2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Update

Transcription

1 Jurisdiction/Community Type Placerville Center and Corridor Communites 2, , , , , , , Established Communitites 6,362 4,357 7,304 5, ,551 4,958 7,164 5,286 7,304 5,225 7,096 5,336 Jurisdiction Total 9,338 4,529 11,546 5,456 2, ,624 5,130 11,407 5,521 11,464 5,438 12,034 5,652 El Dorado County Unincorporated Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) El Dorado Hills Town Center 1,791-3, , ,510-3, , , Diamond Springs Rd Established Communities (includes Placerville SOI area) 17,456 29,457 32,599 34,713 15,143 5,256 34,456 35,607 32,605 34,715 31,456 32,802 48,420 47,871 Central El Dorado Hills ,004 Rural Residential Communities 9,356 24,940 9,640 26, ,202 10,356 29,435 10,131 25,290 9,640 26,397 13,931 28,827 Bass Lake Hills , ,458 Carson Creek , , , ,161 3,879 1,700 El Dorado Hills 1,435 3,558 2,035 4, ,002 3,235 4,996 2,048 4,926 2,177 6,159 3,368 6,162 Marble Valley , Missouri Flats 3, , , , , , Valley View , , , , ,839 Jurisdiction Total 33,826 59,829 52,532 70,813 18,706 10,984 57,095 78,604 52,817 70,707 51,551 69,441 81,484 91,084 Lime Rock Valley n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown San Stino n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown Dixon Ranch n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown EL DORADO COUNTY TOTAL 43,164 64,358 64,079 76,269 20,915 11,911 67,720 83,734 64,224 76,227 63,015 74,879 93,518 96,736 1 The DPS and shown reflects adopted planning documents. However, the county is processing an application for this area that could result in a change to these estimates.

2 Jurisdiction/Community Type Auburn Center and Corridor Communities (Amtrak station and Hwy 49) 2, , , , , , Established Communities 5,456 5,631 6,889 5,910 1, ,888 6,236 6,891 5,910 6,952 6,247 9,114 7,352 Baltimore Ravine Jurisdiction Total 7,761 6,124 10,060 7,389 2,299 1,264 9,716 7,594 9,897 7,351 10,257 7,770 13,151 8,932 Colfax Center and Corridor Communities (I-80 Corridor Study area) , , , , , Established Communities ,073 Jurisdiction Total ,498 1, ,391 1,003 1,634 1,024 1,499 1,016 3,279 1,336 Lincoln Center and Corridor Communities (downtown area) , , , , Established Communities 5,498 17,983 11,500 21,533 6,002 3,551 11,697 21,520 11,378 21,520 11,821 21,651 25,142 21,651 Portion of Hwy 65 in SOI 2,263-5,463-3,199-5,261-5,456-6,262-11,007 - Village , , , , , ,640 Village 5/SUD B , , , ,402 8,318 Village , , , , , ,285 Jurisdiction Total 8,421 18,246 19,347 29,087 10,927 10,841 18,541 33,313 19,347 29,134 20,344 28,005 50,008 39,009 Village 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 235 2,045 n/a n/a 351 3,874 Village 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown 4,841 Village 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown 5,421 Village 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown 5,082 SUD A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown 2,967 SUD C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown - Remainder SOI n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown - Loomis Center and Corridor Communities (Town Center area) , , , Established Communities 2,336 1,473 3,253 1, ,940 1,880 3,236 1,754 2,928 1,726 4,039 1,947 Rural Residential Communities , ,319 Jurisdiction Total 3,160 2,472 4,903 3,248 1, ,095 3,357 5,197 3,270 4,796 3,336 6,112 3,954 Rocklin Center and Corridor Communities (Rocklin Downtown Plan area and Amtrak station area) 984 1,000 1,532 1, ,563 1,235 1,531 1,845 2,884 2,574 2,893 2,704 Established Communities 16,226 19,609 19,316 21,870 3,089 2,262 18,942 21,496 18,913 20,984 18,852 21,526 39,828 22,200

