Transcript Draft Policies for the Bay Area’s Implementation of SB 375 ACT February 24, 2009 Ted Droettboom ABAG/BAAQMD/BCDC/MTC Joint Policy Committee.

Draft Policies
for the
Bay Area’s Implementation
of SB 375
ACT
February 24, 2009
Ted Droettboom
ABAG/BAAQMD/BCDC/MTC
Joint Policy Committee
Outline
1.
2.
3.
Premise: How transportation and land
use affect climate change.
Progress: How the Bay Area’s plans
respond.
Prescriptions and Policies: How SB
375 changes the rules and how we
propose to put it all together for the Bay
Area.
Premise:


Big Footprint/Big Impact
Bay Area’s impact on
the globe:
 Per capita carbon footprint
3 times the world average
Impact on Bay Area:
 Rising sea levels
 More hot, smoggy days
 Vanishing Sierra snow pack;
water shortages
 More wild fires with
particulate-matter pollution
CO2 Per Capita
Bay Area
World
0
2
4
6
Metric Tons/Year
8
10
12
Premise:
Transportation is Critical
Green House Gases Compared
World
Bay Area
Transportation: 14%
Transportation: 41%
Sources: USEIA, BAAQMD
Emission Standards
Necessary but Not Sufficient
Premise:
160
150
140
Baseline VMT
1990=100
130
Baseline CO2
120
CO2 Pavley
110
C02 State 2020
Goal
100
90
80
1990
2000
2010
Year
2020
Premise:
Location Matters
Commute Gas Consumption
30
Gallons/Week
25
1 gallon = 20 lbs. of CO2
20
15
10
5
0
Tracy to Palo Alto
in SUV
Tracy to Palo Alto
in Hybrid
Palo Alto to Palo
Alto in SUV
Don Weden
Premise:
Growing Cooler:
Location Matters
Compared to sprawl,
compact development
results in a 20 to 40
percent reduction in
VMT and hence in
CO2
Premise:
Location Matters
Micro Climates
Bay Area Temperature
Gradient: As much as a
degree per mile
Performance-based
Regional Transportation Plan
Progress:
100
Prior Trend*
95
Tons per day of CO2 (x1000)
* Low fuel economy
90
85
80
Trend**
** High fuel economy
75
Transportation 2035
70
65
Add Pricing and
Land Use
60
55
50
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2035 Objective
Target: Reduce CO2 40% below 1990 levels by 2035
Progress:
Alternative Growth
Patterns
Progress:
Alternative Growth
Patterns
Progress:
5
Alternative Growth
Patterns
0
Tons per Day
-5
Scattered Success
Focused Future
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
Change in CO2
Target
Progress:
FOCUS PDAs





Nearly 60 jurisdictions
Over 100 areas
About 400,000 new
housing units by 2035
About 3% of region’s
land area
About 50% of
projected regional
growth
Priority Development Area
Criteria:
•In existing community
•Near transit
•Planning more housing
•>100 acres
Prescription:
SB 375
Prescription:






SB 375 Basics
CO2 Targets
Models
Sustainable Communities Strategy
Alternative Planning Strategy
RHNA Integration
CEQA Assistance
Prescription:





CO2 Targets for the
Region
For 2020 and 2035
For cars and light trucks only
Adopted by CARB by September 30, 2010
CARB must consider methodology
recommended by broad-based advisory
committee (RTAC)
Regions may recommend targets
Policy:



CO2 Targets for the Region
Participate fully in target-setting process
Seek targets that do not limit and do
challenge
Seek unambiguous and accurate metrics
to assess target achievement (e.g., VMT)
Prescription:

New state guidelines will require that models account
for:






Models
The relationship among land-use density, automobile ownership,
and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
The impact of enhanced transit service on vehicle ownership and
VMT
Induced travel and development likely to result from highway
and rail expansion
Mode splits among automobile, transit, carpool, bicycle and
pedestrian trips
Speed and frequency, days, and hours of operation of transit
service
Models required to be usable and understandable by the
public
Policy:

Models
Work together to construct integrated and
transparent models which facilitate
technical, decision-maker and public
understanding of how land-use and
transportation decisions can be
coordinated to reduce CO2
Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS)
Prescription:






Forecast development pattern, accommodating all
regional housing demand
Integrated with transportation network and
transportation policies and measures
To achieve, to the extent practicable, CO2 targets
While also complying with federal requirements for
RTPs (i.e., realistically attainable)
Part of (2013) Regional Transportation Plan (which
must be internally consistent)
Not binding on local government land-use
authority
Alternative Planning
Strategy (APS)
Prescription:





