sb375 update - background for ptc mtg -- 1-12-11

8/8/2019 SB375 Update - Background for PTC Mtg -- 1-12-11

1/38


2/38


3/38

BACKGROUND:

Senate Bill 375 (SB375) was enacted in 2008 and is considered landmark legislation forCalifornia relative to land use, transportation and environmental planning. SB375 is intended tohelp to implement AB32 (Global Warming Solutions Act), approved in 2006 and requiringactions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80% below 2005levels by 2050. While much of AB32 focuses on emissions from stationary sources (industrialfacilities) or diesel trucks, SB375 is focused on emissions from automobiles and light trucks andthe reduction in vehicle-miles traveled due to more compact land use patterns and potential modeshifts. A summary of the impacts ofSB375 has been prepared by the Urban Land Institllte (ULI)and is included as Attachment E.

The legislation calls for the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in allmetropolitan regions in California. Within the Bay Area, the law assigns joint responsibility forthe SCS to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association o f BayArea Governments (ABAG). These agencies will coordinate with the Bay Area Air QlIalityManagement District (Air District) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC).

The SCS integrates several existing planning processes and IS reqllired to accomplish thefollowing objectives:

I. Provide a new 25-year land use strategy for the Bay Area that is realistic and identifiesareas to accommodate all of the region's population, including all income groups;

2. Forecast a land use pattern, which when integrated with the transportation system,reduces greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks and is measuredagainst the regional target established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), in response to the mandates o f SB375, has settarget GHG emissions from light trucks and passenger vehicles for each of the region's subject tothe provisions o f SB375. For the ABAG area, the CARB set targets for a 7% reduction inemissions by 2020 and a 15% reduction in emissions by 2035.

The SCS is also required to be included as part of the Bay Area's 25-year RegionalTransportation Plan (RTP). By federal law, the RTP must be internally consistent and, therefore,the $200+ billion dollars of transportation investments typically included in the RTP must alignwith and support the SCS land-use pattern. SB375 also requires that an updated eight-yearregional housing needs allocation (RHNA) prepared by ABAG is consistent with the SCS. TheSCS, RTP and RHNA will be adopted simultaneously in early 2013.

The Council and Planning and Transportation Commission have each conducted study sessionsin the past year to better understand the background of SB375, and staffs Comprehensive PlanSpeaker Series included a presentation by ABAG representatives regarding the legislation. Inaddition, four Councilmembers and the City Manager and Planning Director attended a meetingsponsored by the Santa Clara County Cities Association, also involving an ABAG overview o fthe objectives and process for developing the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

CMR: 110:11 Page 2 of 9


4/38

DISCUSSION:

The goal of the SCS is not only is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to build a Bay Areathat continues to thrive and prosper under the changing cireumstanees of the twenty-first century.By directly confronting the challenges associated with population growth, climate change, a neweconomic reality and an increasing public-health imperative, the SCS is intended to support a

Bay Area that is both more livable and more economically competitive on the world stage. Asuccessful SCS will:

Recognize and support compact, walkable places where residents and workers haveaccess to services and amenities to meet their day-to-day needs;

Reduce long commutes and decrease reliance on fossil fuels, increasing energyindependence and decreasing the region's carbon consumption;

Support complete communities that remain livable and aflbrdable for all segments of thepopulation, maintaining the Bay Area as an attractive plaee to reside, start or continue abusiness, and create jobs;

Support a sustainable transportation system and reduce the need for expensive highwayand transit expansions, freeing up resources for other more productive publicinvestments;

Provide increased accessibility and affordability to the most vulnerable populations;

Conserve water; and

Decrease our dependence on imported food stocks and their high transport costs.

In recognition of the importance of these other goals, ABAG and MTC will adopt perfonnancetargets and indicators that will help infonn decisions about land usc patterns and transportationinvestments. These targets and indicators will apply to the SCS and the RTP and will not weighas heavily as greenhouse gas reduction, but will provide additional criteria for use in comparingthe alternative SCS scenarios. The targets are scheduled for adoption by the Joint PolicyCommittee (ABAG, MTC) in early 2011 and the indicators will be adopted in the spring of2011.

Planned Development Areas (PDAs)In many respects the SCS builds upon existing efforts in Bay Area communities to encouragemore focused and compact growth while recognizing the unique characteristics and differencesof the region's many varied communities. FOCUS Priority Development Areas (PDAs) arelocally-identified and regionally adopted infill development opportunity areas near transit. TheCity of Palo Alto has identified a PDA for the California Avenue/Park Blvd.lFry's area aroundthe California Avenue Caltrain station. The PDAs provide a foundation upon which to structurethe region's Sustainable Communities Strategy. PDAs encompass only three percent (3%) of theregion's land area whereas, based upon existing plans, resources, and incentives, the PDAs cancollectively accommodate over fifty percent (50%) of the Bay Area's housing need through2035.

PDAs have been supported by planning grants, capital funding and technical assistance grantsfrom MTC. The current RTP allocates an average of$60 million a year to PDA incentivc-relatedfunding. Future RTPs, consistent with the SCS, will be structured to provide policies and funding

CMR: 110:11 Page 3 of 9


5/38

that is supportive of PDAs and potentially other opportunity areas for sustainable development inthe region.

In Palo Alto, the California Avenue Area PDA is coterminous with the City's ongoing ConceptArea Plan for that area. City staff has provided input to ABA G regarding both the existingdevelopment levels and the potential for growth in housing and employment. The PDA analysisidentifies "place types" for different land uses and densities, and the "Transit Neighborhood"place type has been tentatively designated for the California Avenue Area PDA. This planenvisions a broad range of development possibilities, with up to 20-50 units per acre ofresidential and floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of up to 2.0. These are estimates based on existingPedestrian-Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning for the area. If the ongoing planningfor the area results in increased intensity levels, staff will forward that information to ABAG.

In addition to the City'S PDA for the California Avenue Area, VT A has designated all of the ElCamino Real corridor and the University Avenue station area as potential opportunities forfurther development ("potential PDAs"). Staff has identified the El Camino Corridor as a "MixedUse Corridor" place type and the University Avenue transit area as a "Transit Town Center" forinitial forecasting. Staff has notified ABAG that the City does not consider the San AntonioAvenue transit station to result in a place type with increased development in Palo Alto.Attachment D depicts the concept of "pI ace types" used in the fornmlation of the SCS.

Partnership with Local JurisdictionsTo be successful, the SCS will require a partnership among regional agencies, local jurisdictions,Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), transit agencies, and other regional stakeholders.MTC and ABAG are engaged in an exchange of information with County-Corridors WorkingGroups throughout the Bay Area. These Groups are organized by county, by sub-regions withincounties, and by corridors that span counties. They typically include city and county planningdirectors, CMA staff, and representatives of other key agencies such as transit agencies andpublic health departments. Working Group members are responsible for providing updates andinformation to their locally elected policymakers through regular reports like this one andeventually through recommended councilor board resolutions that acknowledge and respond tothe implications of the SCS for each jurisdiction.

Each county has established an SCS engagement strategy and the composition of aCounty/Corridor Working Group according to its needs and ongoing planning structure. The Cityof Palo Alto Planning Director is working with the Santa Clara County Association of PlanningOfficials (SCCAPO), primarily composed of planning directors from each city and from SantaClara County, to address these issues. Other City staff members are involved in working groupsof planners and transportation officials coordinated by and supported technically by the ValleyTransportation Authority (VTA). The City/County Managers Association and the Santa ClaraCounty Cities Association are also active in reviewing key policy actions related to the SCS. Inaddition to the County-Corridor Working Groups, a Regional Advisory Working Group(RA WG), composed of local government representatives and key stakeholders throughout theregion, provides technical oversight at the regional level. The Planning Director is a participantin those meetings on a monthly basis.

