HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-13 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 2
April 24, 2013
Draft Minutes 4
General Plan Conformance Finding for New FY 13/14 Capital
Improvement Program Projects.
Staff Report 6
Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone 7
Resolution 8
Project Summaries 9
Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet (Exhibit
A)17
Overview of Plan Bay Area.
Staff Report 18
Attachment 1 - Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy
Executive Summary 22
Attachment 2 - Preferred Land Use and Transportation
Investment Policy 42
Attachment 3 - Projected Jobs & Housing Growth -
Santa Clara County Cities 84
Attachment 4 - Plan Bay Area Target Analysis 86
Attachment 5 - League of California Cities Technical
Overview of SB 375 88
Overview of City Code Requirements for Food Trucks.
Staff Report 109
Attachment 1 - Article 7-25 110
1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 2013
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters
not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such
items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under
Planning Commission direction to Staff.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision.
PUBLIC HEARING
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives
have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for
up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing
statements.
1. General Plan Conformance Finding for New FY 13/14 Capital Improvement Program Projects.
Recommended action:
Adopt the attached Resolution finding the proposed CIP projects conform to the general plan.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Overview of Plan Bay Area.
2. Overview of City Code Requirements for Food Trucks.
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
2
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning
Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community
Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the
Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at
www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review
at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on May 2, 2013 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added
to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
3
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2013 (7:0)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters
not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such
items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under
Planning Commission direction to Staff.
1. Commission directed staff to agendize a presentation on One Bay Area Plan.
2. Commission directed staff to agendize a presentation on food trucks.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision.
PUBLIC HEARING
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives
have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for
up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing
statements.
1. APPLICATION ZOA12-0010; 14001 Chester Avenue (397-01-006,007); HMH Inc/Bellicitti Family
Limited Partnership - The applicant is requesting approval to rezone a 1.09-acre parcel (Parcel B) from
Agricultural to R-1-40,000 and to apply AP/OS overlay zoning to both Parcels A & B consisting of 12.86
acres. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408)868-1235.
Action:
Adopted Resolution No. 13-015 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance 1) applying R-1-
40,000 zoning to the adjusted 1.09-acre parcel located at 14001 Chester Avenue that will become effective
upon recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment and 2) applying the Agricultural Preserve Open Space
Overlay zoning to the entire 12.86 acre property to include all of Parcel A and Parcel B. (7:0:0)
2. APPLICATION ZOA13-0003; City of Saratoga - The proposed zoning amendment would modify allowed
uses, building setbacks, landscape buffers, and heights of structures within the Commercial-Visitor (CV)
and Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning districts. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212
4
Action:
Adopted Resolution 13-015, recommending City Council to adopt the proposed zoning amendments. The
Planning Commission made separate motions for each proposed zoning amendment:
Motion 1: Remove the allowance of ground level, multi-family dwellings from the CV and CN zoning
districts and shown in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 13-015. (7:0:0)
Motion 2: Increase the maximum height limit for all buildings in the CV district to 26 feet (with no height
exception for appurtenances), and increase the rear, side and front setbacks and shown in Exhibit A of
Resolution No. 13-015. (5:2(Walia & Zhao):0)
Motion 3: Maintain the building height limit in the CN district at 20 feet (includes maintaining exceptions
for appurtenances). (7:0:0)
Motion 4: Require landscape buffers for commercial properties abutting residential zones in the CV and
CN districts as stated in the General Plan and shown in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 13-015. (7:0:0)
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning
Commission by City Staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community
Development at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the
Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at
www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of agenda are available for public review
at the Community Development Department at the time they are distributed to the Planning Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on April 18, 2013 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added
to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
5
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: May 8, 2013
Application: Finding of General Plan Consistency - CIP
Location / APN: Citywide
Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga
Staff Planner: James Lindsay
SUMMARY:
Seven new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 13-14 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). California Government Code Section 65401 states that the local planning
agency should report on the conformity of the CIP with the agency’s general plan.
Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed projects and the specific general plan
policy(s) the project is conforms to. Not all projects have a relationship to specific policies.
Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are not in conflict with general plan
policies and a conformity finding can be supported. The environmental determination will
be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding the proposed CIP
projects conform to the general plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo from Public Works Director, John Cherbone
2. Resolution
3. Project Summaries
4. Capital Improvement Project List Spreadsheet (Exhibit A)
6
Public Works Department
Memo
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
From: John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Date: April 24, 2013
Re: Proposed Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2013/2014
_________________________________________________________________________
I am pleased to transmit to you for your review 7 proposed projects in
connection to the Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
update.
The role of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the proposed CIP
projects are consistent with the General Plan. The 7 new projects for
consideration have been reviewed by the City Council.
Attached to this memo is a summary of each project and a spreadsheet (Exhibit
A) that lists the applicable City General Plan Goal, Policy, and Implementation
Measure.
For FY 2013-2014 the proposed projects are generally dedicated to upgrading
infrastructure and improving safety of the City’s facilities.
Ultimately your recommendation on the projects will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration at the June Public Hearing on the budget.
If prior to your meeting you have any questions about this information, please
feel free to contact me at 868-1241.
z Page 1
7
RESOLUTION NO. 13-016
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMINING THAT THE NEW FY 13-14 CIP PROJECTS CONFORM TO THE
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Section 65401 requires the local planning
agency to report on the conformity of proposed public works with the adopted general plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials
submitted by the Public Works Director which include a listing of each capitol project and
the corresponding General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby
find that the new Capital Improvement Program projects conform to the Goals and Policies
of the City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the
programs and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, on May 8, 2013, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Joyce Hlava
Chair, Planning Commission
8
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
Project Name ADA Signal Lights & Curb Cut-outs Project Number 9121-003
Department Public Works Project Manager Mainini Cabute
Description This project will complete ADA improvements to existing signalized intersections throughout
Saratoga. Pushbuttons at these intersections will be replaced with “vibrotactile” buttons for the
visually impaired; crosswalks will be added or repainted where needed; and ramps and curbs will
be rebuilt to meet accessibility standards.