Prepared if SCS is unable to meet targets
Like SCS, but unconstrained by Federal realism
requirement
Not part of the Regional Transportation Plan
Like SCS, must be reviewed by CARB, which
certifies whether targets have been met or not
Two purposes:


Provides access to CEQA assistance
Provides feedback to State on requirements for
additional authorities and measures
Policy:



SCS/APS
Achieve targets through the SCS
Use APS only as a last resort
Assist SCS target achievement by:







Partnering broadly
Directing TLC to PDAs no later than FY 2010-11
Programming funds jointly
Prioritizing new funds for SCS achievement
Advocating for state incentives
Seeking reasonable realism tests
Advocating for pricing and related transportation
authorities
Prescription:




RHNA Integration
8-year RHNA/Housing Element cycle, coterminous
with every second Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP)
RHNA must be consistent with SCS
Housing elements must be adopted 18 months
after adoption of the RTP
Zoning to implement housing element (including
minimum densities and development standards)
must be in place within three years of adoption of
housing element
Policy:




RHNA Integration
Develop SCS, RTP and RHNA together
through a single and integrated crossagency work program
Report first to the JPC and then to
responsible boards and commissions
Form JPC subcommittees with expanded
membership to facilitate broad vetting
Reference interdependencies in all
documents
Prescription:

Streamlining SCS- or APS-consistent residential or
mixed-use projects



CEQA Assistance
Not required to deal with growth-inducing impacts,
global warming impacts, or regional transportation
impacts if incorporate mitigation from previous
environmental review
Do not have to propose a lower-density alternative to
deal with local traffic impacts
Exempting Transit Priority Projects, subject to a
number of conditions
Prescription:
CEQA Assistance
Conditions for TPP Exemption:
Be consistent with the general use designations, density, building intensity, and other policies of the adopted and approved
SCS or APS, be at least 50 percent residential and, if the project contains between 26 and 50 percent non-residential use, have
an FAR of at least 0.75; provide a minimum net residential density of at least 20 units an acre; and be within ½ mile of a
major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor (15-minutepeak-period headways).
A TPP will be totally exempt from CEQA if:
• It is no larger than 8 acres and not more than 200 units;
• It can be served by existing utilities and has paid all applicable in-lieu and development
fees;
• It does not have a significant effect on historical or environmental resources (e.g. natural
habitat);
• It has remediated any environmental hazards to applicable standards and is not subject to
significant and defined catastrophic risks;
• It is not located on developed open space;
• Its buildings are 15 percent more energy efficient than required by California law and it is
designed to achieve 25 percent less water usage than the average household use in the
region;
• It does not result in the net loss of affordable housing units in the area;
• It does not include any single-story building that exceeds 75,000 square feet;
• It incorporates mitigation measures from previous environmental impact reports;
• It does not conflict with nearby industrial uses.
AND if it meets at least one of following three requirements:
1. At least 20 percent of the housing units will be sold to families of moderate income, or
not less than 10 percent of the housing will be rented to families of low income, or not
less than 5 percent of the housing will be rented to families of very low income AND the
developer commits to the continued availability of the non-market units (55 years for
rental units, 30 years for ownership units); OR
2. The developer pays in-lieu fees equivalent to costs of meeting the first requirement; OR
3. The project provides public open space equal to or greater than five acres per 1,000
Policy:

CEQA Assistance
Develop a functional design for SCS,
APS and associated EIR(s) to
maximize appropriate and responsible
CEQA relief
Policy:


Regional and Interregional
Alignment
Vet all regional-agency policies affecting
the location and intensity of development
or the location and capacity of
transportation infrastructure through the
JPC
Consult with neighboring regions to
facilitate consistency of assumptions and
policies
Our Challenge
To achieve actual CO2
reductions, not just forecast
results and paper plans
The Job Location Challenge
Transit's Share of Commute Trips
60%
51%
50%
36%
40%
30%
20%
10%
9.7%
0%
Total Region
To San Francisco
CBD
Alameda County to
San Francisco
The Job Location Challenge
Transit Mode Share by Home/Work Location
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
More than 1/2 Mile, Less than 1/2 Mile,
Live Close to
Home OR Work
Home AND Work Transit and Work in
San Francisco
The Job Location Challenge
Suburb to
Central City
19%
Major Metropolitan Commuter Flows
Within Central
City
27%
Suburb to
Suburb
46%
Central City to
Suburb
8%
More Information
The Joint Policy Committee
www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy