 363,700 + 165,000 + 93,600
Increment
2035 Initial Vision
Scenario + 902,200 +2,081,600 +1,046,600 +1,222,800
Note: Current Regional Plans refers to MTC's adopted Transportation 2035 Plan, as well as
ABAG's Projections 2009, which was updated to reflect new economic forecasts.
Table ZA
Initial Vision Scenario - Total Households and Household Growth by County
2010 2035 Household Percent
Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Alameda 557,651 770,397 212,746 38.2%
Contra Costa 392,680 546,653 153,973 39.2%
Marin 106,447 117,124 10,678 10.0%
Na a 51,260 56,061 4,801 9.4%
San Francisco 346,680 436,794 90,114 26.0%
San Mateo 264,516 358,337 93,821 35.5%
Santa Clara 613,947 867,813 253,866 41.3%
Solano 148,160 187,776 39,616 26.7%
Sonoma 188,430 231,373 42,943 22.8%
Regional Total 2,669,772 3,572,327 902,556 33.8%
Table 2B
Initial Vision Scenardo - Total Households and Household Growth in Priority Development
Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas by County (which is a subset of Table 2A)
2010 2035 Household Percent
Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Alameda 161,100 293,700 132,600 82%
Contra Costa 35,100 135,700 100,600 287%
Marin 4,700 10,900 6,200 134%
Na a 300 1,900 1,600 618%
San Francisco 346,700 436,800 90,100 26%
San Mateo 87,400 162,700 75,300 86%
Santa Clara 78,300 253,800 175,600 224%
Solano 4,100 26,600 22,500 543%
Sonoma 25,200 55,500 30,300 121%
Regional Total 742,800 1,377,700 634,800 85%
3-11
Tab[e 3
Initial Vision Scenario - Total Jobs and Job Growth by County
Percent
Coun 2010 Jobs 2035 Jobs Job Growth Chan e
Alameda 675,591 925,449 249,859 37.0°/a
Contra Costa 345,931 479,373 133,442 38.6°/a
Marin 129,679 151,097 21,418 16.5%
Na a 70,136 88,838 18,703 26.7%
San Francisco 544,755 713,651 168,897 31.0%
San Mateo 330,135 452,226 122,091 37.0%
Santa Clara 858,399 1,238,400 380,001 44.3%
Solano 126,328 176,711 50,383 39.9%
Sonoma 190,369 267,588 77,219 40.6%
Regional Total 3,271,321 4,493,333 1,222,012 37.4%
' Employment by jurisdiction within each County can be found in Section 3.
Table 4
Initial Vision Scenario - Alameda County Total Househo[ds and Household Growth
by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Alameda Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Alameda 31,774 39,873 8,099 25.5%
Alban 7,150 9, 317 2,167 30.3%
Berkele 46,146 61,876 15,730 34.1 %
Dublin 15,572 32,216 16,644 106.9%
Eme ille 5,770 13,260 7,490 129.8%
Fremont 71,004 98,564 27,560 38.8%
Ha ard 46,300 61,283 14,982 32.4%
Livermore 28,662 40,801 12,138 42.3%
Newark 13,530 19,331 5,802 42.9°/a
Oakland 160,567 226,019 65,453 40.8%
Piedmont 3,810 3,820 10 0.3%
Pleasanton 24,034 33,819 9,785 40.7%
San Leandro 31,647 40,447 8,800 27.8%
Union Ci 20,420 25,900 5,480 26.8%
Alameda County
Unincor orated 51,265 63,872 12,606 24.6%
Countywide Total 557,651 770,397 212,746 38.2%
3-12
Table 5
Initial Vision Scenario - Contra Costa County Total Households and Household Growth
by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Contra Costa Coun Households Househoids Growth Chan e
Antioch 32,668 46,365 13,697 41.9%
Brentwood 18,250 24,284 6,034 33.1 %
Cla ton 3,966 4,090 124 3.1 %
Concord 46,296 65,624 19,328 41.7%
