smart growth strategy / regional livability footprint project alameda county co-sponsors alameda...

SMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

Alameda County Co-SponsorsAlameda County

Alameda County CMAAlameda Countywide Clean Water Program

Alameda League of Women VotersBuilding Opportunities for Self Sufficiency

Central Labor Council of Alameda Co. AFL-CIOEast Bay Community FoundationEast Bay Regional Park District

Economic Development Alliance for BusinessEmergency Services Network

Hayward Area Planning AssociationLAFCO of Alameda County

League of Women Voters of OaklandOakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Resources for Community DevelopmentSilicon Valley Manufacturing Group

Spanish Speaking Unity CouncilTransportation Choices Forum

Tri-City EcologyUrban Strategies Council

World Institute on DisabilitiesSpecial thanks to the City of San Leandro and Pacific Gas & Electric Company

for providing food & refreshments for today’s workshop.


South & East County

Tables 12-21

HaywardUnion City

NewarkFremont

Castro ValleyDublin

PleasantonLivermore

All unincorporated areas

North County

Tables 1-11

AlbanyBerkeley

EmeryvilleOakland

PiedmontAlameda

San Leandro

Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy

Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development

Regional Livability Footprint Project

Alameda CountyMay 18, 2002


• 1 million new jobs

• 1 million more people

• 265,000 daily in-commuters to the region

• 150% increase in aggregate traffic congestion

• Conversion of up to 83,000 acres of open space

• 44% decrease in households able to afford the median priced home from 1995 to 2001

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUES

BAY AREA TRENDSBAY AREA TRENDS


Through 2020

1995 to 2001

Natural Increase

(“Our own children”)

Net Migration(“Other People”)


REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTHREGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH

50%

50%(approximate figures)


• Expand housing?

• Constrain future job growth?

• Expand infrastructure to handle in-commuters?

Find a smarter way to grow


CHOICES ABOUT FUTURE GROWTHCHOICES ABOUT FUTURE GROWTH


• Regionwide smart growth land use vision supported by local governments.

• Regulatory changes and fiscal incentives needed to implement vision.

• A set of smart growth land use projections.

PROJECT GOALSPROJECT GOALS

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

The Three E’s of Smart Growth and Sustainable Development:

SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLESSMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES


Prosperous Economy

Quality Environment

Social Equity

• Preserve the region’s undeveloped open

space and agricultural land.

• Provide sufficient affordable housing.

• Revitalize central cities and older suburbs.

• Reduce single occupant vehicle trips.

• Foster equitable economic development while minimizing displacement.



•Revised Regulatory Framework•Additional Incentives•Regional Context

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLANSRELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLANS


PROCESSPROCESS

Public Workshop Round OneSeptember and October 2001

Distillationand Analysis

Public Workshop Round TwoApril and May 2002

Final Steps


Participants included:

- elected officials

- planning staff

- developers

- environmental advocates

- social equity representatives


PUBLIC WORKSHOPS - ROUND ONEPUBLIC WORKSHOPS - ROUND ONE


Nine public workshopsSeptember and October 2001

• Smart growth principles

• Land use mappingexercise

• Affordable housing

• Regulatory changes and incentives






Total: 105 countywide smart growth scenarios


POST-WORKSHOP PROCESSPOST-WORKSHOP PROCESS


Distillation

Maps


POST-WORKSHOP PROCESSPOST-WORKSHOP PROCESS


• Identified three draft regionwide themes and how they would play out in each county.

• Conducted distillation meeting with over 100 local planners and stakeholders.

• Finalized themes and regionwide maps of each alternative.


DISTILLATION METHODOLOGYDISTILLATION METHODOLOGY


• Identify themes that emerged from all nine Round One workshops.

• All components appeared in at least one group’s scenario.

• Alternatives as distinct from each other as possible.

• Similar regional jobs and housing levels in each alternative.

• Jobs and housing totals vary by county according to theme and workshop products.


DISTILLATION PROCESSDISTILLATION PROCESS


• Environment

• Transportation

• Housing

• Social Equity

• Development Feasibility


ANALYSISANALYSIS


Analysis of Alternatives andCurrent Trends Base Case

TODAY’S WORKSHOPTODAY’S WORKSHOP


• Review results of first round of workshops.

• Review base case, three alternatives and analysis.

• Discuss regional planning principles.

• Discuss needed regulatory changes and incentives.

• Recommend preferred alternative.

Select and refine a single preferred alternative for

Alameda County.


TODAY’S GOALTODAY’S GOAL


• Single regionwide vision & corresponding projections

• BAASD coordinates public education & engagement campaign

• Companion incentives and regulatory changes

• ABAG Board considers adoption of smart growth alternative projections

• Regional Transportation Plan & Clean Air Plan

• Local implementation

NEXT STEPS

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

The Alternatives



EXISTING CONDITIONS 2000EXISTING CONDITIONS 2000


EXISTING CONDITIONS: HOUSING UNITS BY COUNTY

Alameda

NapaSan Mateo

Santa Clara

Sonoma

In-commuters

Solano

San Francisco

Contra Costa

Marin

County Households Jobs

Alameda 514,600 725,800

Contra Costa 338,900 360,100

Marin 99,500 123,500

Napa 46,200 59,700

San Francisco 315,600 628,900

San Mateo 254,400 380,400

Santa Clara 567,100 1,077,200

Solano 130,300 129,500

Sonoma 171,500 203,500

Total 2,438,100 3,688,600

CURRENT HOUSEHOLDS AND JOBS

• Base Case

1. Central Cities

2. Network of Neighborhoods

3. Smarter Suburbs


THE ALTERNATIVESTHE ALTERNATIVES



BASE CASEBASE CASE


• Relatively dispersed throughout the region. • Northern counties will grow the fastest.

• Southern counties will exhibit the most numeric growth.

• Development at the edges and within core cities.


BASE CASEBASE CASE



BASE CASEBASE CASE


Change in Change inCounty Housing Jobs

Alameda 64,200 238,800

Contra Costa 81,900 140,500

Marin 11,900 27,000

Napa 12,500 30,100


San Mateo 24,100 71,400

Santa Clara 97,800 231,000

Solano 48,900 81,300

Sonoma 44,300 95,600

Total 401,500 1,018,500

GROWTH IN BASE CASE (2000-2020) BASE CASE: HOUSING UNITS BY COUNTY

Santa Clara

San Mateo

Napa

Alameda

Marin

Contra Costa

San Francisco

Solano

In-commuters

Sonoma


North South

New units

New jobs

New units

New jobs

Base Case

11,300 76,700 53,000 142,900

BASE CASEBASE CASE

• Most development focused in centers of the region.

• Locates compact, walkable, mixed-income, mixed use development in each county’s largest city or cities.

• Also locates growth in nodes around existing public transit stations.


ALTERNATIVE 1ALTERNATIVE 1


Central Cities




Central Cities




Central CitiesAlameda County


ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1


ALTERNATIVE #1: HOUSING UNITS BY COUNTY

Alameda

Marin

NapaSan Francisco

San Mateo

Sonoma

Solano

ContraCosta

SantaClara


Alameda 140,500 247,400

Contra Costa 121,400 167,100

Marin 11,100 8,300

Napa 10,000 12,600


San Mateo 39,400 54,200

Santa Clara 152,700 253,300

Solano 47,700 44,500

Sonoma 34,400 51,100

Total 668,100 989,400

GROWTH IN ALTERNATIVE #1 (2000-2020)


North South

New units

New jobs

New units

New jobs

Alt 1 97,900 219,100

42,600 28,300

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1

• Locates similar type development in same locations as Alternative 1, but less dense.

• Adds development in additional areas:

– existing transit nodes and major corridors.

– walkable communities.

– existing communities along expanded transit network.




Network of Neighborhoods




Network of Neighborhoo

ds




Network of Neighborho

odsAlameda County




ALTERNATIVE #2: HOUSING UNITS BY COUNTY

Alameda

Marin

Napa

San Francisco

San Mateo

Sonoma

Solano

SantaClara

ContraCosta


Alameda 141,500 242,300

Contra Costa 106,200 130,100

Marin 16,400 29,100

Napa 19,100 27,100


San Mateo 37,200 77,300

Santa Clara 164,500 222,900

Solano 54,500 77,600

Sonoma 53,600 82,800

Total 672,800 986,500



North South

New units

New jobs

New units

New jobs

Alt 2 69,900 94,000 71,600 148,300


• Locates similar type development in same areas as Alternatives 1 and 2, but still less dense.