3 Jurisdiction/Community Type Clover Valley Highway 65 Corridor 429-4,004-3,575-4,428-4,126-4,429-13,263 - I-80 Commercial ,442 5 Sunset Ranchos 160 1,665 2,068 4,356 1,908 2,690 2,068 4, ,623 2,068 4,295 2,020 4,339 Jurisdiction Total 17,884 22,280 27,855 28,431 9,972 6,151 27,986 27,663 26,445 28,008 29,217 28,400 61,574 29,809 Roseville Center and Corridor Communities (Amtrak station area and Douglas/Sunrise) Dowtown Master Plan and remaining Amtrak station 1,931 1,512 3,787 2,315 1, ,385 1,837 3,782 1,991 3,830 2,722 10,791 2,784 Douglas West 1, , , , , , Sunrise 1, , , , , , , Established Communities 59,122 44,177 82,123 47,166 23,000 2,989 83,572 47,369 80,585 46,723 83,527 47,777 91,285 47,168 Creekview , , , , ,011 Sierra Vista ,500 6,116 3,500 6,098 3,499 5,291 4,797 6,117 3,000 6,047 9,003 8,679 West Roseville 483 2,926 2,983 9,428 2,500 6,502 1,479 7,505 2,688 8,723 2,983 9,427 3,251 10,478 Amoruso Ranch , , , ,463 3,011 Jurisdiction Total 64,642 49,247 98,266 68,143 33,624 18,896 97,690 64,964 97,547 64,964 99,115 68, ,627 75,040 Placer County Unincorporated Established Communities 7,478 9,461 20,162 10,353 12, ,678 10,269 19,643 10,482 17,477 10,301 46,998 13,425 Auburn Sphere of Influence Area 10,479 5,988 14,248 6,684 3, ,883 8,027 14,765 6,557 13,877 8,234 24,338 9,228 Colfax Sphere of Influence Area ,111 Rural Residential Communities 7,527 26,922 8,330 29, ,499 8,734 30,147 8,329 28,651 8,326 28,505 27,195 50,527 Bickford Ranch ,433-1, , , , ,890 Placer Vineyards ,499 4,737 1,499 4,524 3,000 6,840 3,007 8,100 1,499 4,739 9,037 14,132 Regional University , , , , ,102 1,868 4,387 Riolo Vineyards Placer Ranch - - 2,003 2,900 2,003 2,900 2,006 2, ,613-20,155 5,376 Squaw Village Jurisdiction Total 26,108 43,307 47,125 58,975 21,016 15,668 50,907 63,679 46,898 59,662 43,969 56, , ,858 Curry Creek n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown PLACER COUNTY TOTAL 128, , , ,288 80,264 53, , , , , , , , ,123

4 Jurisdiction/Community Type Citrus Heights Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) Sunrise Blvd 4,441 1,025 7,232 1,840 2, ,236 1,225 7,217 2,066 7,232 1,840 7,232 2,066 Riverside-Auburn (Boulevard Plan) 2, , , , ,282 1,502 4,915 2,028 Established Communities 11,115 33,764 13,456 35,302 2,341 1,538 14,115 35,075 13,467 35,310 13,483 34,836 13,456 36,991 Jurisdiction Total 17,939 35,477 23,810 38,059 5,871 2,581 22,204 37,188 23,807 38,292 23,996 38,178 25,603 41,085 Elk Grove Center and Corridor Communities (Old Town Plan area) , , Established Communities 27,286 45,476 35,421 47,268 8,135 1,791 34,286 47,268 34,105 46,859 37,093 47,300 35,518 47,296 Rural Residential Communities 1,712 3,982 1,777 4, ,727 5,923 1,712 5,938 1,777 4,683 1,800 5,876 Laguna Ridge 1,336 1,541 4,371 7,586 3,036 6,045 4,298 7,570 4,289 7,881 4,289 7,582 4,400 7,826 Lent Ranch - 1 3, , , , , , Southeast Planning Area ,004 4,061 5,000 4,023 5,004 3,990 3,497 4,098 2,495 3,989 24,720 4,850 Sterling Meadows Triangle Special Plan Jurisdiction Total 31,001 51,372 50,865 65,282 19,863 13,909 50,117 66,157 47,895 66,461 50,365 65,237 72,225 67,880 Folsom Center and Corridor Communities (light rail station areas and Bidwell) 7,109 1,330 10,553 2,011 3, ,832 1,791 10,684 2,067 10,112 2,198 12,660 2,192 Established Communities 28,739 24,895 36,189 28,174 7,451 3,278 39,170 28,020 36,157 27,454 35,821 28,172 41,322 28,174 Folsom South Area - - 2,798 8,665 2,798 8,665 4,026 6,663 1,291 6,688 2,718 8,983 13,619 10,210 Jurisdiction Total 35,848 26,225 49,540 38,850 13,692 12,625 53,029 36,473 48,132 36,209 48,652 39,353 67,601 40,576 Galt Center and Corridor Communities (downtown and Twin Cities) 1, , , , , , , Established Communities 2,805 7,338 4,958 9,195 2,153 1,858 4,105 8,183 4,959 9,191 4,077 9,175 9,230 9,331 SOI , ,423 1, ,091 1, ,180 7,212 Jurisdiction Total 4,565 8,007 8,170 10,890 3,606 2,883 7,327 9,861 8,186 10,889 8,544 9,861 36,709 17,153 Isleton Established Communities Villages on the Delta Jurisdiction Total