Danville 16,574 17,920 1,346 8.1 °/a
EI Cerrito 10,422 20,905 10,483 100.6%
Hercules 8,361 17,431 9,070 108.5%
Lafa ette 9,589 11,068 1,479 15.4%
Martinez 14,769 16,156 1,387 9.4%
Mora a 5,811 6,995 1,184 20.4%
Oakle 10,835 17,508 6,673 61.6°/a
Orinda 6,868 8,788 1,920 28.0%
Pinole 7,336 12,623 5,287 72.1%
Pittsbur 20,849 36,261 15,412 73.9%
Pleasant Hill 15,247 17,861 2,614 17.1 %
Richmond 37,897 63,439 25,542 67.4%
San Pablo 9,975 13,027 3,052 30.6%
San Ramon 22,061 36,682 14,621 66.3%
Walnut Creek 33,890 40,244 6,354 18.7%
Contra Costa County
Unincor orated 61,016 69,382 8,366 13.7%
Countywide Total 392,680 546,653 153,973 39.2%
Table 6
Initial Vision Scenario - Marin County Total Households and Household Growth by
Jurisdiction "
2010 2035 Household Percent
Marin Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Belvedere 949 969 20 2.1 %
Corte Madera 3,948 4,721 773 19.6%
Fairfax 3,301 3,361 60 1.8%
Larks ur 8,036 8,377 341 4.2%
Mill Valle 6,267 6,631 364 5.8%
Novato 20, 375 21,153 778 3.8%
Ross 780 790 10 1.3%
San Anselmo 5,310 5,370 60 1.1%
San Rafael 23,164 28,209 5,045 21.8%
Sausalito 4,310 4,400 90 2.1 %
Tiburon 3,844 4,242 398 10.4%
Marin County
Unincor orated 26,162 28,900 2,738 10.5%
Countywide Total 106,447 117,124 10,678 10.0%
3-13
Table 7
Initial Vision Scenario Napa County Total Households and Household Growth by
Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Na a Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
American Can on 5,761 7,392 1,632 28.3%
Calisto a 2,140 2,171 31 1.4%
Na a 29,440 32,019 2,579 8.8%
St. Helena 2,440 2,533 93 3.8%
Yountville 1,110 1,230 120 10.8%
Napa County
Unincor orated 10,370 10,716 346 3.3%
Countywide Total 51,260 56,061 4,801 9.4°/a
Table 8
Initial Vision Scenario - San Francisco County Total Households and Household Growth
2010 2035 Household Percent
San Francisco Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
San Francisco 346,680 436,794 90,114 26.0%
Countywide Total 346,680 436,794 90,114 26.0%
Table 9
Initial Vision Scenario - San Mateo County Total Households and Household Growth
by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
San Mateo Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Atherton 2,490 2,580 90 3.6%
Belmont 10,740 12,759 2,019 18.8%
Brisbane 1,730 5,324 3,594 207.7%
Burlin ame 13,247 19,431 6,184 46.7%
Colma 460 1,372 912 198.3%
Dal Cit 31,261 43,095 11,834 37.9%
East Palo Alto 7,780 12,310 4,530 58.2%
Foster Ci 12,210 13,767 1,557 12.8%
Half Moon Ba 4,440 4,730 290 6.5%
Hillsborou h 3,837 4,589 752 19.6%
Menlo Park 12,432 17,563 5,130 41.3%
Millbrae 8,308 12,910 4,602 55.4°/a
Pacifica 14,320 14,600 280 2.0%
Portola Valle 1,730 1,780 50 2.9%
Redwood Ci 29,620 41,032 11,412 38.5%
San Bruno 15,262 21,699 6,437 42.2%
San Carlos 11,909 15,707 3,798 31.9%
San Mateo 38,643 56,678 18,035 46.7%
South San Francisco 20,288 30,522 10,234 50.4%
Woodside 2,029 2,059 30 1.5%
San Mateo County
Unincor orated 21,780 23,830 2,050 9.4%
Countywide Total 264,516 358,337 93,821 35.5%
3-14
Table 10
Initial Vision Scenario - Santa Clara County Total Households and Household Growth
by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Santa Clara Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Cam bell 16,892 21,002 4,110 24.3%
Cu ertino 19,830 21,588 1,758 8.9%
Gilro 14,330 22,118 7,788 54.3°/a
Los Altos 10,670 11,968 1,298 12.2%
Los Altos Hilis 3,053 3,088 35 1.1 %
Los Gatos 12,430 13,151 721 5.8%
Mil itas 19,030 38,758 19,728 103.7%
Monte Sereno 1,229 1,269 40 3.3%
Mor an Hill 12,399 20,040 7,641 61.6%
Mountain View 32,114 50,348 18,234 56.8%
Palo Alto 26,705 38,692 11,987 44.9%
San Jose 305,087 435,585 130,498 42.8%
Santa Clara 43,403 67,672 24,269 55.9°/a
Sarato a 11, 000 11,118 118 1.1 %
Sunn vale 54,170 73,425 19,255 35.5%
Santa Clara County
Unincor orated 31,604 37,991 6,386 20.2%
Countywide Total 613,947 867,813 253,866 41.3%
Table 11
Initial Vision Scenario - Solano County Total Households and Household Growth by
Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Solano Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Benicia 11,329 13,527 2,198 19.4%
Dixon 5,617 8,222 2,605 46.4%
Fairfield 36,061 52,476 16,415 45.5%
RioVista 3,540 4,737 1,197 33.8%
Suisun Cit 9,132 10,548 1,415 15.5%
Vacaville 32,620 41,775 9,155 28.1%
Valle�o 42,043 47,814 5,771 13.7%
Solano County
Unincor orated 7,817 8,677 860 11.0%
Countywide Total 148,160 187,776 39,616 26.7%
3-15
Table 12
Initial Vision Scenario - Sonoma County Total Households and Household Growth by
Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Household Percent
Sonoma Coun Households Households Growth Chan e
Cloverdale 3,211 4,639 1,428 44.5%
Cotati 2,832 3,387 555 19.6%
Healdsbur 4,390 5,284 894 20.4%
Petaluma 21,775 24,713 2,938 13.5%
Rohnert Park 15,718 20,395 4,677 29.8%
Santa Rosa 62,886 83,010 20,124 32.0%
Sebasto ol 3,325 3,595 270 8.1 %
Sonoma 4,476 5,036 560 12.5%
Windsor 8,884 13,809 4,925 55.4%
Sonoma County
Unincor orated 60,933 . 67,505 6,572 10.8%
Countywide Total 188,430 231,373 42,943 22.8%
Table 13
Initial Vision Scenario -Alameda County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
Alameda County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Alameda 25,347 37,416 12,069 47.6%
Albany 4,476 4,974 498 11.1%
Berkeley 69,782 78,575 8,794 12.6%
Dublin 18,058 33,400 15,342 85.0%
Emeryville 18,198 25,479 7,281 40.0%
Fremont 86,839 128,484 41,645 48.0%
Hayward 66,135 84,730 18,595 28.1%
Livermore 28,485 46,930 18,445 64.8%
Newark 19,049 21,799 2,750 14.4%
Oakland 187,328 254,846 67,518 36.0%
Piedmont 2,091 2,171 80 3.8%
Pleasanton 52,775 70,158 17,382 32.9%
San Leandro 38,532 51,606 13,074 33.9°/a
Union City 17,919 33,560 15,642 87.3%
Alameda County
Unincorporated 40,576 51,320 10,744 26.5%
Countywide Total 675,591 925,449 249,859 37.0%
3-16
Table 14
Initial Vision Scenario - Contra Costa County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
� 2010 2035 Job Percent
Contra Costa County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Antioch 18,529 37,530 19,001 102.5%
Brentwood 6,766 7,731 965 14.3%
Clayton 874 1,158 284 32.5%
Concord 58,731 88,097 29,366 50.0%
Danville 12,837 13,610 772 6.0%
EI Cerrito 5,154 7,917 2,763 53.6%
Hercules 2,747 5,344 2,597 94.5%
Lafayette 10,087 10,898 810 8.0%
Martinez 16,919 17,845 926 5.5%
Moraga 4,603 5,525 922 20.0%
Oakley 2,720 7,378 4,658 171.3%
Orinda 5,689 6,352 663 11.6°/a
