Work in Progress
Bay Area UrbanSim is being used to assess scenarios for Plan Bay Area 2040.
CONTENTS
| S | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoning | existing | upzone select PDAs | upzone PDAs to placetype | upzone TPAs in Big3 and neighbors | upzone some PDAs | ttt |
| UGB | expand by 389 sq mi | expand by 565 sq mi | existing UGBs/city limits add 68 sq mi | city boundaries | existing UGBs/city limits add 68 sq mi | ttt |
| Caps | existing | existing | raises SF OF cap to 1.5m | drops SF OF cap | raises SF OF cap to 1.25m | ttt |
| DevProj | where scen0=1 | where scen1=1 | where scen2=1 | where scen3=1 | where scen4=1 | ttt |
| Sec Units (MODEL NOT IMPLEMENTED YET) | existing | everywhere | pdas | in big 3 | pdas | ttt |
| SubFee | sb743 | inclusionary-low parceltax hu_capgains obag tiering sb743 |
inclusionary-medium obag tiering sb743 |
inclusionary-high obag tiering sb743 |
inclusionary-medium obag tiering sb743 |
ttt |
| VMT Fee | none | com | NA | res | com | ttt |
| Pkg Mins | existing | decreased in pdas along rail | decreased in core pdas | decreased in big 3 and neighbors | decreased in core pdas | ttt |
| Tax | land value tax in big 3 and neighbors | ttt | ttt | |||
| Net | ttt | ttt |
(Modification, Applied regionwide by TAZ) This refelcts the expected shift in CEQA transporation analysis requirements from emphasising LOS to emphasizing VMT. Project profitabilility shifts as in the table below.
| vmt_cat (res or non_res) | profitability shift | |————————–|———————| | VH | -2% | | H | -1% | | MH | -0.5% | | M | 0 | | S | +2% |
(Account, Applied to all PDAs) $160 million per year is spent on projects within the PDAs. Although this funds planning and infrastructure projects, we treat it here as a direct subsidy as if the developer received an equivalent amount of money to build a project.
(Modification, Applied to all TPAs) Make any sort of development in a TPA 1% more profitable
(Account, Applied to all PDAs, Deed-Restricted) $24 annual parcel tax throughout region into fund for affordable housing so $42,000,000 is placed in an account annually to be spent on affordable housing in any PDA in the region
(Account, Applied to all PDAs, Deed-Restricted) $500,000,000 is placed in an account annually to be spent on affordable hosuing in any PDA in the region
(Modification, Applied to PDAs in 1 and 2, TPAs in 3) Make projects 1% more profitable in zone above. (Or is there a better proxy from the parking work? or other research?)
(Account, Applied to all Opportunity Jurisdiction, Deed-Restricted) Sets a low level of inclusionary units requried with a proportion required of 0.05 for these jurisdictions: Alameda Alameda County Albany Atherton Belmont Belvedere Berkeley Burlingame Campbell Cloverdale Concord Contra Costa County Corte Madera Cupertino Danville Dublin East Palo Alto El Cerrito Emeryville Fairfax Foster City Fremont Lafayette Larkspur Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Menlo Park Millbrae Milpitas Monte Sereno Moraga Mountain View Orinda Palo Alto Piedmont Pleasanton Redwood City Ross San Anselmo San Bruno San Carlos San Francisco San Jose San Mateo San Mateo County San Ramon Santa Clara Santa Rosa Saratoga Sausalito Sunnyvale Tiburon Union City Walnut Creek
(Account, Applied to Jurisdictions with PDAs, Deed-Restricted) Sets a moderate level of inclusionary units requried with a proportion required of 0.1 for these jurisdictions: Alameda Alameda County Albany American Canyon Antioch Belmont Benicia Berkeley Brisbane Burlingame Campbell Cloverdale Colma Concord Contra Costa County Cotati Cupertino Daly City Danville Dixon Dublin East Palo Alto El Cerrito Emeryville Fairfield Fremont Gilroy Hayward Hercules Lafayette Livermore Los Altos Martinez Menlo Park Millbrae Milpitas Moraga Morgan Hill Mountain View Napa Newark Oakland Oakley Orinda Palo Alto Petaluma Pinole Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Pleasanton Redwood City Richmond Rohnert Park San Bruno San Carlos San Francisco San Jose San Leandro San Mateo San Mateo County San Pablo San Rafael San Ramon Santa Clara Santa Rosa Sebastopol South San Francisco Suisun City Sunnyvale Union City Vacaville Vallejo Walnut Creek Windsor
(Account, Applied to Big 3 Cities and Neighbors, Deed-Restricted) Sets a relatively high level of inclusionary units requried with the proportion required in each jurisdiction listed here: ###inclusionary_housing_high
| juris | prop |
|---|---|
| San Francisco | 0.2 |
| Oakland | 0.2 |
| San Jose | 0.2 |
(Account, Applied regionally by TAZ, Deed-Restricted)
The fees in the table below are assessed on development in zones with higher VMT (home-end of commute for res; work-end of commmute for commercial. Res assessed on any type of residential development; commercial only for office and retail. Money available regionally to subsidize housing construction in PDAs. Susidized units are deed-restricted.
| Category | Residential VMT Fee Action | Commercial VMT Fee Action |
|---|---|---|
| VH | assess res dev fee $25,000 per HU | assess com dev fee $50 per OF/RS sqft |
| H | assess res dev fee $15,000 per HU | assess com dev fee $30 per OF/RS sqft |
| MH | assess res dev fee $5,000 per HU | assess com dev fee $20 per OF/RS sqft |
| M | nothing | assess com dev fee $6 per OF/RS sqft |
| PDA | money available to subsidize units | money available to subsidize res units |
(Modification, Applied to Big 3 cities) In the Big 3 cities, represent approximate impacts of switching from the current property tax system to one which achieves the same income but only from taxing the value of the land value (and not the structure value). Could we approach this: every so many more percent lower the improvement-to-land ratio is, profitability on a new structure rises some percent? For now lets try assuming an acre of land is worth $33.3m in SF, $7.8m in San Jose, and $5.4m in Oakland and apply these changes to land zoned for HM:
| ILR | Residential Profitability Change | Commercial Profitablity Change |
|---|---|---|
| > 0.5 | no change | no change |
| 0.5-0.3 | 1% | 1% |
| 0.3-0.1 | 2% | 2% |
| < 0.1 | 5% | 5% |