5 Jurisdiction/Community Type Rancho Cordova Center and Corridor Communities (Folsom Blvd Corridor Plan area and light rail station areas) 16,192 5,988 22,008 8,176 5,816 2,188 19,371 6,904 20,230 10,764 22,082 8,199 40,758 8,228 Established Communities 32,296 16,556 54,340 18,039 22,044 1,484 57,739 18,028 53,526 18,037 56,134 18,213 66,878 18,215 Arboretum , , , ,488 4,742 Ranch at Sunridge , , ,610 Rio Del Oro - - 2,090 5,119 2,090 5,119 2,000 5,969 4,322 8,057 1,348 4,120 12,558 12,189 Suncreek , , , , ,029 1,408 4,893 Sunridge 114 3,054 2,170 7,707 2,055 4,653 1,115 7,481 2,170 7,707 1,105 8,764 3,563 8,763 Westborough ,447 4,200 Jurisdiction Total 48,634 25,619 81,201 45,433 32,567 19,814 80,788 46,566 80,990 50,042 80,733 42, ,459 62,840 Sacramento Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) Blue Line Station Areas- American River to Swanston 7,619 3,036 11,524 4,091 3,906 1,055 8,189 3,953 11,731 4,092 11,633 4,480 14,550 6,045 Blue Line Station Areas- Marconi 1,394 1,254 1,648 1, ,394 1,721 1,789 1,902 1,447 1,896 1,358 1,902 Blue Line Station Areas- Roseville Rd/Watt , , Green Line Station Areas- South Natomas 2,744 6,791 3,730 6, ,796 6,824 3,730 6,828 3,608 6,824 3,609 6,828 Green Line Station Areas- North Natomas Marketplace 7,854 2,158 9,283 3,333 1,429 1,175 9,289 3,344 8,105 2,530 8,796 4,175 14,919 6,199 Green Line Station Areas- Commerce Pkwy 1,815 1,667 3,330 4,755 1,515 3,088 3,329 4,221 3,441 4,657 3,330 4,755 3,442 4,755 Green Line Station Areas- Greenbriar , , , , ,964 1,137 4,137 Downtown (East of 16th St) 24,489 12,230 31,308 16,229 6,818 3,999 29,971 14,830 30,816 14,327 31,007 16,109 39,276 16,405 Downtown (West of 16th St) 64,391 8, ,880 27,081 38,490 19, ,207 21, ,994 26, ,603 31, ,372 31,538 Franklin Blvd 2,401 1,832 2,939 2, ,549 2,086 3,023 2,328 2,695 2,198 3,041 2,257 Gold Line Station Areas- 39th to 59th 6,523 3,709 8,374 3,853 1, ,086 3,841 8,390 3,928 8,918 3,933 9,289 3,917 Gold Line Station Areas- 65th to Power Inn 8,371 2,145 12,991 7,602 4,620 5,457 12,270 6,796 13,280 7,681 13,405 7,914 14,039 7,901 Gold Line Station Areas- College Greens and part of watt 2,618 1,182 2,863 1, ,545 1,336 2,785 1,195 2,863 1,402 4,865 2,338 Blue Line Station Areas- Broadway to 47th 6,116 5,346 8,165 6,139 2, ,724 5,965 8,304 6,428 8,147 6,197 9,935 6,221 Blue Line Station Areas- Florin 2,973 1,343 3,737 2, ,317 3,863 2,216 3,655 2,709 3,751 2,562 3,699 2,709 Blue Line Station Areas- Meadowview to CRC 2,657 6,678 3,184 9, ,118 3,068 9,523 3,102 9,891 3,154 10,277 2,696 10,279 Blue Line Station Areas- 14th Ave to Florin Rd 3,306 1,903 3,370 3, ,188 3,306 2,934 3,305 3,339 3,370 3,106 3,331 3,183 Established Communities 111, , , ,515 36,475 23, , , , , , , , ,139 Delta Shores 0-2,223 5,077 2,223 5,077 1,975 4,458 2,223 5, ,940 6,660 5,115 Jurisdiction Total 257, , , , ,218 72, , , , , , , , ,908 Camino Norte n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Panhandle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

6 Jurisdiction/Community Type Sacramento County Unincorporated Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) Auburn Blvd North/Madison Ave 6, ,804 1,090 3, , ,885 1,139 9,890 1,288 11,935 1,299 Blue Line Station Areas- Roseville Rd/Watt 1, , , , , , ,210 3,035 Fair Oaks Blvd West- Howe to Fulton 4,584 2,711 6,709 2,932 2, ,542 2,712 6,709 2,932 6,642 2,807 6,890 2,932 Fair Oaks Blvd Central- El Camino to Winding 5,792 3,704 7,824 4,556 2, ,768 3,883 7,980 4,611 7,646 3,993 10,290 5,209 Fair Oaks Blvd East- Fair Oaks Village 1, ,731 1,289 1, ,681 1,029 2,804 1,292 2,731 1,289 3,000 1,292 Florin Rd 6,808 1,408 8,396 2,708 1,588 1,299 7,968 2,156 8,575 2,711 8,728 2,698 12,487 6,933 Franklin Blvd 2,822 2,109 5,011 3,360 2,189 1,251 3,741 2,871 5,058 3,369 4,728 3,442 5,677 3,794 Fulton Ave 6, , , , , , ,881 1,041 Gold Line Station Areas- Watt to Butterfield 10,230 4,986 15,493 9,566 5,262 4,581 14,258 7,490 15,511 9,566 14,385 10,260 16,962 12,707 Gold Line Station Areas- Hazel/Easton 1, ,864 2,120 4,730 1,783 5,131 1,966 8,415 2,636 3,765 4,425 19,411 4,203 Gold Line Station Areas- Folsom Blvd , ,214 - Greenback Ln 3,321 1,817 4,504 2,399 1, ,652 2,172 4,629 2,354 4,245 2,384 4,640 2,399 Stockton Blvd- 14th Ave to Florin Rd , , , ,156 Stockton Blvd- Florin Rd to Mack Rd 3,054 2,658 4,895 4,244 1,841 1,586 3,872 3,450 4,918 4,271 4,931 4,808 5,627 5,825 Watt Ave Central- Auburn to Arden 9,359 2,408 13,278 3,200 3, ,442 2,823 13,288 3,213 13,137 3,055 13,419 3,200 North Watt and West of Watt 3,776 1,372 7,625 4,973 3,849 3,601 7,752 4,431 12,182 8,543 10,576 8,379 12,231 8,415 Established Communities 94, , , ,718 34,410 11, , , , , , , , ,159 Rural Residential 10,480 13,726 12,458 14,314 1, ,160 15,527 12,458 14,464 11,460 14,259 15,537 18,369 Elverta , , , , ,950 Florin Vineyard 1, ,528 2, ,018 1,530 2,559 1,528 2,586 1,619 2,535 6,243 9,917 Glenborough at Easton 453-1,780 3,271 1,327 3,271 1,780 3,271 1,794 3,262 1,280 3,271 1,796 3,239 West Jackson 2, ,028 5,141 1,859 4,996 2,902 3,689 4,019 5,140 2, ,839 15,658 North Vineyard Station , , , , , ,062 Mather South , , , , ,030 5,075 3,529 Vineyard Springs 369 2, , , ,731 1,394 3, , ,943 Vineyard 1,156 4,591 1,546 5, ,546 5,253 1,668 5,344 1,937 5,344 1,546 6,610 Jurisdiction Total 177, , , ,366 79,312 48, , , , , , , , ,102 Cordova Hills n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 232 3,024 n/a n/a n/a n/a 13,556 9,010 Jackson Township n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 770 2,057 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8,044 6,143 Newbridge n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 178 1,008 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,556 3,075 Northwest Special Planning Area (excluding Sacramento International Airport and Metro Air Park which are included as Established Communities) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70,608 25,000 SACRAMENTO COUNTY TOTAL 573, , , , , , , , , , , ,022 1,292, ,354

7 Jurisdiction/Community Type Live Oak Center and Corridor Communities (downtown area) , Established Communities 499 2,474 1,002 3, , ,169 1,051 3,695 1,178 3,454 2,446 4,339 Jurisdiction Total 795 2,527 1,858 3,749 1,063 1,222 1,659 4,222 1,907 3,785 2,057 3,608 4,418 4,676 Recent annexation areas n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,593 2,701 Sphere of Influence Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,304 10,901 Yuba City Center and Corridor Communities (Central City and Hwy 20 corridor) 7,222 1,683 9,990 1,908 2, ,223 1,731 10,039 1,972 9,990 1,908 10,036 2,076 Established Communities 16,467 22,864 24,065 28,062 7,598 5,198 26,073 28,572 24,025 27,543 24,583 26,862 29,210 28,048 Lincoln East (SOI) ,348 1,570 4,868 South SOI/Hwy 99 Corridor , Jurisdiction Total 23,820 24,766 34,804 31,175 10,984 6,409 35,804 31,946 34,825 31,204 35,151 30,154 42,642 35,715 Remainder Sphere of Influence area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,492 7,575 Sutter County Unincorporated Established Communities 4,023 6,480 4,147 6, ,184 6,865 4,147 7,106 5,188 6,869 13,787 7,374 Sutter Pointe ,995 3,027 2,108 3,010 2,587 3,275 3,289 3, ,045 17,500 Jurisdiction Total 4,910 6,497 7,142 9,896 2,232 3,398 7,772 10,140 7,436 10,598 6,075 6,887 83,057 24,874 Employment Centers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,225 n/a SUTTER COUNTY TOTAL 29,525 33,790 43,804 44,820 14,279 11,030 45,235 46,308 44,168 45,588 43,282 40, ,507 86,442