CMR: 110:11 Page 4 of 9


6/38

Development of SCS ScenariosThe SCS will be the product of an iterative process that includes a sequence of growth andsupportive transportation scenarios. An Initial Vision Scenario will be presented in February20 II, followed by more detailed SCS scenarios that refine the Initial Vision Scenario (Springand Fall 2011), with a final draft for review in early 2012. The draft project timeline is outlined

in more detail in the "Next Steps" section below and a draft scheduleof

2011 milestones andopportunities for City input is provided as Attachment A.

Initial Vision ScenarioABAG and MTC will release an Initial Vision Scenario in February 201 1, based in large part oninput from local jurisdictions through the county/corridor engagement process and informationcollected through December 2010. The Vision Scenario will encompass an initial identificationof places (place types), policies and strategies for long-term, sustainable development in the BayArea. Local governments will identify places with potential for sustainable development,including PDAs, transit corridors, and employment areas, as well as infill opportunity areas thatlack transit services but offer opportunities for increased walkability and reduced driving.

The Initial Vision Scenario will: Incorporate the 25-year regional housing need encompassed in the SCS; Provide a preliminary set of housing and employment growth numbers at regional, county,

jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels; Be evaluated against the greenhouse gas reduction target as well as the additional

performance targets adopted for the SCS.

For Palo Alto, the place types factored into the Vision Scenario will include the CaliforniaAvenue Area PDA and the El Camino Real corridor and University Avenue transit area, asoutlined previously. The intent of this initial Vision Scenario is to show a development pattern"unconstrained" by public service limitations, fiscal, transportation, or other infrastructure.

Detailed ScenariosBy the early spring of2011, local governments and regional agencies will evaluate the feasibilityof achieving the Initial Vision Scenario and will produce a series of Detailed Scenarios forreview. The Detailed Scenarios will take into account constraints that might limit developmentpotential, and will identify the infrastructure and resources that can be identified and/or securedto support the scenario. MTC and ABAG expect to release a first round of Detailed Scenarios byJuly 2011, following multiple discussions and workshops in response to the Initial VisionScenario. The County/Corridor Working Groups as well as the RA WG will facilitate local inputinto the scenarios, with the release of a Preferred Scenario by the end of 20 I I . The analysis ofthe Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario will evaluate benefits of the land use alternativesin reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle-miles traveled, and will also consider thePerfonnance Targets and Indicators as additional criteria.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)As described above, the eight-year RHNA must be consistent with the SCS. Planning foraffordable housing in the Bay Area is one of the essential tasks of sustainable development. Inthe SCS, this task becomes integrated with the regional land use strategy, the development of

CMR: 110:11 Page 5 of9


7/38


8/38

scope and strategies for an EIR that could provide the most effective support for localgovernments.

Additional Regional TasksMTC, ABAG and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are coordinating the impacts of

CEQA thresholds and guidelines recently approved by the Air District. The Air Districtis

currently developing tools and mitigation measures related to the CEQA thresholds andguidelines to assist with development projects in PDAs. The four regional agencies will becoordinating other key regional planning issues including any adopted climate adaptation-relatedpolicy recommendations or best practices suggested by BCDC,

Palo Alto Role in Developing an d Implementing the Sustainable Communities StrategyThe City staff, Planning and Transportation Commission, and Council will be asked to respondto several key questions over the coming year and beyond, such as (but not limited to):

I. How much housing and employment should/can the City accommodate to provide ameaningful contribution to smart growth and sustainable development mandates of the

Bay Area and balance new growth opportunities with the existing characterof

the Cityof

Palo Alto?2. Where does the City desire/expect to accommodate new housing and employment within

the next 25 years?3. What are the key local sustainable development issues/strategies that might be advanced

through the SCS (e.g., type (clean tech) and extent of employment growth, affordablehousing, enhanced commercial revenues, etc.)?

4. What are the primary constraints to providing for sustainable development opportunitiesin Palo Alto (e.g., enhanced school facilities, open space, transportation and transitinfrastructure, etc.)'1 What key investments would be needed?

5. How should Councilmembers, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and staff

participate in this process?

The SCS provides an opportunity for the City of Palo Alto to advance local goals as part of acoordinated regional framework. The SCS may help comlect local concerns-such as newhousing, jobs, and traffic-to regional objectives and resources. As such, it may serve as aplatform for cities and counties to discuss and address a wide spectrum of challenges, includinghigh housing costs, economic development, affordable and accessible transportation, and publichealth, and identify local, regional, and state policies to address them. The bottom line is that theSCS is likely to reward those cities whose decisions advance not only local goals but also benefitquality of life beyond their borders-whether to create more affordable housing, new jobs, orreduce driving.

TIME LINE AND NEXT STEPS:The Next Steps below outline and as shown in Attachment A outline the City of Palo Alto'sexpected timeline for key participation and response in the coming year (2011). The CityCouncil, Planning and Transportation Commission, staff, and the Palo Alto community will beactively engaged at several points in the SCS and RHNA process over the coming year:

CMR: 110:11 Page 7 of9


9/38

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) OctoberlNovember 2010; Staff input to Planned Development Areas (PDAs) and other

"opportunity" areas. February 20 11: Release of the Initial Vision Scenario.

March/April201l: Local agency feedbackto

the Initial Vision Scenario. April-August 2011: Release of Detailed SCS Scenarios and local agency input.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) January 2011: Appointment ofRHNA Methodology Committee. March 2011: Determination whether to participate in subregional housing methodology

effort. February-August 20 II : Participation and review of housing methodology (ABAG and/or

subregional), including local agency input.

Input to the Initial and Detailed Vision scenarios will encompass multiple reviews by staff, the

Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and City Council, and the community at largethrough the hearing process. Response to the proposed RHNA methodology will also requireinput by staff, the PTC, and Council. III addition, there will be multiple workshops planned at asubregional (countywide) level to review and provide comments on the Vision Scenarios andRHNA methodology during that timcframe. Staff will post and distribute those meeting datesand times as soon as they become available.

DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~ W ~ ' - - - - " - - -CURTIS WILLIAMS

Director of Planning and Community Environment

CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:

City' - - ' -

ATTACHMENTS:

AttachmentA:

Draft Schedule of City Inputfor

Sustainable Community Strategies and RegionalHousing Needs Allocation ProcessAttachment B: January 9,2008 Letter to ABAG Objecting to 2007-2014 RHNA for Palo AltoAttachment C: Letter from ABAG Outlining Process for Subregional RHNA DeterminationsAttachment D: Place Type Description Charls (ABAGJMTC)Attachment E: "SB375: Impact Analysis RepOlt," prepared by Urban Land Institute, June 2010

CMR: 110:11 Page 8 of 9


10/38

COURTESY COPIES:

Planning and Transportation CommissionEzra Rapport, Executive Director, Association of Bay Area GovernmentsKen Kirkey, Director of Planning, Association o f Bay Area Governments

CMR: IIQ:II Page 9 o f9


11/38

YEA"

SCS Tlmorno and Oly of PaloMo CPA) Key e ~ e m f ) ' l lPOints

RHNA Tme lne loci Cily 01 PalOAMo(CPA) Key EogaoemontPoitlIS

Sustainable Communities Strategy Planning Process: City of Palo Alto Input (2011)

2010

, ...............' ~

C PA Input Q(I PCA:and other :

' O p p o o 1 u n ~ y "areas:fOllnllJa/ VisJon :

Samaria .J

......................

2011'

January February

MT fA AGRelea e Inl31

"". , , ~ " "L J

( .................... ~: CPA CounCi and :

. Sial! loodback (l(I :ni/aJ ViSionScenario

.......................

............... .....: CPA to ( I ed ( Ie

. AppcWlm6l1 o f : Sian ,Reglooal partidpalion In;RHNA MethodoloOv: H o u ~ n gNaed :su breglooal housltl!i: Convnille6 i Al iOca hOO process : methodoloQy effort

~..,.... ........... ... . .................)