Pinole 5,280 6,410 1,130 21.4%
Pittsburg 12,432 24,657 12,224 98.3%
Pleasant Hill 13,815 19,148 5,333 38.6%
Richmond 37,077 57,222 20,145 54.3%
San Pablo 5,403 8,025 2,622 48.5%
San Ramon 36,286 48,905 12,619 34.8%
Walnut Creek 49,309 56,967 7,659 15.5%
Contra Costa County
Unincorporated 40,672 48,654 7,982 19.6%
Countywide Total 345,931 479,373 133,442 38.6°/a
Table 1 S
Initial Vision Scenario - Marin County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
Marin County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Belvedere 776 838 62 8.0%
Corte Madera 6,482 9,202 2,720 42.0%
Fairfax 1,642 1,923 281 17.1 %
Larkspur 6,708 7,158 451 6.7°/a
Mill Valley 8,181 9,900 1,719 21.0%
Novato 25,385 30,753 5,368 21.1%
Ross 827 924 97 11.7%
San Anselmo 4,754 5,170 416 8.8%
San Rafael 43,649 50,324 6,676 15.3%
Sausalito 6,543 7,740 1,198 18.3°/a
Tiburon 3,494 3,997 503 14.4%
Marin County
Unincorporated 21,238 23,166 1,927 9.1%
Countywide Total 129,679 151,097 21,418 16.5%
3-17
Table 16
Initial Vision Scenario — Napa County T�tal Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
Napa County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
American Canyon 2,204 4,321 2,117 96.0%
Calistoga 2,748 3,243 495 18.0%
Napa 34,272 44,565 10,293 30.0%
St. Helena 5,763 6,191 428 7.4%
Yountville 2,104 2,624 520 24.7%
Napa County
Unincorporated 23,044 27,894 4,850 21.0%
Countywide Total 70,136 88,838 18,703 26.7%
Tab[e 17
Initial Vision Scenario — San Francisco County Total .Iobs and .lob Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
San Francisco County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
San Francisco 544,755 713,651 168,897 31.0%
Countywide Total 544,755 713,651 168,897 31.0%
3-18
Table 18
Initial Vision Scenario - San Mateo County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
San Mateo County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Atherton 2,485 2,632 147 5.9%
Belmont 6,635 11,738 5,102 76.9%
Brisbane 7,991 17,402 9,411 117.8%
Burlingame 21,905 26,728 4,823 22.0%
Colma 3,111 4,310 1,199 38.5%
Daly City 16,772 27,084 10,312 61.5%
EastPaloAlto 2,105 6,484 4,379 208.1%
Foster City 13,923 18,560 4,637 33.3%
Half Moon Bay 4,355 5,539 1,184 27.2%
Hillsborough 1,624 2,277 653 40.2%
Menlo Park 25,145 29,501 4,356 17.3%
Millbrae 6,731 10,238 3,507 52.1 %
Pacifica 6,051 7,467 1,415 23.4%
Portola Valley 1,686 1,888 202 12.0%
Redwood City 48,682 63,717 15,035 30.9%
San Bruno � 13,537 17,938 4,401 32.5%
San Carlos 15,024 21,976 6,952 46.3%
San Mateo 43,337 58,896 15,559 35.9%
South San Francisco 41,328 54,485 13,157 31.8%
Woodside 2,381 � 2,498 117 4.9%
San Mateo County
Unincorporated 45,326 60,869 15,542 34.3%
Countywide Total 330,135 452,226 122,091 37.0%
Table 19
Initial Vision Scenario - Santa Clara County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
Santa Clara County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Campbell 22,099 26,897 4,798 21.7%
Cupertino 30,513 35,283 4,770 15.6%
Gilroy 16,652 22,666 6,014 36.1 %
Los Altos 10,250 11,511 1,261 12.3%
Los Altos Hills 1,845 1,937 93 5.0%
Los Gatos 18,275 20,700 2,425 13.3%
Milpitas 46,784 55,624 8,840 18.9%
Monte Sereno � 400 532 132 33.1 %
Morgan Hill 12,698 20,806 8,109 63.9%