• Locates jobs and housing at periphery to create mixed use communities.

• Additional new smart growth communities.




Smarter Suburbs




Smarter Suburbs




Smarter SuburbsAlameda County




ALTERNATIVE #3:2020 HOUSING UNITS BY COUNTY

Alameda

NapaSan Mateo

San Francisco

SantaClara

ContraCosta

Solano

Marin

Sonoma


Alameda 117,500 219,300

Contra Costa 87,700 140,500

Marin 23,700 31,500

Napa 19,600 34,900


San Mateo 32,500 45,700

Santa Clara 199,100 213,500

Solano 67,600 141,700

Sonoma 62,900 93,800

Total 676,700 982,500



North South

New units

New jobs

New units

New jobs

Alt 3 42,400 92,900 75,100 126,400


The Analysis


The Analysis

Environment


Goals: • Preserve the region’s undeveloped open

space and agricultural land• Improve the region’s air quality

• Conserve water

ENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENT


Greenfield Development in

the Region:

Acres of greenfield converted



Greenfield Development in Alameda County:Acres of greenfield converted 2000-2020

11,000

0700

5,400

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Base Case Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3



• Alternatives accommodate much more housing than current trends

• Air emissions remain mostly unchanged relative to Base Case

• More concentrated alternatives perform marginally better

•Smart growth benefits outside of region

Reduction in Air Emissions forecast over

the next 20 years

Air Quality



Water Consumption in the Region

Average Daily Per Household Water Usage

050

100150200250300350

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

•In Marin County: decreases by an average of 17% over current usage under the three alternatives

•Region wide: decreases by an average of 12% under the three alternatives region

27% 17% 7%



Water Consumption in Alameda County

Average Daily Per Household Water Usage

050

100150200250300350

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

•In Marin County: decreases by an average of 17% over current usage under the three alternatives

•Region wide: decreases by an average of 12% under the three alternatives region

24% 11% 0%

Transportation


Goal: Reduce reliance on the single-occupant vehicle.


TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORTATION

• Proximity to Transit

• Mode Split

• Auto Ownership

• Commute Time

• Commute Length

• Vehicle Miles Traveled



Located within ⅓ mile of a rail station or ¼ mile of a bus stop served by frequent bus service.

Proximity to Existing Transit in the Region

Current

Conditions

New Development

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Housing near transit

23% 60% 47% 28%

Jobs near transit

36% 68% 59% 31%



Current

Conditions

New Development

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Housing near transit

30% 67% 66% 37%

Jobs near transit

35% 74% 73% 42%

Proximity to Existing Transitin Alameda County



The proportion of all trips by public transit walking and bicycle vs. single occupant vehicle.

Base Case

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Auto (drive alone)

82% 78% 81% 82%

Transit, Walking, Bicycle

18% 22% 19% 18%

Mode Share



Percentage of Zero Vehicle Households:

• Base Case 2020: 8%

• Alternative 1: 11%



Auto Ownership



Commute Time & Length

• Current length: 12 miles

• Current time: 27 minutes

• Both remain essentially unchanged in all three alternatives and the Base Case



Vehicles Miles Traveled in the Region

VMT in millions of miles per day

175 167 172 176

0

50

100

150

200


Housing


Goal:

Plan for a full range of housing to meet the needs of all current and future Bay Area residents.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITYHOUSING AFFORDABILITY


Mix of units by housing affordability categories:

• Very Low-Income Households (less than 50% AMI)

• Low-Income Households (50 to 80% AMI)

• Moderate-Income Households (80 to 120% AMI)

• Above Moderate-Income Households (120% AMI or more)

(AMI: Area Median Income)

INCOME CATEGORIES FOR A FAMILY OF FOURMedian Income - $71,600

VERY LOW INCOME0-$35,800

— Child Care Worker $18,440 — Medical Assistant$24,000 — Retail Clerk $21,000

LOW INCOME$35,800-$57,280

—Elementary School Teacher$42,350

— Accountant $45,280

MODERATE INCOME$57,280-$85,920

—Police Patrol Officer $58,370

— Fire Fighter $55,06

0

HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITYHOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY


—Registered Nurse $59,690




Past Affordable Housing Production(1988 to 1998)

• 250,000 housing units constructed

• Needed affordable units: 58%

• Actual affordable units: 40%




CUMULATIVE HOUSING PRODUCTION 1988-1998

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Num

ber

of U

nits

Total Units Produced Affordable Units Needed Affordable Units Produced


JOBS/HOUSING MATCHJOBS/HOUSING MATCH


NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2000-2020:CURRENT TRENDS VS. ALTERNATE VISION

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

Current Trend Alternatives




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Base Case Alternatives 1,2,3

Per

cent

of Tota

l Housing

Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate

Housing Units Envisioned by

Affordability 2000-2020


JOBS/HOUSING RELATIONSHIPJOBS/HOUSING RELATIONSHIP


Jobs/Housing Match Analysis Areas




Alameda CountyAnalysis

Areas

Tri Valley

Western Contra Costa/Northern Alameda

Central/Southern Alameda




DefinitionsTotal Balance:

Sufficient housing within an analysis area for all

workers working in that area.

New Match: Sufficient, new affordable

housing within an analysis area for all new workers working in that area.


EXISTING JOBS/HOUSING BALANCEEXISTING JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE


60% of the region's

households are located in balanced

analysis areas


TOTAL JOBS/HOUSING BALANCETOTAL JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE


Percent of Total Households in Analysis Areas with a Balance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



TOTAL JOBS/HOUSING BALANCETOTAL JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE



NEW JOBS/HOUSING MATCHNEW JOBS/HOUSING MATCH


Percent of New Households in Analysis Areas with a Match

0%20%40%60%80%



NEW JOBS/HOUSING MATCHNEW JOBS/HOUSING MATCH


Social Equity


Goals• Implement development patterns that benefit all communities in the region.

• Avoid displacement of existing Bay Area residents and businesses.

SOCIAL EQUITYSOCIAL EQUITY


Impoverished Community

The majority of households earn

less than 80% of the County

median income (1990).


The Bay Area’s 46 Most Impoverished Neighborhoods

(NCCC 1997)


A Range of Communities

Inner-city, poor job/transit access: Bayview Hunters Point

Inner-city, good job/transit access: Central East Oakland

Suburban, good job access: East San Jose

Suburban, poor job access: North Richmond

Rural Community: Boyes Hot Springs



Growth in the Five Case Study Communities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Housing Jobs



Base Case

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3

Improve Jobs/Housing Match Increase Job Supply Provide Increased Retail Services Relieve Overcrowding Improve Transit Access Minimize Displacement

Outcomes of the Alternatives



Equitable Smart Growth Strategies

• Provide training to current residents to obtain new high-skill jobs locally.

• Match job development to skills of current residents.

• Improve transit access to jobs around the region.

• Provide additional retail facilities.

• Cultivate business opportunities for local residents.

• Alleviate overcrowding.

• Maintain affordability of existing housing.

Development Feasibility


Goal:

Plan for smart growth that can be realistically implemented.

DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITYDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY


• Marketability

• Physical “Fit”

• Financial Feasibility

MARKETABILITYMARKETABILITY


New Units in the Region, 2000-2020

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Single Family Multi-Family

In 2000, 62% of the Bay Area’s total housing stock was single family

units



New Units in Alameda County, 2000-2020

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Alternative1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

single family multifamily

In 2000, 60% of Alameda County’s total housing stock was single

family units



BAY AREA POPULATION CHANGEBY AGE 2000-2020

-400,000

-200,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

1

Cha

nge

in P

opul

atio

n

0-19

20-24

25-34

35-44

45-49

50-64

65-74

75-79

80+



Shifting demographic patterns create demand for a variety of housing types:

• compact housing near workplaces

• small single-family attached units

• “granny flats” (second units)

• senior housing

PHYSICAL FITPHYSICAL FIT


Acres of Redevelopment

• Alternative 1: 33,000 acres



FINANCIAL FEASIBILITYFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY


• location• timing• economic and local market conditions• land prices• construction costs• regulatory environment• financial requirements of the development

and investment communities• political conditions

Financial feasibility will depend on:

REVIEWING THE ALTERNATIVESREVIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES


• All provide a framework for future development

• All can be modified to meet local needs

• Each provides a different general direction

Incentives and Regulatory Changes



INCENTIVES & REGULATORY CHANGES INCENTIVES & REGULATORY CHANGES


Fiscal Reform

• Return property tax to local governments.

• Share tax revenue.

• Split property tax rate for land and improvements.




Financial Incentives

• Reward school districts that create joint school-community facilities. • Link new and existing state housing funding to development of affordable housing.

• Create smart growth zones.

• Target transportation funding to rail and bus nodes.




Regulatory Changes

• Create limited exemptions to CEQA for smart growth development projects.

• Pass construction defect liability legislation.

• Create and enforce a living wage standard.

Regional Growth Philosophy


• Preserve the region’s undeveloped open

space and agricultural land.

• Provide sufficient affordable housing.

• Revitalize central cities and older suburbs.

• Reduce single occupant vehicle trips.

• Foster equitable economic development while minimizing displacement.



UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHIESUNDERLYING PHILOSOPHIES


•Concentrate growth in existing

urbanized areas.

•Preserve greenfield sites.

•Develop around existing and new transit.

•Balance jobs and housing in all areas.

•Create new smart growth communities

Small Group Exercise


SMALL GROUP EXERCISESMALL GROUP EXERCISE

GOAL

Refine the selected

alternative for

Alameda County.



South & East County

Tables 12-21

HaywardUnion City

NewarkFremont

Castro ValleyDublin

PleasantonLivermore

All unincorporated areas

North County

Tables 1-11

AlbanyBerkeley

EmeryvilleOakland

PiedmontAlameda

San Leandro



• Begin with selected alternative.

• Recommend modifications.

• Prioritize recommendations

• Reconvene for large group decision-making.

• Track changes with computerized output.


• Planning Areas

• Place Types


PLANNING AREASPLANNING AREAS

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONIMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATIONKEY ECONOMIC ISSUESKEY ECONOMIC ISSUES SMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECTSMART GROWTH STRATEGY / REGIONAL LIVABILITY FOOTPRINT PROJECT

PLANNING AREASPLANNING AREAS

Colored: Areas of Change

Gray: Existing Land Use• Residential Areas• Mixed-Use Areas• Town Centers/Downtowns• Employment Areas/Institutions

Hatched: Transportation-Related• Rail Stations/Major Transfer Facility Areas• Corridors


PLANNING AREA CHANGESPLANNING AREA CHANGES

• Place Types

• Percent Increase (“Dial-up”)

• Numerical Change

• No Change from On-the-Ground Conditions


PLACE TYPES MENUPLACE TYPES MENU


PLACE TYPES BOOKPLACE TYPES BOOK


PLACE TYPESPLACE TYPES

Varying mixes of residential and employment uses:


1. Residential

2. Mixed-Use

3. Town Center/Downtown

4. Employment

Center/Institution

The BerkeleyanBerkeley

RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL


Liberty CommonsFremont



Livermore



Grand Avenue, Adams PointOakland

MIXED-USEMIXED-USE


MIXED-USEMIXED-USE


Park Avenue, GlenviewOakland

Downtown Oakland

TOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWNTOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWN


TOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWNTOWN CENTER / DOWNTOWN

DowntownLivermore


EMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTIONEMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTION

UC BerkeleyBerkeley


Fremont


EMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTIONEMPLOYMENT CENTER / INSTITUTION

• Varying land uses and densities

within each Place Type.

• Apply to all of a planning area,

unless otherwise specified.

• Focus on the next 20 years.

PLACE TYPE CHARACTERISTICSPLACE TYPE CHARACTERISTICS


OTHER PLANNING AREA ASSIGNMENTSOTHER PLANNING AREA ASSIGNMENTS

Percent Increase (“Dial-up”)

• 5% Residential Increase

• 15% Employment Increase

• Both



Numerical Change

• Add or subtract specific numbers of jobs or housing units

• For marginal changes only



No Change from On-the-Ground Conditions

Preserve planning area as it is today

• Preserve open space

• Preserve today’s development as is


•Broad brush, regional perspective

• County-wide interaction

APPROACHAPPROACH


Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy

Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development

Regional Livability Footprint Project

DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENTDESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT

Alameda CountyMay 18, 2002

smart growth strategy / regional livability footprint project alameda county co-sponsors alameda...

Documents

es of smart growth

future job growth

agricultural land

regulatory changes

city of san leandro

sufficient affordable

acres of open space44

regions undeveloped