8 Jurisdiction/Community Type Davis Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) Core Area Plan area 2, , , , , , Amtrak station area 1,873 1,314 2,689 1, ,771 1,401 2,891 2,014 2,689 1,703 3,254 1,798 Nishi , , Established Communities 10,899 24,611 13,743 26,483 2,844 1,872 12,802 25,832 13,642 26,488 13,047 26,533 14,253 26,533 Jurisdiction Total 15,430 26,440 20,341 29,329 4,911 2,888 19,438 28,354 20,444 29,642 20,443 29,431 22,657 29,578 West Sacramento Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) Bridge District ,568 4,568 7,229 4,444 5,348 2,622 7,560 4,151 7,137 4,577 13,715 4,566 Pioneer Bluff 523-3,391 1,682 2,869 1,682 1, ,391 1,395 3,001 1,672 28,939 5,757 Washington 2, ,432 3,091 1,890 2,236 3,347 1,748 3,549 3,079 4,419 2,580 5,693 3,079 remaining center and corridor area 1,841 1,004 3,346 3,970 1,506 2,966 2,648 1,509 3,197 3,972 3,296 5,009 21,289 7,342 Established Communities 19,308 15,390 31,383 18,984 12,076 3,594 32,289 19,539 31,425 18,729 31,385 18,984 38,436 20,639 NE Village of Southport (Liberty only) ,900 SE Village of Southport , ,433 Southport Industrial Park 1, , , , , , ,010 1,383 SW Village of Southport 42 1, , ,042 4, , ,092 1,060 6,500 Jurisdiction Total 25,860 18,879 55,553 35,175 29,692 16,297 50,636 32,039 53,662 35,624 54,238 40, ,267 54,600 Winters Center and Corridor Communities (Downtown Master Plan area) Established Communities 1,774 2,333 2,942 3,303 1, ,677 3,086 2,940 3,315 2,941 3,206 4,937 4,254 Jurisdiction Total 1,921 2,372 3,119 3,343 1, ,824 3,126 3,116 3,356 3,136 3,257 5,140 4,310 Sphere of Influence area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown Woodland Center and Corridor Communities (Downtown and East St Corridor Plan areas) 2, ,385 1, ,952 1,048 3,470 1,457 4,674 1,615 4,744 1,550 Established Communities 17,923 18,111 28,397 18,779 10, ,840 18,690 28,098 18,877 25,365 18,693 43,144 18,779 Spring Lake Master Plan 572 1,217 1,244 4, ,836 1,257 3,850 1,530 4,051 1,430 4,055 1,242 7,954 Jurisdiction Total 21,347 20,054 33,027 24,181 11,680 4,127 32,049 23,589 33,098 24,385 31,469 24,363 49,130 28,283 General Plan identified potential growth areas SP 2/3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown

9 Jurisdiction/Community Type Yolo County Unincorporated Center and Corridor Communities (UC Davis) 21, ,798 3,644 3,098 2,926 23,638 2,648 23,638 2,648 23,638 2,648 29,134 2,648 Established Communities (including the established communities of Dunnigan, Madison, Knights Landing) 6,684 7,090 9,680 7,602 2, ,683 7,592 9,641 8,235 10,111 7,712 12,500 8,220 Jurisdiction Total 28,384 7,807 34,478 11,246 6,094 3,439 33,321 10,240 33,279 10,883 33,749 10,360 41,634 10,868 Dunnigan n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10,656 9,230 Elkhorn n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9,553 - Madison n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 250 1,335 Knights Landing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a YOLO COUNTY TOTAL 92,943 75, , ,275 53,575 27, ,268 97, , , , , , ,003

10 Jurisdiction/Community Type Marysville Center and Corridor Communities (Downtown Economic Development Strategic Plan area) 2, , , , , , Established Communities 5,523 5,025 6,294 5, ,423 5,270 6,287 5,291 6,387 5,334 6,197 5,356 Jurisdiction Total 8,473 5,349 9,591 5,714 1, ,423 5,624 9,585 5,715 9,631 5,759 9,541 5,791 Wheatland Center and Corridor Communities (dowtown area) Established Communities 368 1, , , , , ,667 Jones Ranch and Heritage Oaks ,295 1,326 Jurisdiction Total 431 1,337 1,458 2,425 1,026 1,087 1,306 2,363 1,636 2,430 1,309 2,090 10,215 18,867 Nichols Grove n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 243 1,618 Hop Farm/Johnson Rancho n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,861 14,144 Rodden Ranch n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown Yuba County Unincorporated Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) North Beale Corridor Reinvestmant Plan area , , , , Olivehurst Ave Established Communities 3,204 6,962 4,640 8,143 1,436 1,182 4,172 9,561 4,641 8,144 5,140 8,792 6,058 10,522 Established Communities-Beale AFB 3, , , , , , , East Linda 76 2,213 1,565 4,444 1,489 2,231 1,046 4,542 1,274 4,647 1,565 4,446 4,426 6,009 North Arboga Study Area 177 1, , , , ,416 2,564 2,504 Plumas Lake 195 2,613 2,556 4,894 2,361 2,280 3,495 7,122 3,298 6,428 2,555 4,895 16,176 18,130 Highway 65 Employment Center , ,513-2, , , ,730 - Rural Residential Communities 3,360 7,819 3,380 7, ,457 9,280 4,264 7,871 3,360 7,916 5,094 12,884 Jurisdiction Total 11,503 21,644 21,452 27,864 9,949 6,220 21,438 33,002 23,470 29,516 23,595 28,610 65,328 51,325 Woodbury n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unknown unknown YUBA COUNTY TOTAL 20,407 28,331 32,500 36,003 12,093 7,672 32,167 40,989 34,691 37,662 34,535 36,460 85,083 75,983

11 Jurisdiction/Community Type Region Total 887, ,454 1,327,114 1,188, , ,558 1,327,279 1,188,344 1,327,310 1,188,410 1,327,434 1,188,470 2,255,602 1,561,091 Center and Corridor Communities 305, , , , ,595 86, , , , , , , , ,953 Established Communities 529, , , , ,725 78, , , , , , ,725 1,039, ,180 Developing Communities 20,084 32,682 83, ,672 63, ,990 86, ,484 82, ,057 74, , , ,639 Rural Residential Communities 33,059 78,240 36,433 83,380 3,374 5,140 36,183 91,562 37,691 83,133 35,331 82,619 64, ,802 Approved or Pending Specific Plan Projects Not Identified for Growth by 2036 in the Draft 2016 MTP/SCS 151, ,517