Mountain View 50,074 64,507 14,434 28.8%
Palo Alto 73,303 78,163 4,860 6.6%
San Jose 342,799 593,219 250,420 73.1 %
Santa Clara 103,186 138,386 35,200 34.1 %
Saratoga 6,826 7,279 453 6.6°/a
Sunnyvale 72,392 96,408 24,016 33.2%
Santa Clara County
Unincorporated 50,304 64,481 14,177 28.2%
Countywide Total 858,399 1,238,400 380,001 44.3%
3-19
Table 20
Initial Vision Scenario - Solano County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
Solano County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Benicia 14,043 17,485 3,442 24.5%
Dixon 4,330 7,239 2,909 67.2%
Fairfield 42,864 60,579 17,716 41.3%
Rio Vista 1,191 2,327 1,136 95.3%
Suisun City 3,210 4,637 1,428 44.5%
Vacaville 23,422 35,030 11,608 49.6%
Vallejo 28,415 38,258 9,843 34.6%
Solano County
Unincorporated 8,853 11,156 2,302 26.0%
Countywide Total 126,328 176,711 50,383 39.9%
Table 21
Initial Vision Scenario - Sonoma County Total Jobs and Job Growth by Jurisdiction
2010 2035 Job Percent
Sonoma County Jobs Jobs Growth Change
Cloverdale 1,430 1,961 531 37.1 %
Cotati 2,043 2,192 149 7.3%
Healdsburg 5,111 6,193 1, 082 21.2%
Petaluma 26,968 34,870 7,902 29.3%
Rohnert Park 13,566 21,506 7,940 58.5%
Santa Rosa 72,324 117,005 44,680 61.8%
Sebastopol 4,753 5,333 581 12.2%
Sonoma 7,005 7,924 919 13.1%
Windsor 5,154 7,782 2,628 51.0%
Sonoma County
Unincorporated 52,015 62,822 10,807 20.8%
Countywide Total 190,369 267,588 77,219 40.6%
3-20
� • �
� ! �
J � � C
x �` q
x L
i , F O
� x R
t
, N
x x �l, ' "`� \�_ �
`'ti x x A
x '�+ x '�- Napa � �
Sonoma �'''"� i County �, '°°;
County x � ! �
x � `'� '� x 1
` x �� ,%
x x x '� \ � � .,/
� x � ` ��x x r --_ — —\ � — - f.�._t ._ ... �.
� �� x � ,� � � �•' �
� SOI�10 �
.�_..,,.��, ,r ,� '�` �P County ��
i �.�x t ��, t
x � /
. \ ` x � i f
�� /
,J � �
Y\ ���",�- x....., x ---- --s x - �i
x �' � �
x ` �'
x �\
_ � �9 , - x
� _ �'
x �--' —
x ��� x _ � ��.
" Marin x j�t `°
County �
x x � x
� x
�
x x x� Con�a Costa x
-�"` County
x x ^ �l-� � x �.
x it� � � � r
�" �
.l x � �" x
♦ x r �----� �.
x x ' � �� �'
Place Type 1� � �.�"
. Regional Ceirter SaIl x �
Francisco'� �+ ��` �x �
- G7ry Center x
. Urban Neighborhood ` , � x
x
� sun,uban cernez J , Alameda !
� x County �
'Itansit lbwn Center x i
s-� Mixed-Use Corridor x �� � i
TYansit Neighborhood � _ _ _x_ /
� � -----
� x��m�,c�t� xSanMateo �, � _------
� Ruial Mixed-Use Corridor %
Co�u11tY f�r� .--^- x-•.y'
. Emplayment Center t x
� �`., . �� x
�t Priority Conservation Area x � t
� El Camino Real Corridor f
x � � Santa Clara
County
� San Pablo Avenue Corridor '�-` � �e x
� Telegraph Avenue - x 'Sc � _�.
International Boulevard -
Mission Boulevard Corridor x
Soucce: Stieet Base Map m 2008 TeleAflas, Inc. All
rights reserved. x x x
Protected areas data from Califomia Protected Areas x % '�
Database (www.calands.org), 2010 x
AHAG GIS/Maich 2011
Scale: - x
Miles
_ �
0 3.75 7.5 15 "� % �
IGlometers
0 625 12.5 n x % 5
%
Figure 1 Ta rg et Res u I ts
1. Reduce CO per capita _ +' � � Current Regional Plans �
`autos and IIgM-dury trucks oMy • ����� � '
I ■■ Initial Vision Scenario I
2. House proj�cted regional growth
00°k
���.
-10%
3a. Reduce premature deaths from
PM emissions
3b. Reduce PM� emissions
„300 -
�'.
4. Reduce injuries and
fatalities from collisions
- 50°
5. Increase daily time spent walking/
biking per person to 15 minutes
00°�
6. Direct new nonagriculturel
development within urban footprint 00%
• measured in housing uniGs "
7. Reduce housing + transportation � $o�u
costs as share of low-income �Qo
households' budgets �%
8. Increase gross regional product Targets results not yet available
[GRP] 90%
Targets resuits not yet available
9a. Reduce per-fip travel tlme for no�- a
autotrips _ 100/ 5%
7%
9a Increase nonauto mode share
(alternadve target) •
25%
, r -----------�
9b. Reduce VMT per capita �� Current Regional Plans '
-100/ . I ■ ■ �
� � , Initial Vision Scenario
10a. Increase lacal road pavement 00
condition index [PCI] to 75
10b. Reduce share of distressed state
highway lane-miles to no more than 10% 10%
of total lane-miles 50%
10c. Reduce average transit asset age to �•,
50% of usetul life
�',
� Current Regional Plans '
i ■ ■ Initial Vision Scenario '
3-31 ------------
�
e *�
� c
d
v d
E �
C A
OI
y G
y W
� V
� '�
�a
v �
oa
J
Figure 2
Sustainable Communities Strategy �lanning �rocess: �ha�e � C��tail for 2011*
Phase 2: Scenario Planning, Transportation Policy & Investment Dialogue, and Regional Housing Need Allocation
�n�BayArea
Targeted5takehalderWorkshaps PublicHeadngon TargetedSWkeholderWorkshops
•• ••..••• . ,•.• RHNAMethodology andCountyWorkshops
�. .................. I �..................... I
..................................
WebSurvey Possi6le WebActiviry:5urveys,Updates Possible
TelephonePoll andCommentOpportunitfes TelephonePoll
/ '�' ABAG Regional � MTC Policy
` �PlanningCommittee �AdvisoryCountil
\
ReleaselniUalVisionkenario Developmentof
Begin Public Discussion DeUiled SCS kenarios
Develop Draft25-Year
TransportaUon financial Farecasts and
� CommittedTransportaHon Funding Pdiry
N Call (arTransportatbn Projects pp� Projed Performance Assessment
d
� Start Regional Housing Need Allowtion (RHN/�
W
� C
� �
' � V
. a
a
*Subjeu to chan9e
� � NegionalAdvisory � Ezecutive � Countyand Corridor
WorkingGroup ----- WorkingGroup WorkingGroups
Selection of Deuiled TechniwlAnalysfs of Neleau Preferred Approve Preferred XS
XSkenarios 5(Skenarios SCSkenarioResWts 5(SScenario SceoarioforElR
to be evaluated
� . ... ........ . . •........ . Transportation Policy Investment Dialogue I
............................................
Release Draft RHNA Adopt RHNA State Dept. af Nousing Release Draft
Methodologies Methoddogy ��ommunity Devdopment pHNA Plan
Issues Housing Determination
Analysls of Equky luues of Develop Equlty Analysls Methodology
Initial Ysion kenario for Detailed 5CS 5cenarios
' �,
��
i� ��.
(SCS$Qen�S)
�
� �! 3�S t � `�`�:'
ABAG Board
_��:
Equiry Analysis of XS kenados
s�
� � �'- '��i, N?
ABAG ��qoard
�,. � ��� �'
� � f
,
` � � ���..
� y � * .,
.., ��NRY ' ���... ..
ABAG E��g Board
(RI��,,NAI'
Scenario
Planning
Transportation
Policy and
Investment
Dlalogue
Regional
Housing
Need
Allocation
Equity
Analysis
�
�� � •� • �• i ��• � • �• � •� �
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. - ;
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2012 ...............................
'� -" Meeting for Discussion/ JOINT meeting of the ABAG Administrative Committee, the loint Poliry Committee i, : � JOINT doament release by ABAG • ABAG
+;F�� Decision � DocumentRelease Administrative
Public Comment and the MTC Planning Committee for Discussion/Public Comment s�a ABAG and MT( committee
For more information on key actions and decisions and how to get involved, visit OneBayArea.org 1PC-Joint Poliq
Committee
MTC- MiC Planning
Committee
Multi-Year �ffort
zoio
Phase 1
���,(��� ��Performance � Pu61ic
� GHG Targets �� �% Targets � Partidpatfon Plan
'�'� BayArea
JC� �� i ��
zo„ io,z
Phase 2 Phases 3& 4
� � RTP/5C5 �� RegionalHousing �
Technical Need Allocation
Anatys6 ` Adoption
Draft
Elfl
Dnk
RTP/5C5 Plan
2ois
� �
Adopt final
RTP/SCS Plan
certi(y
Final EIR
Adopt
Tronsportation
Air Quality
Conformiry Analysis
Phase Two
Actions/Decisions:
• Initial �sion Scenario
• Financial Forecasts
' • Detailed SCS Scenarios
I • RHNA Methodology
' • Preferred SCS Scenario
I • Draft RHNA Plan