1...... 1

MAG AssOCiaton CPA City 01 Palo01 Bay Area AIOGoYorments

Docume.nt1nfom< U00 Reease

HCD StateHoush\') &Communty DeY!.

r....

.

.

~ CPA Coord aM ;: Sial! feeotJ.a ck on :

! o . ~ , ~ : , ~ ~ " "i........ ...... ..........

{ ..... ...............~

: CPA eVieW aO( ~: particip


12/38

January 9, 2008

ABAG Executive Boardc/o Henry Gardner, Secretary - TreasurerAssociation of Bay Area GoverrunentsP.O. Box 2050Oakland, CA 94604-2050

Dear Mr. Gardner:

ATTACHMENT B

G!tx O ~P a l o ~ t ~Department of Planning andCommunity Environment

The City of Palo Alto thank s you for providing us with the opportunity to review and commenton the revised Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which was adopted by theABAG Executive Board on November 15,2007 . ..

The City acknowledges ABAG's modificationio Palo Alto's RHNA to address the City 's Sphereof Influence circumstance with the County ,of Sant a 'Clara and Stanford U l l i v ~ r s i t y .,H o w e v e r ,our City Council , the Planning and Transportation Comm.ission and slaffhave alldeteimined thatthe RHNA of 2,860, even after the reduct ion of 645 units, is completely una chievable in PaloAlto given the lack of available land, the high cos t of land acquisition, and the impacts of that .amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods and infrastructure. Setting these requirementsthat cannot be achieved threatens the credibility and viability of important public institutions andbecomes simply an exercisdnfutility. .

Palo Alto has an extensiveand long history ofleading and implemen(i)lg affordable housing inan area highly impacted by tltehigh cost of housing. We I'o,'i'f .the first to implement

inclusionary zoning in this region and Palo. Alto Housing C o r p o r ~ t ! . 9 ~ was established back in1970 as a non-profit affordable hou sing provider. Although the .Cityof Palo Alto has adoptedzo ning and programs supporting core concepts behind the allocation method such as smartgrowth, infill developmen't, protection of open space and r u r a k w e~ s, i ~ l : r i c t in g urban sprawl,and transit oriented development, there should be a rea sonable exp ei:ialioJio [ success in meetinggoals when assigning allocations to cities. . ... ,.. .

'; ' ,' .

Factors such as essential infhlstruchire ne.eds and serv ice r e q i i i t ~ i , l i e n l s ~ l s d: i ) : e ~ to be tak en intoconsideration. Many comp ,qnents of the City's i n f r a s t r u c t u r , ; ~ ' a i i ~ ad y a tt a ; p a ci t y and anothercritical factor is the capacity limitation s of the Palo Alto UnitiedS chpol Dis(rict. The cutrentschool population has already pushed the present facilities bey6nd capacity so that everyelementary school now has muli iple portabl es. Stlldents from an additftmal 2,860 .housing unit ssimply cannot be accommodated with The eiiistiQg ' fac:ilitie s "and budget. . Given that the s" hoo\district is at capacity, and there is n ( ) a ~ a i l a b l ~ funding ' toaccommOdateihe increa sed ' stUdentpopulation from the allocation, these r equ irements Wouldampun t to an unfundedtnandate fPrPalo Alto. ' .Planning250 Hamilton Ave nueP.O. Box 10250Palo Alt o, CA 94303650.329 .2441650 .329.2 154

Transportation250 Hamilt on AvenueP.O. Box 10250Palo Alto, CA 94303650.329.2520650.617.3108

BUilding285 Hamilton AvenueP.O . Box 10250Palo Alto, CA 94303650.329.2496650.329.2240


13/38

Mr. Henry GardnerPage 2 o f4January 9, 2008

As staff has indicated previously in transmittals to ABAG, the population and household growthprojections for Palo Alto will not be realized and should be adjusted to reflect a populationgrowth rate of approximately 3.0 % over the next RHNA period within our jurisdictionalbOlmdary. ABAG's Projections 2007 assumes a population growth rate of approximately 7%during the next 7 years in our jurisdictional boundary. Historically, the City of Palo Alto'spopulation has grown only by approximately 4.7% over the last thirty years. We understand thatthe methodology uses Sphere of Influence population projections but we believe that thepopulation trend within our Sphere of Influence is proportional to the historic jurisdictionalboundary population trends. Although the City has experienced a growth rate of approximately8% during the last seven years, this has been a period when Palo Alto has constructed significantnew housing development well in excess of historic averages and that rate cannot be sustainedgiven Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. Therefore, it' s verylikely that the, City'S population growth will remain far below ABAG's projections since it willbe very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development it has experienced in the lastseven years.

During the last RHNA period, the City's popUlation growth was largely attributable to a singledevelopment of approximately 1,000 units on the City's only remaining vacant large residentialsite. This City's housing growth occurred during a temporary period of substantial decline in themarket for commercial development and increasing demand for housing. Taking this anomalyand extrapolating this into the future is not appropriate. By using its own overestimatedProjections 2007 population numbers, the RHNA methodology compounds this error byassigning a 45% weight to the population projections that ABAG itse lf created. This logic

appears circular in that the driver behind this growth appears to be the mandate from ABAG.

Additionally, the City should receive credit in this RHNA cycle for the 1,036 units that werebuilt during that last RHNA period that exceeded the City's assigned allocation. The Cityexceeded its above moderate allocation by 1,282 units and its low allocation by 14 units with adeficit of 51 units in the very low category and 208 in the moderate category. Palo Alto has alsoprotected and retained existing units that are more affordable and should receive further credit tooffset the City's RHNA requirements.

The City also continues to oppose the inclusion of an additional Transit Oriented Development(TOD) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assignhousing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD, in effect penalizingcities that have developed smart growth policies. Additional growth requirements for built outcities like Palo Alto should be predominantly TOD housing, not the core ABAG allocation plusTOD housing.

The emphasis of transit use in the methodology is illlrealistic at least for Palo Alto. Transit at theUniversity and California Avenue stations is used more efficiently by commuters and not


14/38

Mr. Henry GardnerPage 3 of 4January 9, 2008

so efficiently by residents; many more people take transit TO Palo Alto than FROM Palo Alto.A greater eoncentration of jobs in the vicinity of transit will promote mass transit in Palo Allomore effectively than the eoncentration of housing. Furthennore, Palo Alto has been assignedadditional units based on transit access from the San Antonio Avenue station. However, thisstation is located in and serves primarily Mountain View, not Palo Alto. Also, Caltrain onlyservices the San Antonio Cal train station once per hour during rush hours further reducing itsTOD effectiveness.

Palo Alto has promoted smart growth in its Comprehensive Plan policies and its Pedestrian andTransit Oriented Development (prOD) zoning all in the midst of VTA reducing bus services toPalo Alto neighborhoods and with little or no projected additional funding for transit to supportthe TOD aspects ofRHNA. However, Palo Alto's diligence and success in implementing smartgrowth policies appear to have led ABAG to assume that the City has no limit to furtherintensifying with infill development.

Given the RHNA mandate to provide housing for all income levels, it is impossible for the Cityto provide the 1,875 units assigned for below market rate income levels. Palo Alto prioritizedaffordable housing as one of the City's top five goals and built over 90 percent of the City's verylow and low income housing allocation for the last RHNA cycle. However, the current RHNAmethodology uses 2000 Census ineome distribution data for allocating housing based onaffordability, and does not reflect the City'S success in building affordable housing over the lastseven years. Instead, the current methodology allocated more affordable housing to Palo Altocompared to the region as a Whole.

Additionally, due to the extraordinary cost of land in Palo Alto, all very low and low incomerental housing that has been developed recently has required significant Cily subsidy. The coslof low and very low income projects in Palo Alto are averaging $400,000 to $500,000 per unit.Recently the City has had to subsidize approximately 50% of the project cost for most lowincome and very low income projects. . This is in large part due to the exorbitant land costs inPalo Alto which average $10 million an acre but have been as high as $16 million an acre. Inorder to develop the assigned 1,234 units of low and very low income housing under currentfunding conditions, the City would be expected to provide a subsidy of approximately $245 to$3!O million, which is clearly unrealistic and unattainable as the City stmggles to maintainrevenues adequate to support basic services to its residents and businesses. Given state subsidyrestrictions, and because of the high land cos Is in Palo Alto, moderate income units are achievedonly through the City's inciusionary zoning program, which requires 15 - 20% affordability. Asa result, approximately 70% of the ABAG allocation would need to be subsidized by Palo Alto.In order to provide the assigned 641 moderate income level units, the City would have todevelop 3,205 - 4,272 market rate units. The high cost to the City of providing this housing aswell as supporting services and facilities, schools, transit and parks, is an unfunded statemandate. There may also be insufficient water resources available to serve this additionalpopUlation. Until there is state


15/38

Mr. Henry GardnerPage 4 of 4January 9,2008

subsidy available for affordable units, identifying adequate sites to meet proposed RHNAhousing for lower income levels in communities like Palo Alto will be a paper exercise.

The City requests that you confirm that the job growth anticipated with the proposed StanfordShopping Center and Medical Facility expansions are included in ABAG's projections for theCity's job growth for the 2007 -20 14 period, and the City will not be assigned these jobs a secondtime in a future RHNA regardless of those projects' occupancy dates.

Finally, much discussion has occurred about thc impact of commute emissions on climatechange. Palo Alto has just concluded a comprehensive climate change impact analysis. Asignificant finding of that report is that 11 % of Palo Alto's C02 emissions are attributable to tripsinto Palo Alto. Consequently, the report indicates that even an additional 2,860 units withsimilar commuting characteristics would impact Palo Alto C02 emissions by less that 0.1 % or111 OOO'h Palo Alto's total C0 2

In closing, the City requests that ABAG revise Palo Alto's RHNA to reflect a 3% populationgrowth over the seven-year RHNA period, exclude the San Antonio station from our transitfactor, adjust the transit factor to eliminate any "double counting" and credit the City with the 1,036 units the City built in excess of our last RHNA assignment. The City also urges ABAG toconsider factors such as land costs and availability as well as community needs to provideadequate open space and essential services in developing a realistic RHNA. Given that there wasno representative from the 250,000 residents of North Santa Clara County on the HousingMethodology Committee, we were not adequately represented and, therefore, unique factors

prevalent in our area were not sufficiently considered in the ABAG allocations.I f

ABAG adoptsmore realistic and achievable RHNA allocation goals, this will enable cities to focus on actuallyproviding adequate housing for Ii diverse population, a goal strongly supported by the CityCouncil and the Palo Alto community.

The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our appeal of the assigned allocation.

Sincerely,

..---(~ . ~ '."..---J$e-.Larry KleinMayor

cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director


16/38

ATTACHMENT C

A S S O C I AT I O N OF BAY A R E A G O V E R N M E N T S~ ' - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -

Representmg Ci;:yand County Governmentsof :he San FranCIScoBay Area

October 12,2010 M E M O

To: Responsible Local Government Representative

From: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director

Re: 2014-22 Regioltlll Housing Need Allocatioll- Requiremellts to Form a Suhregion

The fifth Regional Housing Needs Detennination and Allocation (RHND and RHNA) process for the2014-2022 planning peliod is scheduled to begin in January 2011. 'The Regional Housing NeedsDetennination and Allocation are mandated by State housing element law (Government Code Section65588), which requires local governments in California to adopt a general plan for the physical

development of the city, city and county, or county, The housing element is One of the seven mandatedelements of the local general plan. Within the housing element, cities and counties are to demonstratehow the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the conununity can be met.Th e intent of the law is to allow the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, byrequiring local governments to adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunitiesfor, and do no! unduly constrain, bousing development.

A s in last RHNA cycle, in this upcoming RHNA period local govemments will have the opportunity tofonn "subregions". According to state law, at least two or more cities and a county, or counties, may fonna subregional entity for the purpose of allocating the subregion'S existing and projected housiug need forhousing among its members. A subregion may include a single county and each of he cities in thatcounty or any other combination of geographically contiguous local govemments. All subregions need to

be approved by the adoption of a resolution by each of the local governments in the subregion as well asby the council of governments.

Local governments choosing to Conn subregions will be responsible for devising the Regional HousingNeeds Allocation methodology, which will be used to allocate the 2 0 1 4 ~ 2 0 2 2RENA to its members.ABAG will assign a subregional share ofthe Ba y Area 's total Regional Housing Need Detennination tothe subregion. The total Regional Need Determination is detcl1nined by the State Department of Housingan d Community Development. The subregion's share of the total RHND is to be consistent with thedistribution of households assumed for the comparable time period within the Regional TransportationPlan.

Each subregion would also be reqUired to undertake the revision, appeal and fInal allocation process. The

final subregional allocation would be submitted to ABAG for approval by the HCD, In the event thesubregion fails to make the allocation or can not complete the allocation process within the statemandated deadlines, ABAG will be required to allocate the subregion's share of housing to thejurisdictions within the subregion, according to the regionally adopted method.

If there is interest in your community to form a subregion with your neighboringjurisdiction(s) pleasenote the schedule below. Th e deadline for forming a subregion is March 16, 2011. All members of theproposed subregion wJ!] have to have resolution's confil1ning their participation I n the subregion by thisdate.

- - - -..- -

..- ..- -

.. - - ~ - - ~ -

MailingAdd"es): PD. Box 2050 O a k l a ~ d ,C 2 l i f o ~ n i a9 4 0 0 4 ~ 2 0 5 0(510) 464-7900 Fax:(51O)464-7985 info@ahag,ca.gov

Location: Joseph P 80rt MerroCente' 101 Eighth SHeet Oakland,California 94607--4756


17/38

D R A F T S U B J E C T T O C H A N G E

Update Growth Forecast December 1, 2011

Survey Jurisdictions on RHNAfactors January 1, 2011Subregions Inform ABAGof Intention to Form March 16, 2011 Deadline for Subregion FormationConsult with HCD On Determination July 1,2011Adopt Draft RHNA Method July21,2011 Subregions Adopt Proposed Method

. _ ~ _ Bn.?I Rlifll'.Melhod/PublicJ:lel!ring. __ "S"!)tember 1.?,.zOJL. Subregipns AdQP1EIlaLMelbod _ _ ..HCD Issues Regional Housing Needs Determination October 1, 2011 Housing Need Assigned SubregionsDraft RHND Allocation January 19, 2012 Subregions Make Draft Allocation

ABAG Reviews Subregion AllocationLocal Gov'! Request for Revisions to RHNAABAGResponds to Revisions/Appeals PeriodBeginsFinal Date to File Appeal/Public Hearing on Appeals

March 15,2012

May 17, 2012July 19,2012

Proposed Final RHNAAllocation July 19,2012Board Adopts Final RHNA Plan (Public Hearing) September 20, 2012

Local Jurisdictions May Request Revisions

Subregion Responds to Revision RequestLocal Jurisdictions May AppealSubregions Make Proposed FinalAllocationsSubregion Adopts Final Allocation Plan

HCD Adopts RHN Plan October 1, 2012Housing Elem?"en",l::-s.:;D",u!:.e:::-:::-:;-_ _ :c-= :;:--;c-:::-:::September 10, 2014 -::;-::::________ ~ .___

D R A F T D A T E S S U B J E C T T O C H A N G E

ABAG staff s available to discuss the subregion option with you and to answer any questions you mayhave. Please contact Christy Riviere at (510)464-7923 or email ,;.1:!J'istyr@abag,c8.cW.Y'

2


18/38

18

Net Project Density(New Housing) [4]

Stat ion AreaTotal Jobs Target

Minimum FAR(New Employment

Development)

Regional Center

High rise & mid rise

apartments/condos

8,000 - 30,000

75-300 du/acre

40,000 -150,000

5.0 FAR

C ity Center

Mid-rise, low-rise, somehigh-rise andtownhomes

5,000 - 15,000

50 -150 du/acre

5,000 - 30,000

2.5 FAR

[1J Station Area typicallyrefers to half mile radius around station or roughly500 acres[2J See attached building types for more detail on each type.

Suburban Center

Mid-rise, low-rise, somehigh-rise and town

homes

2,500 -10,000

35 - 100 du/acre

7,500 - 50,000

4.0 FAR

TransitTown Center

Mid-rise, low-rise,town homes, small lot

single family

3,000 - 7,500

20 - 75 du/acre

2,000 - 7,500

2.0 FAR

[3J The MTCTOO Policy corridorhousing thresholds-which represent an average for the entire corridor-still apply to Resolution 3434 Transit Expansionprojects.[4J Allowabledensities within the 1/2-mile station area should fall within thisrange and should be planned in response to local conditions, with higherintensities in close proximityto transit and neighborhood-serving retail areas .


19/38

,

I

Urban Neighborhood

Mid-rise, low-rise,townhomes

Transit Neighborhood

Low-rise, townhomes,some mid-rise and small

lot single family, .1

-2,500 -10,000

,1,500 - 4,000I.

i

40 - 100 duJacre 20 - 50 du/acre

i

N.A. I NA

,

Corridor

Mixed UseNeighborhood

Mid-rise, low-rise,townhomes, small lotsfoff immediate corridor

-

2,000 - 5,000

25 - 60 duJacre

,..---

750 -1,500

r - -

l ~O F~ ~.0 FAR 2.0 FAR- - -

Net Project Density(New Housing) [4]

Minimum FAR(New Employment

Development)

19


20/38


21/38


22/38

I IPurposeThis report sum m arlles the findings from a ULI panel that was formed toassess the eco nomic Impl ications of the California Senate Bill 375 (S8 375),and associated implementat ion recommendations . As the basis of this inquiry ,the panel was cllarged with rev iewing ava ilable emp iricat data and stud iespertain ing to S8 375 and the impacts of the k inds of development that fullimptementatlon Is IIke ty to p roduce, especially compact and transit onenteddevelopment. Drawing on this research and its own S Ubstant ial professiona lexperience , the ULI panel then convened to rev iew and discuss the economicimpacts 01 S8 375 on the state s economy and make recommendations thatwould help de liver on tl1e bi ll's goa ls of reg ional connectivity, pol icy alignment,effic ient p rovision of Infrastruct ure . and Improved environmen ta l quality .

S8375S9 375 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30,2008 , This b ill links land u se d ecisions to transportation fund ing dec isions In away that is unprecedented In Ca lifornia . The vehicle for this coo rd inat ion is anew reg iona l land Use p lan calied a Susta inable Commun ities Strategy (SCS).The result is expected to b e more rat ional and coordinated regulation andpublic fund ing, wh ich In turn shou ld accelerate the pace at which developmentcons istent w ith these plans can proceed .

S8 375 requires Regional Transpo rtation Plans (RTPs) to include the SCSsand be internally consistent, and thereby better align transportation, housing,and land use p lanning as pari of plans to reduce transportation emissions.Regions have broad freedom to design SCSs tl,at align those plans andreduce emissions . The SCSs a re expected to respond to SB 375 by :

Promoting compact development pattorns localed near transit;

Coordinat ing between tho location of employment and hous ing;

Supporting transll use;

Concentrating economic acllvlties In to existing com m unit ies : and

Incorporating a mix of housing types.

This, In turn, Is expected to produce :

Shorter commutes, veh icle miles traveled (VMTI reduction , andcongestion relief;

Reduced greenllOuse gases ( G t~I O ) em issions and air pollution :

Less fossil fue l consumption;Greater conservation of farml: :md s and habitat;

Opportunities for m ore housing choices for all economic segments of thepopu lation includ ing anticipated populat ion and emp loyment growth;

Reduced infrastructu re costs ;

Higher qua lity of life ; and

G reater certainty for the d eve lopment community .

URBAN l ,wOIH S l I lUl E S O :llS IMP AC l ANAl YS IS


23/38

Findings and MessageOverarching observations andconclusions that constitute the

main findings and messages of thisreport. They are summarized asfollows:

Positive Economic Impacts:could generate progressivelyincreasing public beneHts.

Role of Public Engagement:critical in dispelling anymisinterpretation of Ihe policyand gaining public support forsuccessful implementation.

Alignment of Federal, State,

and Local Policy: help positionMPOs to compete for federalfunds to offse t any costs indeveloping SCSs.

BenefitsPositive impacts and economicbenefits that could materializeif 5B 375 is implementedappropriately. These benefits arebroadly categorized as:

Cohesive Regional Approach:benefits as a result of SB 375'sintention to formalize consistencyand cohesiveness, in land use,transportation, and air qualityplann ing policy, across California.

Market and Economy: benefitsas a result of SB 375's impact onmarket and economic conditions

in California.

ImplementationRecommendations

Key implementation items thatneed to be addressed in order for5B 375 to become a successfuland useful regulatory instrument:

Transit Certainty: importantconsiderations in improving theservice level and investmentnecessary to keep pace with theanticipated increase in urban andsuburban density.

Alignment of Effort andFunding: policy and governmentimplementation factors critical tothe ultimate success of SB 375.CEaA Streamlining: aspects ofCEQA that should be reexaminedand refined to promote the typesof projects that help achieveSB 375's goals.

O ! : ~ ~I~ f l f l O ~ I Z ~ : ~ , % : . O fthe ItrJpa#, AlId/Ys/s Report Is nal ~ )flUIs consiste nt Withthe l)y4!I'IIlImission of UU... hp~ ~ thrivingc q l , f i i ' l l \ ( l i l ~ eHowev6r, $ n\lMb(ll'of crlUcs118$\l6. related to Implementation need to be

8 u c c e 8 8' : : J I ~ " . " . "


24/38

Findings and MessageIf implemented well, SB 375 would help California

accommodate growth in ways that are economically sound,environmentally responsible, and socially beneficial. Assuch , SB 375 has the potential to improve the quality of lifefor Californians, and is one tool that can address a numberof problems long associated with s prawl, including trafficcongestion , the cost burden of hou s ing, declining air quality,increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and the geographicalimbalance between jobs and housing. SB 375 also has thepotential to capitalize on relevant federal funding opportunities.

Forward -th in king po licy like S8 375 can genorate eco n om ic bCflefits tllatprogressively increase ovor timo , and mitigote tho Impact o f grow Il 011n atural resources .

S8 375 has potential parallels with the now well-established Title 24 legislationadopted in 1978, which requires improved building energy efficiency. Similar to S8375 today, Title 24 was met with opposition initially due to myriad concerns, manyof which pertained to the anticipated cost burden of compliance. Notwithstanding,the legislation was enacted and has since been credited with shifting the statetoward more sustainable building practices and placing California in a nationalleadership role on energy efficiency policy. Title 24 has steered the state towardshaving one of the most energy efficient building stocks in the nation, whichgenerate billions of dollars in energy cost savings. Though there are fundamentaldifferences in these policies, namely that Title 24 was designed as a traditionalregulation, whereas S8 375 is an incentive-based law, S8 375 could, nonetheless,be seen in a similar light in the future if it fully realizes its potential benefits. Thebetter California does with S8 375 implementation, the greater the benefits will be.

If properly implemented, S8 375 could have a number of positive economicbenefits . These potential benefits include:

Long-term savings in municipal service costs, as the initial higher capital costsof supporting infill development are outweighed by the long-term per capitasavings in maintenance costs, municipal services, and infrastructure.

Increased development certainty, which can ease the cost burden of permittingand facilitate an efficient residential development process;

More efficient use of public transportation systems due to higher fare recovery ;

Enhanced public health of citizens by offering walkable environments accessibleto goods and services, and improved local air quality;

Reduced development pressure on the state's agricultural lands ; and

Decreased dependence on fossil fuels, thereby making California less vulnerableto shocks in energy prices .

As the foundation of S8 375 is to strategically link land use and transportationefforts, it is critical that tunding exist to develop and operate the necessary transitto support and connect residents to employment , both of which will likely grow ingreater concentrations in urban and suburban areas.

Findings an d Me ssa ge continued on page 5

URBAN lA NO INS flT U' E . S0 315 1M PAC I ANAlVS IS R


25/38

BenefitsS8 375 offers communi ties inc ent ives to planfor and to devel o p a mo re efficie nt layout anddistr ibuti o n of i nfra stru ctur e and m unicipalse rvices while red ucin g e ncroac hme nt o n va luab leagr icultu re lands a nd na tura l hab itats . Thisapp roac h provi de s a more rati on a l way of c re at ingliva b le co mmun ities th at link j obs to ho using andacc o mmodate the p rojec ted nee d fo r 2 m illio nmo re home s sta te wide over the nex t 20 ye ars .The benefits antiCipated from SB 375 and outlined below can be broadly classifiedinto tw o categories: the cohesive regional approach that will be established as partof the SCS, and its underlying market-based rationale and economic advantages.A cohesive regional framework can create better development certainty, whichreduces barriers to the realization of more sustainable land use and developmentpatterns, and can lead to the wide range of possible economic benefits.

These benefits can be best realized if the legislation is implemented thoughtfullyand effectively. The ULI panel developed some implementation recommendationsthat can be found in the subsequent section of this report.

Cohes ive Regional ApproachOne antiCipated benefi t of SB 375 is that it provides more consistency,coordination, and clarity to the development process and land use planning. SB

375 provides a framework within which the state and regional authorities canensure a stable and predictable development environment. Because California'seconomy is based on numerous strong regional economies, its growth andprosperity depends on the health of those regional economies.

Ra/lona llyal/g ns reglolls l p la nn ing. Iranspor/atio n. an d e'lVlronmclllal po licya n d fund ing

SB 375 seeks to harmonize three distinct but related policy areas - regionalplanning, transportation infrastructure development, and statewide emissionsgoals - in one comprehensive program. By removing any misaligned orcontradictory directives inherent to these regional planning processes in placebefore its passage, SB 375 can reduce the incidence of disjointed decision making

processes between the local and regional levels of government. The law buildsupon existing regulatory structures and seeks to incentivize compact developmentthrough a mix of transportation project funding and process streamlining designedto reduce GHGs, in part through reduction of vehicle travel among California's 23million licensed drivers. The resulting coordination across geographies and sectorswill advance and promote the economic vibrancy and environmental health ofCalifornia communities. Regional coordination and incentives prescribed under S8375 are likely to be an improvement over an unelected air resources board settingimpact standards for land use and transportation decisions.


26/38

Potelltially impr oves reglolla l a nd lo ca l Jobs to IIousl ng balallce

In recent years, many areas in California have witne ssed a s ignificant growth inres idential development, particularly single-family units, th at has expanded urbanareas considerably and substantially increased commute time s. Few, if any, statepolicies explicitly address the balance between the location of jobs and housing,at either the regional or local level. At the local level, achieving a better jobs-to

housing balance through the promotion of hou s ing diversity and mix of useswould redu ce the need for long commutes between res ide ntial communities andemployment centers. At the reg ional level , connecting housing-rich areas withjobs-rich areas with the appropriate, cost-effective tran s portation infrastructurewould reduce the need for single-occupancy vehicle co mmute travel. SB 375provides an opportunity to pursue these dual objectives to ensure a better balancebetween employment and housing and more viable tranSit options for commuters.

There are also potential economic ga ins for both local governments andhouseholds. Local governments could benefit from the reduced co st of housingand infrastructure for comp act communities (see Market and Economy sec tionfor mor e details). Households could benefit from a reduction in the cost burdenof transportation if transit options are expanded that link residential areas andemployment centers. Recent research indicates that transportation expenses tendto be high est in areas that lack transit options. Consequently, total householdcosts are generally highest in tranSit-poor, suburban areas, even when housingtends to be more affordable, as demonstrated in the ULI report, Bay Area Burden.

Provides c larificatio n to deve lopers 011 the desired direction o f development

The SCSs required by SB 375 should provide greater clarity and certainty todevelopers, and send a powerful signal to the development industry about thestate's desired direction for future growth and development. With a framework inp lace through SB 375, there will be greater certainty in the locat ion and timing offuture development. The resulting coordinated regulatory and development fundingland scape will accelerate the pace at which developments that comply with region alSCSs can proceed . This is particularly relevant in the case of newly-urbanizing areas .MPOs and their local government members will de velop a mutu a l under s tanding of

community expectations, desired de velopme nt, and approval processes.

InWa tes lIeeded Calif o rnia Environment a l Quality Ac t (CEQA ) refo rm

Reforming CEQA to remove barriers to developing compact or transit-orientedcommunities is a critical success factor for SB 375. However, not only is CEQAreform needed in order for SB 375 to be effective, but implementation of SB 375 isthe most likely mechanism through which to successfully enact the much-neededreform. SB 375 include s a number of revisions to CEQA tied to the adoption ofSCSs. More fundamental CEQA reform is necessary to achieve the underlyingintent of SB 375. The implementation of SB 375 affords an opportunity to furtherreform CEQA (see Implem e ntation Recommendations section for more details).

Allows fo r flexible regional a nd local so lution s - one size does not fi t ali

Recognizing that communities in California come in many different forms, layouts, andsizes, SB 375 is flexible and recognizes the existence of diversity across the state.There is no loca l planning mandate under SB 375, which means cities and cou ntiesdo not need to amend their general plans or local zoning laws to conform to theSCS. Additionally, the development forecasts and GHG reduction mandate s must be"reasonable," which implies a mea s ured and adaptable approach to regional planning .

Improves efflclellcy a nd e ffe ctiv eness of transit

California is under pressure to ensure that its transportation infrastru cture ismeeting its needs resulting from growth. By linking transportation funding to landuse decisions, future transit infrastructure will be appropriately targeted to wherethe need is greatest and where inve s tment is most rational.


27/38

Market and Economy

Economically, SB 375 will help the state,communities, and developers meet the shiftingmarket demand for housing, diversify the housingofferings on the market, allocate public resourcesmore efficiently, and ensure a better quality of life.

Accommodates a growing silare of 1 r0 0 ~ s / n f Jdemand for f j rs l ~ t i m erenters/b,wers alld emp ty nesters

California's population has historically grown at a rate faster than the nation andis currently projected to increase from approximately 37 million today to 43 millionby 2020 and to 55 million by 2050. As such, it is imperative to apply thoughtfulconsideration to determining where and how best to accommodate this increasingpopulation. The number and type of housing units delivered to market in Californiaover the past 20 years have not kept up with demand or population growthrates. Due to strong demand, the state has one of the highest-priced housingmarkets (both for-sale and rental) in the nation, causing a higher percentage ofhouseholds to allocate a significant portion of their incomes to housing. Compactdevelopments can provide the type of units that appeal to first-time renters andbuyers and empty nesters, who are currently underserved.

Strives to create a wider rallge of Ilou slllU elloices, alld mainralll a balancebetwecllillllli alld ureellfleld developmellt

SB 375 will not restrict or prevent the wide range of housing choices that currentlyexists in California. Attached multifamily units can coexis t alongside detachedsingle-family units, and these options will continue to exist under SB 375. Witha greater balance between infill and greenfield developments, SB 375 couldultimately lead to more sites for development, not fewer, thereby balancing housingsupply and demand.

Although the panel expects the SCSs to increase certain types of development- specifically more compact and transit-friendly communities - nothing in thelegislation precludes or discourages a wide variety of development options. SB375 will not prevent households from continuing to make their own decisions onthe type and location of housing to occupy.

SB 375 will allow for a realignment of development priorities by better balancingthe amount of infill and greenfield developments in California. Policies encouragingcompact development have proven effective at redirecting development awayfrom valuable agricultural and open space, primarily by increasing the cost ofdevelopment beyond metropolitan or growth areas. Benefits include positive netrevenues to local governments through the reduction of per capita service costs,increased property values, and sustained agricultural economies.

Improve s a l/ocntioll of trDllsportatioll fUllds accordl ll g ro density Dnd Iw ed

The allocation of both state and federal transportation funds often seemshaphazard and has been criticized for being skewed away from public transitfunding. Funding allocations do not seem to be contingent on population, density,or local needs, which result in public funding inefficiencies. The new priorities intransportation funding allocations under SB 375 will ensure more rational transitand infrastructure development and maintenance, especially given the scarcepublic funding available.


28/38

Positions tl1e slale and regional governments to be woro competltivo forfadoral resources

With increased coordination, the state and regional governments will be morecompetitive for federal resources. Approximately $15 to $20 billion in federal.state, and local transportation funding flows to California each year, and is ofgreat importance to regional and local governments for the funding of criticaltransportation capital improvements. SB 375 builds on existing law, specificallythe Re gional Transportation Plan (RTP) that MPOs prepare every four years. Under

SB 375, transportati on fund ing decisions are tied to the RTP and California AirRe sources Board (CARB)-appro ved SCS.

LODds to hCDlthi.r communities

Land use and transportation patterns ha ve a significant impact on public health .Many communities in California have been built to accommodate the automobile,and recent research about the dominant car-centric model and the lack of physicalexercise during driving, as well as transportation-related air pollution (specificallyground-level ozone and particulate matter), connects it to respiratory illnesses,cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and traffic-related fatalities , These impactsare less prevalent in denser, more compact areas that accommodate publictransportation, bicycling, walking, or other less polluting modes of transportation.An Active Living Research study of 33 California cities confirmed that the obesityrate among adults who drove the most was 27 percent, which is about three timeshigher than the obesity rate among those who drove the least (9.5 percent).

Preserves and onlwnces higher quality oflife II/rougl> more effie/etH11H.IIJ/cipal sorvicos and infras fructure In the long term

Broadly speaking, muni cipa l service costs tend to increase with disperseddevelopment outside existing urban boundaries, and are reduced with compact ,planned de velopment within existing urban boundaries . Substantial researchfinds that compact development produces a multitude of benefits: lower publicfinan c ing, infrastructure development, and operating cos ts ; improved economicperformance; and improved fiscat performance for local municipalities . ULI alsorecognizes infrastructure expansion in existing urban areas can be more complex,

more expensive, and more difficult to finance than conventional greenfielddevelopment, but the marginal increase in costs is outweighed by the long -termmunicipal savings generated over the life of the infrastructure. In other words,compact development can be fiscally positive, but the state needs to improve themeans by which municipalities can finance improvements in existing urban areas.


29/38

Implementation Recommendations

'} I SB 3 75 1MPA C l ANIU..Y$IS REPOR T . URBAN LAN D 1~ 1 S1 1 1u r E

Ass ure sustainab le capito l a nd ope rations transit fu nd ing to m atc ll

desired growth patternMaintaining sufficient levels of access to public transit will require redoubling the effortto procure a reliable, long-term source of funding for publ ic transit capital investmentsand operations. Currently, transit funding is generated through taxes at all levels ofgovernment - federal: a portion of the Highway Trust Fund generated through fuelexcise tax; state: fuel tax, sales tax, Public Transportation Account, and Proposition18 bonds; and local: sales tax measures, transit fares, and general funds. Thoughthese sources have supported the c ontinued development and expansion of the publictransit system throughout California, additional sources will likely need to be leveragedin order to support the level of inve s tment needed to match anticipated future land usedevelopment patterns.


30/38


31/38


32/38

a broad range of choices able to accommodate the state 'sgrowing housing needs and not to distort prices so as tomake certain preferences unattainable. While certain SCSsmay elect to encourage more compact housing options,they should not entirely preclude the development o f otherhousing types.

Alig nm ent sl ,oul d produce a transpare n t approva ls

process fo r pub lic - and pr iva te -sector p layersSB 375 should result in more certainty to the developmentcommunity as to where development should occur andthe type of development that is encouraged. The path tothe development approval process should also be easilycomprehensible in order to create more certainty. The SCSshould provide clarity on how local jurisdictions are or arenot conforming to the SCS. The extent to which generalplans will need to be updated and corresponding changes tozoning required varie s among different cities and counties .For SCSs to work as envisioned, local jurisdictions willrecuire additional planning and land use resources from thestate to make appropriate changes to their general plans.One potential solution is to increase the Vehicle License Fee,which would help to finance planning and zoning changesthat conform to the SCS.

Alignmelll s l,oul d take in to acco unt multi p le deve lopmen tpr ior ities to enSure tl>.t co mmu nities Ilave suffic ien tpubli c serv ices

Housing development alone will not create better airquality and regional connectivity. Housing development,employment, schools, transportation , parks, and otherinfrastructure must be connected to provide a high qualityof life. State funding priorities need to take into account that

SB 375 redirects future growth towards existing urban areas,and while transportation funds will be linked to the SCS,so should other infrastructure investments such as moniesfor sewer, water, schools, and parks. It also requires analignment of other community facility siting and configurationguidelines, such as for schools.

Fundin g mu s t be a lig nod Dcross vary ing leve ls o fgo v er n a nc e a n d ac ross vario u s prloritlos

While the potential long-term savings that can be realizedunder more compact infill development is recognized, theULI panel also acknowledges the more complex and oftenmore expensive process - on a per new unit basis - offinancing infrastructure expansion in existing communities.The state's fiscal deficit ha s re s ulted in the extraction ofwhat has historically been city and county monies, suchas tax increment dollars and transportation funds, whichfurther hinders local jurisd ictions from accommodatinginfill development. This sends the wrong message to localjurisdictions who are attempting to implement SB 375'spurpose, but at the same time have limited resources tocreate the livable communities envisioned.

MPOs sllo ul d coord inate regiona l mode ling

In order to develop and evaluate SCSs, MPOs will rely heavilyon regional travel demand models . These models , and MPOslaffing to support them, vary widely in sophis tication acrossthe state. The Strategic Growth Council allocated $12Min funding for improvements to MPO data and modelingspecifically in support of SB 375, as the first round ofProposition 84 planning grants. The California Air Resources

Board (CAR B) has funded research in GHG reductionpotential for various transportation/land use policies as partof SB 375 as well. In part due to this additional support,limitations of MPOs regional transportation models need notbe an excuse for delaying implementation of SB 375. Modelsand data need to be progressively improved over time as ameans to compare and track each region's performance.

The largest MPOs have begun a process of coordinatingpolicy scenarios, model capability and sensitivity, and keyperformance metrics as a way of ensuring some level ofconsistency in target setting, and ultimately, implementationof SB 375. This coordination effort should be expandedto include all MPOs in the state. This sort of coordinationwill result in a more uniform travel model that generatescomparable estimates of vehicle miles traveled, greenhousegases, criteria pollutants, and congestion across MPOs.

In addition to modeling, MPOs and the state will requirecoordination to share information, best practices, anddevelop systems that implement the intent of SB 375.State oversight agencies, MPO boards, and staff shouldhave designated formal times during which to discuss howthey can better achieve reg ional connectivity, improved airquality, and housing affordability. The state should be anactive partiCipant in these discussions in order to adjust theregulatory process and minimize administrative and reporting

obstacles associated with developing a successful SCS.

Cross-MPO coordination will also be critical fo r connectedmetropOlitan regions, where housing centers in one MPOare linked to employment centers in another. For example,residents in the Sacramento region under SACOG have workcommutes to job centers in the Bay Area, under ABAG'sauthority. These connections should only increase with theconstruction of high-speed rail.

UAaANLANOINSlirU T E Sll3751MPAC T ANA l YSISRfl 'O


33/38


34/38

Usefu l Life of tI,e RTP/SCS Program EIR

The RTP itself and the RTP/SCS program EIR will be prepared every four yearsunder SB 375 and federal transportation law. CEQA should recognize the validityof the RTP/SCS program EIR for a four-year period to deflect legal challengesbased on claims that the program EIR analyses are out of date and no longer valid.Establishing this certainty for a four-year period is consistent with another CEQAstreamlining provision for the Master EIR, which has a minimum five-year useful life.

Tiering wirh rhe RTP/SCS Program E IR

The RTP/SCS program EIR could leverage 'tiering' under CEQA more effectivelythan it currently does. The concept of tiering allows use of program EIR analyseswith later EIRs and mitigated negative declarations (MNDs) on more specificprojects. By incorporating the general analyses contained in the program EIR byreference, later EIRs or MNDs can concentrate on issues of the specific projects athand.

Currently, the use of tiering under CEQA is limited to program EIRs and later EIRsor MNDs for specific projects prepared by the same agency (the 'lead agency'),but tiering under SB 375 should be broadened to fit the planning approach createdby SB 375. Since MPO Boards consist of representatives from their local memberagencies (cities and counties in a region), CEQA should allow decision makerswithin those cities and counties to use the MPO-approved RTP/SCS program EIRas a first-tier EIR supporting later EIRs or MNDs for specific projects within theirjurisdictions.

Cla ri ty of RTP/SCS Program EIR Requiremonts

The provisions in SB 375 related to the RTP/SCS program EIR need to beexpanded to provide clarity on content requirements. The contents of RTPprogram EIRs have been well established over several decades of experience, butthe addition of the SCS as a part of the RTP complicates the analyses by includinga new land use component. Development of more specific content requirementslike those contained in the CEQA sections pertaining to Master EIRs and ProjectsConsistent with a Community Plan or Zoning would be helpful and provide a

greater level of certainty for both decision makers and stakeholders.


35/38


36/38


37/38

Literature ReviewIntroduction to SB 375 Summary

California League of Conservation Voters and Natural ResourcesDefense Council Fact Sheet - September 5,2006.

www.publiclawnews.com - October 6, 2008.

California Planning and Development Report - October 1, 2006.

S B 375 Debate in Process

A Developer's Perspective of S8 375 (Five Point Communities) 2009.

The Folly of Smart Growth (Randal O'Toole, Thoreau Institute) 2001.

The Compact City Fallacy (Michael Neuman, Journal of PlanningEducation and Research, University of Texas A&M) 2005.

League Policy Committee Considering Motion to Suspend AB 32 an dS8 375 (League ofCA Cilles) 2010.

Another California Dream, A La La Land climate law ignores economicreality. (Wall SlreelJournal) 2010.

Future of Transportation National Survey (Public Opinion Strategies)2009.

Greenbelt Alliance Summary and Analysis of SB 375 for the Ba y Area(Greenbelt Alliance) 2009.

Labor Leaders as Smart Growth Advocates, Ho w Union Leaders SeeSuburban Sprawl an d Work for Smart Growth Solutions (Good JobsFirst) 2009.

Smart Growth on the Fringe (Urban Land Institute) 2004.

The Cost of Sprawl Reconsidered (The Heritage Foundation) 1998.

Windfall for AII- How Connected, Convenient NeighborhoodsCan Protect Our Climate an d Safeguard California's Economy(TransForm) 2009.

Impa ct s of Smart Growth and Reg ion alTransp or tation Planning

Development Trends and Market Acceptance

Cu rrent hom e buying tr e nd s andpreferencesResidential Construction Trends in America'sMetropolitan Regions (U.S. Environmental Protection

2010.

National Housing Survey (Fannie Mae) 2010.

Current perception of compact developmentThe Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development

(Journal of American Planning Association) 2010.

Susteinability versus livability: a n investigation of neighborhoodsatisfaction (Journal of Environmental Planning and Management)2009.

Ch ang ing demograph ics and housin g preferencesAging Baby Boomers an d the Generational Housing Bubble: Foresight

and Mitigation of an Epic Transition (Journal of American PlanningAssociation) 2007.

Housing in America: The Next Decade (Urban Land Institute) 2010.

The Impact of SB 375 an d Changing Demographics of FutureDevelopment (Southern California Association of Governments) 2010.

17 I SB37S IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT. URBAN LAND INSTITUTE

Job Creation, Property Value, an d Other DirectEconomic Benefits

Job CreationEconomic Development and Smart Growth (International

Economic Developm ent Council (IEDC 2006.

Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscaland Competitive Advantages of Smarter GrowthDevelopment Patterns (Mark Muro and Robert

Puentes, The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and MetropolitanPolicy) 2004.

Rethinking Human Capital, Creativity, and Urban Growth (Storper andScott, Journal of Economic Geography) 2009.

The Jobs are Back in Town: Urban Smart Growth an d ConstructionEmployment (Philip Mattera with Greg LeRoy, published by GoodJobs First) 2003.

Prope rt y Valu eAn Empirical Examination of Traditional Neighborhood

Development (Charles C. Tu and Mark J. Eppli) 2001.

The Affordability Index: A Ne w tool for Measuringthe True Affordability of a Housing Choice (Center

for TransltOrlented Development and Center for NeighborhoodTechnology) 2006.

Bay Area Burden (Urban Land Institute) 2009.

Gentrification Trends in Ne w TransitOriented Communities: Evidencefrom 14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems(Matthew E. Kahn, InsH!ute of the Environment, UCLA) 2007.

The Market Acceptance of Single-Family Housing Units in SmartGrowth Communities (Mark J. Eppli, Professor and Bell Chair in RealEstate, Marquette University; Charles C. Tu, Associate Professor ofReal Estate, University of San Diego) 2009.

The Market for Smart Growth (Robert Charles Lesser and Co, LLC)2007.

Other Direct Econo m ic Benef itsCostEffective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth

and Improved Transportation ChOices (Center forClean Air Policy) 2009.

Growing Cooler - The Evidence on Urban Developmentan d Climate Change (Urban Land Institute) 2005.

Portland's Green Dividend (CEOs for Cities) 2007.

Public Health and Environmental Benefits

Pub lic Hea lthCalifornia Climate Risk an d Response (Fredrich Kahrl

and David Roland-Holst, Department of Agricultural

and Resource Economics, UC-Berkeley) 2008.Land Use, Climate Change an d Public Health Issue Brief

(American Lung Association) 2010.

Clearing the Air: Public Heelth Threats from Cars an d Heavy DutyVehicles - Why We Need to Protect Federal Clean Ai r Laws (SurfaceTransportation Policy Project) 2003.

The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food en d Why /I Matters(Policy Link and The Fo od Trust) 2010.

Resident Altitudes, Travel Behavior, an d Obesity (Barbara B. Brown andCarol M. Werner) 2009.

Think Locally, Act Globally: Ho w Curbing Global Warming EmissionsCan Improve Local Public Health (Bloomberg and Aggarwalam) 2008.

Designing for Active Living Among Adults (Jacqueline Kerr) 2008.


38/38

sb375 update - background for ptc mtg -- 1-12-11

Documents