12 I-505 STATE HWY 99 STATE HWY 70 STATE HWY 99 LINCOLN BYPASS STATE HWY 65 STATE HWY 49 STATE HWY 89 DISCUSSION DRAFT REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY January 26, 2015 LIVE OAK STATE HWY 99 STATE HWY 70 STATE HWY 20 I-80 STATE HWY 267 STATE HWY 28 STATE HWY 20 MARYSVILLE YUBA CITY COLFAX WHEATLAND SOUTH LAKE TAHOE STATE HWY 16 I-5 STATE HWY 45 STATE HWY 113 LINCOLN AUBURN ROSEVILLE LOOMIS ROCKLIN I-80 STATE HWY 49 STATE HWY 193 US HWY 50 I-80 PLACERVILLE WOODLAND STATE HWY 113 STATE HWY 128 DAVIS I-80 I-5 I-80 WEST SACRAMENTO I-5 I-80 BUSINESS 80 SACRAMENTO US HWY 50 CITRUS HEIGHTS FOLSOM US HWY 50 RANCHO CORDOVA STATE HWY 49 STATE HWY 88 WINTERS I-5 STATE HWY 16 Legend Major Highways ELK GROVE Jurisdiction Boundary 2016 MTP/SCS Draft Community Type Areas* Center and Corridor Communities Established Communities Developing Communities STATE HWY 99 Rural Residential Communities STATE HWY 220 ISLETON STATE HWY 160 GALT Agriculture and other lands not identified for development in the 2016 DRAFT MTP/SCS Approved or In Process Specific Plan Areas Not Identified for Development in the Draft 2016 MTP/SCS *For transparency and to aid local jurisdiction review, this map illustrates the draft Community Types with distinct boundaries. However, the final map that is published with the 2016 MTP/SCS will have a design similar to the current MTP/SCS map, which illustrates the Community Types using soft edges and does not highlight individual project areas.

13 This is the Adopted 2012 MTP/SCS Map 0 MILES KILOMETERS Live Oak 80 Yuba County Yuba City 20 Marysville 174 Colfax Sutter County Placer County Wheatland Auburn Lincoln 5 Rocklin Loomis MTP/SCS with Blueprint Reference and TPA 5 10 Figure South Lake Tahoe El Dorado County 50 Roseville Citrus Heights Woodland Folsom West Sacramento Rancho Cordova Sacramento 16 Sacramento County Elk Grove 5 88 Figure 3.2 MTP/SCS with Blueprint Reference and Transit Priority Areas SACOG Galt Isleton Center/Corridor Community Developing Community Established Community Rural Residential Community Lands Not Identified for Development in the MTP/SCS or Blueprint Blueprint Growth Footprint Not Identified for Development in the MTP/SCS Planning Period Blueprint Vacant Urban Designated Lands Not Identified for Development in the MTP/SCS Planning Period Transit Priority Areas* City Boundaries County Boundaries Rivers/Lakes 33 * Areas within one-half mile of a rail station stop or a high-quality transit corridor included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. A high-quality transit corridor has fixed route bus service with service intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. Summary of Growth and Land Use Forecast Davis Winters Chapter 3 Placerville Yolo County

14 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast January 26, 2015 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast The land use forecast is being developed within the same basic policy framework as the transportation system. The Board has directed that the emphasis of this particular four year plan update shall be on improving implementation of an existing high performing plan and examining a short list of policy issues, such as the timing of transportation investments and whether more funds should be spent on transportation maintenance needs. 1 Nevertheless, during each update cycle SACOG updates its empirical data and future predicting analytical tools, and this new knowledge informs changes to the existing plan. For the land use forecast, the changes included in this Discussion Draft can accurately be described as refinements to the current plan. The most important elements of the land use forecast include the Board s decisions to: Use the same regional economic growth forecast through 2036 (the end of year of this plan) as the forecast through 2035 in the current plan; and Strive for similar shares of future growth in the four Community Types (Centers and Corridors, Established, Developing and Rural Residential Communities) and in housing types (attached, small lot single family and large lot single family) as in the current plan. 2 The third major land use issue is jobs housing balance within commuting sheds of the region s largest employment centers. These three key land use components all relate strongly to the challenges the region faces in meeting federal and state clean air targets. To meet the air quality standards, increases from current conditions are essential in the shares of future growth in infill areas, medium and higher density housing products, and jobs housing balance around the region s employment centers. The Board s decisions on how to focus transportation investments can help to support the needed land use changes. Highlighted below are some of the refinements from the current plan included in this Discussion Draft, first at the regional scale. Keep in mind that all of these changes are of a relatively small scale and within the context of the policy framework of not altering the current plan unless there is clearly an information based reason to do so. REGIONAL SCALE REFINEMENTS The dominant overarching consideration, by far, has been that the economy has been recovering more slowly than expected, with the housing market in particular being stalled at about a 3,000 unit per year production level. This is well below the current Plan s forecasted annual rate through 2035 of over 11,000 units per year, and even further below the peak of the market in 2005, when over 17,000 new units were built. While there are some changes to market conditions in both the infill and greenfield areas, the big picture story is that the economics of significantly increasing housing construction of any type and in virtually any location remain very challenged. 1 SACOG, Policy Framework for MTP/SCS Update Process, December 12, Framework.pdf. 2 SACOG, Framework for Draft Preferred Scenario, December 18, MTP%20Framework.pdf. Page 1 of 6

15 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast January 26, 2015 Infill and Greenfield Development Consumer preference and demographic studies, as well as market performance around the state and nation, continue to indicate that it will take more growth in infill areas and in attached and small lot single family products to satisfy the future demand that will come from the millennial generation and the fast growing senior population. The main differences in 2015 compared to 2011, when the current plan was written, are summarized below. For infill development, there are somewhat improved regulatory and financial conditions. Two more changes to CEQA have been signed into law (SB226 and SB743), both designed to reduce barriers to infill development. Although neither has been fully implemented, both show promise of making a difference. In the fall of 2014, Governor Brown signed Infrastructure Financing District legislation to restore a portion of the tax increment financing capacity lost when redevelopment authority was eliminated, although it is not yet clear whether this new law will yield big change or small change. A state law also was passed directing a very substantial portion of Cap and Trade funding to infill areas for transportation, housing and other greenhouse gas reducing development projects. Local governments continue to revise their codes to ease the barriers to infill, such as the City of Sacramento s major changes to its zoning code and parking regulations, both of which quickly helped to increase infill development. While it would be very unwise to understate the continued hurdles to large scale infill, the situation for this sector is decidedly better than four years ago. For greenfield development, on balance conditions are about the same as four years ago. There has not been a large master planned community that has broken ground in this region in approximately the last decade. Recent good news from the federal government regarding levee work and flood designation issues in the North Natomas Basin means that construction of new homes is likely to re start in that area, enabling the build out of the current North Natomas Community Plan (approximately 3,000 new homes). 3 While that supply of available lots will not last long, this is an important step in the right direction. One of the new trends in the last four years is an uptick in construction in approved projects that lend themselves to being built in small pieces or phases. All of the natural resource conservation planning efforts throughout the region have made progress in the last four years, but all are at the minimum a few years from being completed to the point that construction using those plans can begin. 4 While there is hope for eventual success of all of these initiatives, big challenges remain. It is difficult to confidently project a firm completion/implementation date for any of them, especially because all of them except Yolo County have made it a priority to address the impacts regulated by all three relevant 3 SACOG, Floodplains and Levee Improvements Update, June 5, Floodplain.pdf. 4 SACOG, Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Communities Conservation Plans Development, June 5, Habitat.pdf. Page 2 of 6

16 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast January 26, 2015 federal agencies (Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency). While this comprehensive coverage is essential in order to truly achieve the clarity and certainty both development and environmental interests are seeking, it is a feat that has never been accomplished in prior plans. An HCP is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service instrument to help implement the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency have responsibilities under the U.S. Clean Water Act that must be addressed as well. All three federal agencies believe that in Placer and Sacramento Counties, absent an HCP with this type of expanded coverage, there is a substantial chance that limited available resource lands for protection and mitigation will make it impossible for all of the developments being planned in those areas to occur. Some of them suggest that even with such an HCP, it may not be possible to provide for all of the planned development. Regardless of how many projects are ultimately covered, the specific costs and regulatory streamlining that the HCPs will provide for any development project are not yet clear. On balance, the input SACOG received from the three federal agencies is that the Placer County Conservation Plan at this moment appears to be on a somewhat faster track to completion than the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. The large majority of new greenfield growth projected for the region is affected by these two plans. Nearly all developments affected by these plans are also pursuing individual federal permits, as an insurance policy in case the HCP efforts stall or are terminated. But the mitigation requirements for individual permits are typically higher than for projects covered by an adopted HCP and, due to labor shortages, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently focusing its staff time on the HCPs rather than processing individual permits. A final big trend in the greenfield sector this plan cycle is the very large oversupply of housing and employment capacity in Developing Communities that are already entitled or very far along in the entitlement process. 5 There are sites for about three new homes being planned for every one home of market demand through 2036 and sites for seven new employees for every projected new employee that the economy is likely to produce. Some have argued that this oversupply is good and necessary because, for a variety of reasons, not all of the projects will be built, and the market needs some flexibility to operate efficiently. Both the current plan and the Discussion Draft, in fact, provide slightly more than twice the capacity for growth within included Developing Communities as the projected amount to be actually built by 2035 or 2036, providing for a very substantial amount of extra capacity and market flexibility. Southwest Placer county, especially in and around the city of Roseville, is projected to be a particularly strong performer in the Developing Community sector, and is projected in the Discussion Draft to see somewhat higher amounts of growth than in the current plan. 5 SACOG, Inventory of Adopted and Proposed Land Use Plans, April 3, Inventory.pdf. Page 3 of 6

17 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast January 26, 2015 Product Types Development conditions have been so unusual over the last few years that it is very difficult, and maybe dangerous, to interpret any empirical evidence as setting a trendline in one direction or another for anything. With that important qualifier, here are a few observations: 1. Traditional single family homes continue to have a fairly high market share in a very depressed homebuilding market. 2. Small lot and attached homes are being built, but mainly in the areas of the region with the highest property values in infill areas. 3. There has been a significant rise in demand for, and construction of, rental multi family projects. The evidence indicates that construction is not nearly as great as the current market demand, with rising rents and very low vacancy rates being the clearest proof of this. The depth of the long term market demand for rental products is a matter of debate throughout the country, but there seems little doubt that it will be greater than we have seen in this region in the past. There may be uncertainty about how long millenials current overwhelming pattern of renting instead of buying will last, and whether the future will bring better or worse conditions for home mortgages, but it seems very clear that to meet market demand, this region is going to have to be able to build a significantly greater amount of rental housing than it has in the past. 6 The abundance of development capacity in the entitled and planned Developing Communities creates a special challenge for predicting the most likely development pattern to be built by We have found virtually no disagreement with the regional growth forecast that SACOG is using for this plan update. But few, if any, of the development teams or local government staff we interviewed are conducting market studies that estimate what portion of the regional or subregional market an individual development is likely to realize in the next few decades. As people review the details of this Discussion Draft, we strongly encourage you to keep in mind this basic dynamic of the large difference between projected regional market demand for housing and jobs and the sum of housing and employment capacity in these Developing Community plans. Employment Sectors As the regional economy recovers from the recession, much of the employment growth will refill existing vacant buildings and sites where there is and will continue to be significant capacity to absorb new employment. In the near term the recovery among the commercial markets (industrial, office and retail) is varied, with some sectors seeing less vacancy than others. Heavy industrial and light industrial sites are doing very well and light industrial is doing the best in terms of low vacancy rates and high demand. Industry experts expect these spaces to continue to do well in the region. On the other hand, research and development flex sites have high vacancy rates given the large amounts of vacant 6 SACOG, Trends in Demographics and Demand, August 28, Page 4 of 6

18 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast January 26, 2015 suburban office space that is available and competing with these sites. The office sector in general has a high vacancy rate, meaning that in the near term there will likely be very little new construction until these vacancy rates significantly decrease. The size of offices demanded by business is also changing. Except for large employers (e.g., the health care industry), few office users need or want 100,000 square feet or larger buildings. Most of the office demand is for 50,000 to 100,000 square feet. As employers try to attract millennial workers, there is evidence that some are moving from suburban to urban locations where many of these workers prefer to live and work. In the retail sector, businesses are continuing to locate in existing vacant retail buildings built in the last several years. Some new retail buildings are being constructed but it is questionable how much more of the traditional retail format is needed. Although there is a large supply of existing and planned employment capacity in the region, predicting the most likely development pattern is somewhat less challenging than predicting the residential development pattern because employment tends to agglomerate in existing employment centers, and employment projects tend to build in much smaller increments than the large master planned residential communities. The largest of these centers are Downtown Sacramento, Rancho Cordova and Roseville and the latter two are faster growing. Several secondary (smaller) job centers and aspiring job centers are located throughout the region. The majority of the job growth projected occurs in all three of these employment centers, and among them the growth rate varies depending on how strong the current and historic job market has been in each center. Some aspiring centers, located in historically housing rich areas of the region, are forecast to see some uptick in their job growth compared to the current plan, although the changes are modest compared to the vision in their plans. Future plans may forecast greater amounts of employment growth in these aspiring centers if market performance warrants. DISCUSSION DRAFT PLAN SCENARIO PERFORMANCE ON REGULATED AIR EMISSIONS SACOG is required to meet Federal Clean Air Act standards as a condition of receiving transportation funding from the Federal Government and must also meet performance targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light duty trucks set by the California Air Resources Board, if feasible. 7 Initial computer modeling indicates that, like the adopted plan, this Discussion Draft has challenges meeting the state s greenhouse gas emission targets for the Sacramento region in The current plan barely meets that standard and the Discussion Draft does not quite meet the standard. SACOG staff are continuing to look for ways to improve performance enough to meet the target and are hopeful we will have that problem solved before asking the Board to take action in April The modeling to establish Federal Clean Air Act compliance is much more complex and will not be completed until later in the spring. Total regional air emissions of all types correlate very closely with basic building blocks of the land use pattern, including the percentage of total growth projected in the infill areas (Centers/Corridors and Established Communities) compared to the sum of growth in Developing Communities and Rural Residential areas; the amount of housing growth in the sum of 7 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Regional Air Quality Planning Update, August 28, Page 5 of 6

19 Overview of Discussion Draft Land Use Forecast January 26, 2015 small lot single family and attached products versus large lot single family; and the balance of jobs and homes around the major employment centers in the region. See chart below. Discussion Draft Preferred Scenario: Distribution of and among Community Types in 2012 in 2012 New ( ) New ( in 2036 in 2036 Community Type Center and Corridor Communities 34% 12% 34% 30% 34% 16% Established Communities 60% 76% 50% 27% 57% 64% Developing Communities 2% 4% 14% 40% 6% 12% Rural Residential Communities 4% 9% 1% 2% 3% 7% Page 6 of 6