Location This project will upgrade the 15 signalized intersections with traffic signals throughout the City.
Project
Background
This project will update existing signals with audible signals for the visually impaired, and rebuild
ramps and curbs to meet accessibility standards.
The City plans to install a “vibrotactile” type of pedestrian signal. The new signal’s pushbutton
will vibrate when the “WALK” signal is on, giving visually impaired pedestrians a cue to cross
the street. This is an unobtrusive means of providing the visually impaired with 100% confidence
that the “WALK” signal is on. This project will also improve the intersection’s ramps, curbs, and
crosswalks to comply with ADA requirements.
Money for this project has been provided through the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG). As money becomes available each year, more intersections will be upgraded until all the
City owned intersections have been improved.
Improvements will be conducted by contractors, but the project will be managed by staff. As the
CDBG funding for the project will be awarded over several years, work will be completed as
sufficient project sized funding becomes available.
Operating
Budget Impacts
This project will increase safety for visually impaired pedestrian in Saratoga. Consequently, it will
also reduce liability expenses associated with pedestrian accidents. Engineering staff time for
project design and oversight will be incorporated into the operating budget.
9
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
Project Name Prospect/Saratoga OBAG Improvements Project Number 9122-006
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description Improve PSA corridor, through the addition of roadway medians, sidewalks, ADA ramps, bicycle
loops at intersections, and increase pedestrian and bicycle access
Location Project work will occur along a 1.9 mile section of Prospect Road between Saratoga/Sunnyvale
Rd and Lawrence Expressway, and along a 1.3 mile section of Saratoga Ave between Highway 85
to the City Limits to the north.
Project
Background
This project will improve safety of the road by physically reducing the width of the road,
channeling vehicles into defined turn lanes, reducing the threat of vehicles crossing the center
lane, and creating safer pedestrian crossings. Improvements will also be made to existing
pedestrian, bicycle and VTA bus stop facilities, thereby enhancing pedestrian accessibility and
providing a safe and convenient walking and bicycling experience. The scope of the project
includes the following:
Installment of sidewalk at several identified gaps, and several ADA compliant ramps at
several crosswalks
Upgrades to existing signalized intersections with audible signals for the visually
impaired, and repairs and ADA upgrades to existing curb ramps
Installment of bicycle detector loops at all the signalized intersections within the project
limits, and “Green” bike lanes at the heavy congested intersections at Prospect
Rd/Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd and Prospect Rd/Lawrence Expressway.
Installment of new bus shelters at all the VTA bus stops within the project limits total of
(14) bus stops, and bus pads at all the bus stops.
A new median with landscaping will be installed between Lawrence Expressway and
Saratoga Ave.
A continuous Class II bike lane is provided along the entire length of the segment.
The City has applied for a $4.2 million OBAG grant, of which a $544,825 grant match funding is
required. Gas Tax funds will be dedicated for this purpose.
Operating
Budget Impacts
City staff anticipates additional maintenance for the new median on Prospect Road will increase
expenses in the Operating Budget by an undetermined amount. However, the improvements will
also provide safer conditions, thereby reducing liability risks,
10
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
Project Name Citywide Signal Upgrade Project - Phase
II
Project Number 9122-007
Department Public Works Project Manager Macedonio Nunez
Description This project continues the development of a citywide master signal system to standardize and
coordinate the City’s traffic signals and allow real-time monitoring and control along Saratoga’s
major traffic corridors. The project also allows for future regional integration.
Location This is a Citywide project which will incorporate all City owned signals in Saratoga
Project
Background
The City’s intersection signal timing settings were last coordinated in approximately 2001.
Subsequently, the City of Saratoga received a Regional Signal Timing Program (RSTP) grant
from VTA in 2006 to conduct a citywide signal timing study. The project included developing
updated signal coordination plans during the morning, afternoon, and evening periods for the
signalized intersections in the City of Saratoga. This was considered Phase I:
Phase I: Upgrade hardware and software at all City signals, and provide interconnect hardware
with wire and wireless technology. This phase is complete.
For FY 2013/14, VTA has provided a second grant to continue this project as described in Phase
II. The second phase will provide for the computerized system to allow City engineers to manage
the signal coordination.
Phase II: Provide Traffic Management System at City Hall, and communication equipment to all
upgraded signals. Interconnect signals along Coordination Corridors and coordinate with the
Management System.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative and staff time for oversight and implementation of the project is
incorporated into the operating budget. The new system will reduce call-out expenses for traffic
signal repairs as signal timing changes will now be handled in house by staff.
11
SIDEWALKS, CURBS & STORM DRAINS
Project Name OBAG SCG Sidewalk Repair Project Number 9142-014
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project will repair and replace sidewalk, curb, and gutter on an as needed basis along Big
Basin Way to reduce tripping hazards and beautify the village.
Location Sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements will be made along Big Basin Way between 6th street
and Hwy 9 in the Village’s heavy pedestrian areas.
Project
Background
The Village is the historical downtown center of Saratoga and is the main corridor for local retail
and professional offices. Businesses found along this road include fine restaurants, salons,
galleries, home furniture show rooms, bakeries, coffee shops, banks, and delis. There is a good
deal of pedestrian traffic as shoppers and diners enjoy the Village’s ambiance.
This project is intended to improve patron safety along this major activity center and enhance
Saratoga’s pedestrian-friendly environment through ensuring a safe and convenient walking
experience. This project provides funding to remove and replace any sidewalk, curb, and gutter
along the Saratoga Village that is deteriorating or a tripping hazard.
This project is fully funded with a $163,000 STP OBAG grant.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative and staff time for oversight and implementation of the project is
incorporated into the operating budget. Staff time and material costs for minor repairs will be
eliminated, and liability risks will be reduced with the infrastructure in new condition and in
compliance with current standards.
12
PARK PROJECTS
Project Name Fibar Playground Safety Improvements Project Number 9211-005
Department Public Works Project Manager Kevin Meek
Description This project will replace the sand at City Park playgrounds with fibar material.
Location Park playgrounds throughout the City will be upgraded. Current funding provides for the
Gardiner Park and Kevin Moran Park playgrounds.
Project
Background
The project involves upgrading the playgrounds to current standards to comply with the American
Disabilities Act regarding access. The fibar upgrade will also improve attenuation and injury
prevention.
The parks targeted for this fiscal year are Gardiner Park and Kevin Moran Park. .
The project amount is approximately $40,000. The City will use $25,000 from its Association of
Bay Area Government (ABAG) Safety Grant, and $15,000 from the Risk Management CIP.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Staff time associated with project management and maintenance of this project are incorporated in
the operating budget. The City does not anticipate any additional maintenance costs from this
project.
13
PARK PROJECTS
Project Name Wildwood Park Bridge Rehabilitation
Project Number 9225-003
Department Public Works Project Manager
Description Rebuild the pedestrian bridge/walkway connecting the parking lot to Wildwood Park to return it
to safe standards.
Location Wildwood Park
Project
Background
The Wildwood Park bridge crosses Saratoga Creek to connect the parking lot to the park grounds.
The bridge was constructed in _____. Over the years, the exposed wood planks have deteriorated
and weakened, hence creating a safety issue.
This project will fund the replacement of all the decking and railings with new material. The
access steps and support structures remain in good condition and do not need to be replaced.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Staff time associated with project management and maintenance for this project are incorporated
into the operating budget. The bridge rehabilitation will decrease budget impacts as short term
repairs and will no longer be required
14
TRAIL PROJECTS
Project Name Guava Ct/Fredericksburg Entrance Project Number 9274-002
Department Public Works Project Manager
Description Remove Guava Court barrier and allow access from Guava Court to Fredericksburg Drive
(Access) near Joe’s Trail.
Location Guava Court near Fredericksburg Access at Joe’s Trail.
Project
Background
In 2007, the pedestrian crossings at Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court were declared unsafe
by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and were consequently closed. Since that
time, the City of Saratoga has developed Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza.
In September 2012, residents living near the Fredericksburg and Guava Access points expressed
interest in having the access reopened. The City reopened Fredericksburg because it had resolved
most of the safety issues cited by CPUC. In order for Guava to be reopened, the City would need
to purchase an easement from the Railroad.
Residents believe that reopening the Guava Access would allow children and adults living in the
area to travel more safely on foot and by bike and also allow for more community engagement
with families in the area. The project will re-connect Fredericksburg Drive neighborhood with
Blue Hills Elementary School.
Extensive discussion would have to take place between the City and the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) for this process to take place. If the easement purchase is allowed, and the
CPUC gives permission to start the process of reopening, the City must also make improvements
to the ramp at the opening so that it becomes ADA compliant.
Staff is currently working on securing grant funding of approximately $354,120. If grant funding
is approved, the City match requirement would be approximately $45,880
Operating
Budget Impacts
Staff time associated with project management and maintenance for this project are incorporated
in the operating budget. City staff estimates the added trail entrance would require $3,000 per
year for maintenance.
15
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project Number 9461-001
Department Public Safety Project Manager Crystal Bothelio
Description This project develops a Wildfire Protection Plan to identify wildfire risks in the Wildland-Urban
Interface areas and provide recommendations to prevent and reduce the threat of wildfire.
Location Wildland-Urban areas, located along the City’s borders
Project
Background
Portions of Saratoga lie along the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. These more rural areas
are characterized by large lots and acreage on hillsides containing open expanses of grassland,
brush, and forestry vegetation. This zone of transition between unoccupied land and human
development is known as the Wildland-Urban Interface, and is prone to wildfire.
In collaboration with SCC FireSafe Council, SCC Fire Department, and other interested agencies,
this project will fund a scientific analysis of wildfire related hazards and risks in Saratoga’s
Wildland-Urban Interface areas and establish recommended action to mitigate these threats.
The SCC FireSafe Council received a grant from the Bureau of Land Management in 2006 to
develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans and has since prepared plans for the East Foothills,
Croy Fire Area, and Lexington Hills communities. Creation of a Community Wildfire Protection
Plan would satisfy Implementation Measure SAF-4.2a of the General Plan Safety Element.
It is anticipated that the SCC FireSafe Council will oversee the development of this plan in
coordination with neighboring cities, with Saratoga funding an allocated portion expected to cost
$25,000. Additional components of the plan, including evacuation planning, evacuation signage,
and public education would result in additional costs; each of the 3 additional components is
expected to cost roughly $25,000
Operating
Budget Impacts
Staff time associated with the support of this project is incorporated in the operating budget.
Future updates would be required and would consequently have minimal Operating Budget
impacts as a result of staff time spent on updates.
16
Exhibit "A"LAND USE ELEMENTCapital Improvement Plan F.Y. 13/14 Update - New Project List NEW CIP PROJECTS CIRCULATION ELEMENT LAND USE ELEMENT NOTESSTREET PROJECTS GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION GOALS, POLICIES, IMP 1ADA Signal Lights1a, 1b, 5a, 5b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 5.10 2.1, 5.12, 5.13, 5.15, 5.16, 5.19 2Prospect / Saratoga OBAG Improvements1a, 1b, 2c, 5a, 5b, 6b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 5.10, 6.5 2.1, 5.12, 5.133Citywide Signal Upgrades Phase II1b, 2a 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.54OBAG SCG Sidewalk RepairRepair Project - No GP EelementPARK & TRAIL PROJECTS 5Fibar Replacement - Gardiner and Kevin Moran parks1, 36Wildwood Park Bridge Rehabilitation1, 37Guava Court / Fredricksburg Entrance to Joe's Trail1, 3, 5 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 1a, 1b, 2c, 5a, 5b 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 5.10 2.1, 5.12, 5.13ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS 8Community Wildfire Protection Plan4 4.2, 4.5 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.5b FACILITY PROJECTS GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITYSAFETY ELEMENT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT17
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: May 8, 2013
Application: Presentation on Plan Bay Area
Location / APN: N/A
Owner / Applicant: N/A
Staff Planner: James Lindsay
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission requested staff to present information on Plan Bay Area, a
regional planning effort by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Air Quality District, and the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. An overview of Plan Bay Area is
provided as Attachment 1, and a digital version of the entire 165 page document can be
viewed at www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/plan_bay_area/draftplanbayarea .
The Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) in 2006, which requires the state to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by no later than 2020. The Legislature then
passed Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) in 2009 to help implement the reduction targets set by AB
32 for the automobile and light truck sector, which represents approximately 30% of the
state’s greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions. SB 375 has three primary objectives:
1. To use the regional transportation planning process to help achieve AB 32 goals.
2. To use California Environmental Quality Act streamlining as an incentive to
encourage residential projects which help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
3. To coordinate the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional
transportation planning process.
As required by SB 375, the California Air Resources Board set GhG emission reduction
targets for each of the state’s 18 federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs). The MPO for the Bay Area is the MTC and the adopted reduction targets (over a
2005 baseline) for MTC are 7% by 2020 and 15% by 2035.
SB 375 requires each MPO (MTC and ABAG are sharing responsibility in the Bay Area) to
prepare a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) as part of the regional transportation plan
(RTP), which is a long-term blueprint of a region’s transportation system and regulated by
both state and federal laws.
18
.
The primary purpose of the SCS is to:
“set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated
with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will
reduce the greenhouse gas emission from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if
there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
approved by the state board.” (Gov. Code, § 65080, subd. (b)(2)(B)(5))
In addition, the SCS must consider or address several additional factors (Gov't Code §
65080(b)(2)(B)&(G)):
• Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities
within the region;
• Identify areas sufficient to house all economic segments of the population in the
region over the long term planning horizon of the RTP;
• Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the
regional housing need for the region;
• Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region;
• Set a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the
transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce
the GhG emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a
feasible way to do so, the GhG emission reduction targets approved by the state
board: and
• Quantify the reduction in GhG emissions projected to be achieved by the SCS and, if
the SCS does not achieve the targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, set
forth the difference between the amount that the SCS would reduce GhG emissions
and the target for the region.
ABAG and MTC adopted ten objectives / targets for the Bay Area SCS (now known as Plan
Bay Area). The first two targets are required by SB 375:
1. Reduce per-capita carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 7
percent by 2020 and by 15 percent by 2035
2. House by 2035 100 percent of the region's projected 25-year growth by income
level, without displacing current low-income residents.
The remaining eight targets reflect voluntary goals established by ABAG & MTC in the
following categories:
Healthy and Safe Communities
3. Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions
• Reduce premature deaths from exposure to fine particulates (PM2.5) by 10
percent
• Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PM 10) by 30 percent
• Achieve greater reductions in highly impacted areas
19
.
4. Reduce by 50 percent the number of injuries and fatalities from all collisions
(including bike and pedestrian)
5. Increase the average daily time walking or biking per person for transportation by 60
percent (for an average of 15 minutes per person per day)
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation
6. Direct all non-agricultural development within the urban footprint (existing urban
development and urban growth boundaries)
Equitable Access
7. Decrease by 10 percent the share of low-income and lower-middle income residents'
household income consumed by transportation and housing
Economic Vitality
8. Increase gross regional product by 90 percent – an average annual growth rate of
approximately 2 percent (in current dollars)
Transportation System Effectiveness
9. Increase non-auto mode share by 10 percent and decrease automobile vehicle miles
traveled per capita by 10 percent.
10. Maintain the transportation system in a state of good repair
• Increase local road pavement condition index to 75 or better
• Decrease distressed lane-miles of state highways to less than 10 percent of total
lane-miles
• Reduce average transit asset age to 50 percent of useful life
Attachment 4 is a table from ABAG that shows how Plan Bay Area meets, exceeds, or falls
short of each of the above targets.
DISCUSSION
ABAG & MTC released the completed Draft Plan Bay Area in March and draft EIR in
April and are collecting public comments on both documents until May 16, 2013. The draft
of Plan Bay Area assumes a certain amount of housing and job growth within each
jurisdiction (refer to Attachment 3 for Santa Clara County cities). The assumptions for
Saratoga and similar west valley cities are shown in the table below (source: Appendix A –
May 2012 Jobs Housing Connection Strategy):
30-Year Projected Employment Growth
City 2010 2040 Job Growth % Growth
Saratoga 11,870 14,500 2,630 22%
Los Gatos 23,580 28,980 5,390 23%
Monte Sereno 450 570 120 27%
Los Altos 14,700 18,160 3,460 24%
Los Altos Hills 3,580 4,440 860 24%
20
.
30-Year Projected Housing Growth
City 2010 2040 Housing Growth % Growth
Saratoga 11,120 11,750 630 6%
Los Gatos 13,050 13,820 770 6%
Monte Sereno 1,290 1,370 80 6%
Los Altos 11,200 12,300 1,100 10%
Los Altos Hills 3,000 3,100 100 3%
The employment growth projections in the draft Plan Bay Area appears to be overestimated
when compared to employment data from the US Census Bureau. The Census Bureau’s ZIP
Code Business Statistics reflect much lower employment numbers for Saratoga:
• 2004 – 4,827 employees
• 2010 – 4,194 employees
This data is supported by the fact that the City’s largest employer, West Valley College,
only employs around 800 people. Overestimating the distribution of future job growth in
the Bay Area could result in significantly underestimating the vehicle miles traveled and the
resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Staff will be drafting a comment letter for the City
Council to review at their May 15th meeting. ABAG & MTC are expected to adopt the
Final EIR and Plan Bay Area in July 2013.
More detailed information about Plan Bay Area can be found at onebayarea.org and
Attachment 5 contains more details about SB 375.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy Executive Summary
2. Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Policy
3. Projected Jobs & Housing Growth - Santa Clara County Cities
4. Plan Bay Area Target Analysis
5. 1/23/09 League of California Cities Technical Overview of SB 375
21
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region i
Strategy for a
Sustainable
Region
Draft
March 2013
Association of
Bay Area
Governments
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
22
ii Plan Bay Area | DRAFT23
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region iii
Draft Plan Bay Area
Table of Contents
Introducing Plan Bay Area Strategy for a Sustainable Region 1
Chapter 1 Setting Our Sights 17
Chapter 2 The Bay Area in 2040 29
Chapter 3 Where We Live, Where We Work 41
Chapter 4 Investments 61
Chapter 5 Performance 95
Chapter 6 A Plan to Build On 121
What’s Next for Plan Bay Area?135
Appendix 1 Supplementary Reports and Additional Resources 137
Appendix 2 Maps 139
24
iv Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Mountain View
Dublin
Emeryville
Los Gatos
Danville
San Carlos
Gilroy
San Pablo
Belmont
Colma
Sebastopol
Campbell
Burlingame
Woodside
Fairfax
Windsor
Los Altos
Hillsborough
Morgan Hill
Pacifica
Atherton
Mill Valley
San Bruno
El Cerrito
American Canyon
San Anselmo
Clayton
Calistoga
Yountville
Sausalito
Monte Sereno
Suisun City
Newark
Belvedere
Portola Valley
Larkspur
Cotati
Millbrae
Sonoma
Saratoga
Orinda
Oakley
Lafayette
Rohnert Park
CorteMadera
Ross
Piedmont
Benicia
Foster City
Albany
Hercules
Tiburon
Healdsburg
Pleasant Hill
Moraga
Dixon
East Palo AltoHalf Moon Bay
Rio Vista
Brisbane
Cloverdale
MenloPark
Los Altos Hills
Pinole Martinez
Cupertino
Pittsburg
San Ramon
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Brentwood
Redwood City
Livermore
Palo Alto
SouthSan Francisco
PleasantonSan Leandro
Vallejo
Concord
Napa
SanMateo Hayward
Santa Clara
Union City
Novato
Antioch
Vacaville
Walnut Creek
SantaRosa
Berkeley
Alameda
SanRafael
Petaluma
Fremont
Faireld
Richmond
Daly City
OaklandSanFrancisco
San Jose
580
238
101
101
101
101
101
505
80
780
580
880
580
205
680
680
280
280
580
680
80
80
29
29
29
121
121
37
24
37
12
12
12
12
113
116
13
4
9
35
35
130
237
82
1
25
152
152
17
35
92
23892
84
84
84
4
41
116
128
128
128
116
1
87
85
Minor Road
SanFranciscoLegend
Freeway
Major Road
ROADS
> 350,000
50,000–350,000
<50,000
Oakland
Novato
Pacifica
2010 POPULATION
Altamont Corridor Express
Amtrak
BART
Caltrain
Light Rail (Muni & VTA)
Cable Car (Muni)
RAIL SYSTEM
Urbanized area
Open space
Priority Development Area (PDA)
Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
San Francisco Bay Area - Transportation and Land Uses | 3.20.13
0
0
10 20 30
10 20 30 40
Miles
Kilometers
Santa
ClaraSan
Mateo
Alameda
Contra
Costa
Marin
Sonoma Napa
SolanoSan Francisco
Bay Area:
Transportation
and Land Uses
25
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 1
Introducing Plan Bay Area:
Strategy for a Sustainable RegionMost of us living in the nine counties that touch San Francisco Bay are accustomed to saying we live in “the Bay Area.” This simple phrase speaks volumes — and underscores a shared regional identity. The 7 million of us who call the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area home have a strong interest in protecting the wealth of features that make our region a magnet for people and businesses from around the globe.The Bay Area is, after all, the world’s 21st-largest economy. The natural beauty of San Francisco Bay and the communities surrounding it, our Mediterranean climate, extensive system of interconnected parks and open space, advanced mass transit system, top-notch educational institutions, and rich cultural heritage continue to draw people who seek better opportunities. Yet we cannot take for granted that we will be able to sustain and improve our quality of life for current and future generations. With our region’s population projected to swell to some 9 million people by 2040, Plan Bay Area charts a course for accommodating this growth while fostering an innovative, prosperous and competitive economy; preserving a healthy and safe environment; and allowing all Bay Area residents to share the benefits of vibrant, sustainable communities connected by an efficient and well-maintained transportation network.
“The Bay Area has made
farsighted regional planning a
top priority for decades.”
26
2 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
A Legacy of LeadershipPlan Bay Area, while comprehensive and forward-reaching, is an evolutionary document. The Bay Area has made farsighted regional planning a top priority for decades. Previous genera-tions recognized the need for a mass transit system, including regional systems such as BART and Caltrain that have helped make our region the envy of other metropolitan areas. Our transbay bridges add cohesion to the regional transportation system by connecting communities across the bay. Likewise, we owe our system of parks and open space to past genera-tions of leaders who realized that a balance between urbanized areas and open space was essential to a healthy environment and vibrant communities.Plan Bay Area extends this legacy of leadership, doing more of what we’ve done well while also mapping new strategies to face new challenges. Among the new challenges are the requirements of California’s landmark 2008 climate law (SB 375, Steinberg): to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, and to accommodate all needed housing growth within our nine counties. By coordinating future land uses with our long-term transportation investments, Plan Bay Area meets these challenges head on — without compromising local control of land-use decisions. Each of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities must decide for themselves what is best for their citizens and their communities.
Building Upon Local Plans and Strategies For over a decade, local governments and regional agencies have been working together to en-courage the growth of jobs and production of housing in areas supported by amenities and in-frastructure. In 2008, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) created a regional initiative to support these local efforts called FOCUS. In recent years, this initiative has helped to link local community development aspirations with regional land use and transportation planning objectives. Local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and these form the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area.PDAs are areas where new development will support the day-to-day needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. While PDAs were originally established to address housing needs in infill communities, they have been broadened to advance focused employment growth. Local jurisdictions have defined the character of their PDAs according to existing conditions and future expectations as regional centers, city cen-ters, suburban centers or transit town centers, among other place types. PCAs are regionally significant open spaces for which there exists broad consensus for long-term protection but Caltrans27
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 3
California Senate Bill 375: Linking Regional Plans to
State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Plan Bay Area grew out of “The California Sustainable Com-
munities and Climate Protection Act of 2008” (California Sen-
ate Bill 375, Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18
metropolitan areas — including the Bay Area — to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Signed
by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the law requires
that the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) promote
compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development. To meet the goals of SB 375, Plan
Bay Area directs more future development in areas that are or will be walkable and bikable and
close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. Key elements
of SB 375 include the following.
• The law requires that the Bay Area and other California regions develop a Sustainable Com-
munities Strategy (SCS) — a new element of the regional transportation plan (RTP) — to
strive to reach the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target established for each region by
the California Air Resources Board. The Bay Area’s target is a 7 percent per capita reduction
by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035. Plan Bay Area is the region’s first
RTP subject to SB 375.
• In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the
land use and housing assumptions for the SCS, which adds three new elements to the RTP:
(1) a land use component that identifies how the region could house the region’s entire
population over the next 25 years; (2) a discussion of resource and farmland areas; and (3) a
demonstration of how the development pattern and the transportation network can work
together to reduce GHG emissions.
• Extensive outreach with local government officials is required, as well as a public participa-
tion plan that includes a minimum number of workshops in each county as well as three
public hearings on the draft SCS prior to adoption of a final plan.
• The law synchronizes the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) process — adopted in
the 1980s — with the regional transportation planning process.
• Finally, SB 375 streamlines the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for housing and
mixed-use projects that are consistent with the SCS and meet specified criteria, such as
proximity to public transportation.
nearer-term development pressure. PDAs and PCAs complement one another because promot-ing development within PDAs takes development pressure off the region’s open space and agricultural lands. Building upon the collaborative approach established through FOCUS, local input has driven the set of alternative scenarios that preceded and informed the development of Plan Bay Area.
28
4 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
The non-profit and business communities also played a key role in shaping the plan. Business groups highlighted the need for more affordable workforce housing, removing regulatory bar-riers to infill development, and addressing infrastructure needs at rapidly growing employ-ment centers. Environmental organizations emphasized the need to improve transit access, retain open space, provide an adequate supply of housing to limit the number of people com-muting into the region from nearby counties, and direct discretionary transportation funding to communities building housing in PDAs. Equity organizations focused on increasing access to housing and employment for residents of all income categories throughout the region, and establishing policies to limit the displacement of existing residents as PDAs grow and evolve. All of these diverse voices strengthened this plan.
Setting Our SightsDeveloping a long-range land use and transportation plan for California’s second-largest met-ropolitan region, covering about 7,000 square miles across nine Bay Area counties, is no simple task. We set our sights on this challenge by emphasizing an open, inclusive public outreach process and adopting objective performance standards based on federal and state require-ments to measure our progress during the planning process.
Reaching OutWe reached out to the people who matter most — the 7 million people who live in the region. Thousands of people participated in stakeholder sessions, public workshops, tele -phone and internet surveys, and more. Befitting the Bay Area, the public outreach process was boister-ous and contentious. Key stakehold-ers also included the region’s 101 cities and nine counties; our fellow regional agencies, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; community-based organizations and advocacy groups, and some three dozen regional transportation partners. (See “Plan Bay Area Prompts Robust Dialogue on Transportation and Housing,” in Chapter 1.)
Establishing Performance TargetsBefore proposing a land use distribution approach or recommending a transportation invest-ment strategy, planners must formulate in concrete terms the hoped-for outcomes. For Plan Bay Area, performance targets are an essential means of informing and allowing for a discus-sion of quantitative metrics. After months of discussion and debate, ABAG and MTC adopted 10 targets in January 2011, reflecting input from the broad range of stakeholders engaged in the process. Noah Berger29
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 5
Two of the targets are not only ambitious; they are also mandated by state law. The first man-datory target addresses climate protection by requiring the Bay Area to reduce its per-capita CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent by 2040. The second mandatory target addresses adequate housing by requiring the region to house 100 percent of its project-ed population growth by income level. Plan Bay Area achieves both these major milestones.The eight voluntary targets seek to promote healthy and safe communities by reducing pre-mature deaths from air pollution, reducing injuries and fatalities from collisions, increasing the amount of time people walk or cycle for transportation, and protecting open space and agricultural lands. Other targets address equity concerns, economic vitality and transporta-tion system effectiveness. Plan Bay Area meets some, but not all, of the voluntary targets. (See Chapter 1, Table 1 for a summary of all the Plan Bay Area performance targets.)
Planning Scenarios Take Aim at Performance TargetsTaken together, the Plan Bay Area performance targets outline a framework that allows us to better understand how different projects and policies might affect the region’s future. With the targets clearly identified, MTC and ABAG formulated possible scenarios — combinations of land use patterns and transportation investments — that could be evaluated together to see if (and by how much), they achieved (or fell short of) the performance targets. An iterative pro-cess of scenario-testing begun in 2010 yielded preferred alternatives, both for transportation investments and a land use strategy. Adopted by the boards of MTC and ABAG in May 2012, they form this draft Plan Bay Area.
Looking Toward the FutureABAG and MTC track and forecast the region’s demographics and economic trends to inform and guide Plan Bay Area investments and policy decisions. The forecasts reflect the best pic-ture we have of what the Bay Area may look like in 2040, so that today’s decisions may align with tomorrow’s expected transportation and housing needs. These forecasts form the basis for developing the regional land use plan for Plan Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and, in turn, the region’s transportation investment strategy.
Taking Equity Into Account
About one-fifth of the Bay Area’s total population lives in areas with large
numbers of low-income and minority populations. Promoting these people’s
access to housing, jobs and transportation not only advances Plan Bay Area’s
objective to advance equity in the region, it also increases our chances of meet-
ing the other performance targets. MTC and ABAG adopted five Equity Analysis
measures to evaluate equity concerns: housing and transportation affordability,
potential for displacement, healthy communities, access to jobs, and equitable
mobility. (See Chapter 1, Table 2: “Plan Bay Area Equity Performance Measures.”)MTC Archives30
6 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Projections in three main areas informed development of the plan: population, employment and housing. Here are some highlights of each.
• Population: By 2040 the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to add 2.1 million people, increasing total regional population from 7.2 million to 9.3 million, an increase of 30 percent or roughly 1 percent per year. This growth means the Bay Area will continue to be California’s second-largest population and economic center.
• Employment: The number of jobs is expected to grow by 1.1 million between 2010 and 2040, an increase of 33 percent. This is a slower rate of job growth than previous forecasts.
• Housing: During this same time period the number of households is expected to in-crease by 27 percent to 700,000, and the number of housing units is expected to in-crease by 24 percent to 660,000. The demographic implications of these topline numbers are far-reaching, and some trends in particular weighed heavily in the development of Plan Bay Area. These are touched on below and examined in greater detail in Chapter 2.
Project-Level Performance Assessment of
Transportation Projects
By developing the preferred land use and transportation investment strategies, ABAG and MTC
were able to answer many big picture questions about the Bay Area’s future. For example, should
the region focus on expanding the transportation system or on maintaining what we have already
built? And should the Bay Area invest more in transit for future generations or emphasize highway
projects to improve the commutes of today’s drivers? And how should our transportation invest-
ments support future growth in employment and housing?
Plan Bay Area also is based on a commitment to evaluate individual transportation projects to make
sure dollars are being allocated to the most cost-effective projects. In order to take a closer look at
major transportation projects, MTC performed a project performance assessment, examining bil-
lions of dollars of potential transportation projects to identify the highest-performing investments
across the region. This enabled funding prioritization for the highest-performing projects. Most
of them focused on leveraging existing
assets and improving their efficiency, while
supporting future development. Notable
projects include BART Metro, which will
increase service frequencies on the highest-
demand segment of the BART system, and
San Francisco’s congestion pricing initia-
tives. (See Chapter 5 for a list of high-per-
forming projects.)Noah Berger31
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 7
Aging Baby Boomers Expected to Change
Travel and Development PatternsThe U.S. Census Bureau defines baby boomers as people who were born between 1946 and 1964 during the post-World War II baby boom. By 2040 the oldest baby boomers will be in their 90s and the youngest will be in their 70s. Today, people who are 65 and over represent 12 percent of the Bay Area’s total population, but by 2040 the number of seniors will increase to 22 percent. That’s more than 1 in 5 people in our region. It is expected that many of these seniors will relocate to smaller homes in more urban locations to have easier access to essential services and amenities and the Bay Area’s extensive transit system.Mobility will be a special challenge for seniors who lose their ability to drive. MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Program supports projects that address mobility and accessibility needs of low-in-come and disabled people throughout the region. Between 2006 and 2012, roughly $172 million was invested to support about 220 projects. Closely related are MTC programs that provide funding to sustain and improve mobility for elderly and disabled persons in accordance with and even beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These types of projects have included travel training, sidewalk and bus stop improvements, supportive ride programs and other com-munity initiatives. Plan Bay Area reaffirms the importance of Lifeline and Elderly & Disabled programs by adding over $800 million in discretionary funding for the Lifeline program, and almost $240 million for the Elderly & Disabled programs over the 28-year period of the plan.
Increased Racial and Ethnic Diversity Will
Increase Demand for Multifamily HousingThe Bay Area and California are at the forefront of one of the greatest demographic changes in our nation’s history: growth in the Latino population. In January 2013 the California Depart-ment of Finance projected that the state’s Hispanic population will equal the non-Hispanic Joyce Benna0%
50%
20402010Percent of Total PopulationPacific Islander and American Indian
MultiraceAfrican-AmericanAsianLatinoWhite
Figure 1 Share of Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2040
Sources: 2010 Census, California Department of Finance, ABAG
32
8 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
white population by mid-2013. By early 2014 it expects that California’s Hispanic population will have become a plurality for the first time in state history.This state forecast aligns with Plan Bay Area’s projection that by 2040 the Bay Area population will become substantially more racially and ethnically diverse. Latinos will emerge as the larg-est ethnic group, increasing from 23 percent to 35 percent of the total population. The number of Asians also will increase, growing from 21 percent to about 24 percent of the population. Both population groups have demonstrated an historic preference for multifamily housing, and they form multigenerational households at a higher rate than the general population. This is expected to drive higher demand for multifamily housing, in contrast to the historic devel-opment pattern of building primarily single-family homes. Likewise, many Latinos and Asians rely more on public transit than non-Hispanic whites. This, too, is expected to increase demand for a robust transit system that makes it easier for people who don’t own cars to commute, shop and access essential services.
Demand for Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Areas Close to Transit
Expected to IncreaseSingle-family homes represent the majority of housing production in recent decades, but recent trends suggest that cities once again are becoming centers of population growth. Construction of multifamily housing in urban locations in the Bay Area increased from an average of 35 percent of total housing con-struction in the 1990s to nearly 50 percent in the 2000s. In 2010 it represented 65 percent of all housing construction.As discussed above, demand for multifamily housing is projected to increase as seniors downsize and seek homes in more urban locations. The growing numbers of Latino and Asian households will create a similar shift in the housing market. Finally, population growth of those aged 34 and younger is expected to have a similar effect, as this demographic group also demonstrates a greater preference for multifamily hous-ing. All told, the number of people per Bay Area household is expected to increase from 2.69 in 2010 to 2.75 in 2040. Market demand for new homes will tilt toward townhomes, condomini-ums and apartments in developed areas near transit, shops and services.
Building a Development Pattern That Aligns
With Where We Live and WorkPlan Bay Area provides a vision for how to retain and enhance the qualities that make the Bay Area a great place to live, work, and play. It builds on the legacy of leadership left to us by previous generations. In fact, many of the attributes that make the Bay Area special — a strong MTC ArchivesThe Crossings, Mountain View
33
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 9
economy, protected natural resources, a network of diverse neighborhoods — would not have been possible without our predecessors’ forward-thinking actions.Looking ahead to the growth expected in the Bay Area over the next several decades, we face many similar problems as past generations, while also confronting new challenges that threaten the region’s economic vitality and quality of life. Our economy is still recovering from the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which has resulted in uneven job growth throughout the region, increased income disparity, and high foreclosure rates. At the same time, housing costs have risen for renters and, to a lesser degree, for home buyers close to the regions’s job centers. Finally, Bay Area communities face these challenges at a time when there are fewer public re-sources available than in past decades for investments in infrastructure, public transit, afford-able housing, schools and parks.
A More Focused FutureThe planning scenarios and land use and transportation investment strategies developed during the Plan Bay Area process seek to address the needs and aspirations of each Bay Area jurisdiction, as identified in locally adopted general plans and zoning ordinances. They also aim to meet the Plan Bay Area performance targets and equity performance standards. The framework for developing these scenarios consisted largely of the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) recommended by local governments. The preferred land use scenario identified in Chapter 3 is a flexible blueprint for accommodating growth over the long term. Pairing this development pattern with the transportation invest-ments described in Chapter 4 is what makes Plan Bay Area the first truly integrated land use transportation plan for the region’s anticipated growth.Peter BeelerRichmond Transit Village
34
10 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
2040 Employment Distribution HighlightsPlan Bay Area’s distribution of jobs throughout the region is informed by changing trends in the locational preferences of the wide range of industry sectors and business place types in the Bay Area. These trends capture ongoing geographic changes, as well as changes in the labor force composition and workers’ preferences. The employment distribution directs job growth toward the region’s larger cities and Priority Development Areas with a strong existing em-ployment base and communities with stronger opportunities for knowledge-sector jobs.
Table 1 SF Bay Area Total Job Growth 2010-2040, Top 15 Cities
Rank Jurisdiction
Total Jobs 2010-2040 Job Growth
2010 2040 Total Growth
Percentage
Growth
1 San Francisco 568,720 759,470 190,740 34%
2 San Jose 375,360 522,050 146,680 39%
3 Oakland 190,250 275,490 85,240 45%
4 Santa Clara 112,460 145,560 33,100 29%
5 Fremont 89,900 119,870 29,970 33%
6 Palo Alto 89,370 119,030 29,650 33%
7 Santa Rosa 75,460 103,930 28,470 38%
8 Berkeley 77,020 99,220 22,210 29%
9 Concord 47,520 69,310 21,790 46%
10 Hayward 69,100 89,900 20,800 30%
11 Sunnyvale 74,610 95,320 20,710 28%
12 San Mateo 52,930 73,460 20,530 39%
13 Redwood City 58,340 77,830 19,490 33%
14 Walnut Creek 41,650 57,300 15,650 38%
15 Mountain View 47,800 63,380 15,570 33%
Source: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, ABAG, 2012Almost 40 percent of the jobs added from 2010 to 2040 will be in the region’s three largest cities — San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland — which accounted for about one-third of the region’s jobs in 2010. Two-thirds of the overall job growth is anticipated to be in PDAs throughout the region. Due to the strength of the knowledge sector, nine of the 15 cities expected to experience the greatest job growth are in the western and southern part of the region surrounding Silicon Valley. The remaining communities expecting high levels of job growth are in the East Bay and North Bay, owing to their strong roles in the current economy, diverse employment base, and their proximity to a large base of workers. The 15 cities expected to experience the most job growth will account for roughly 700,000 jobs, or just over 60 percent of the new jobs added in the region by 2040. (See Table 1 above.)
35
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 11
2040 Housing Distribution HighlightsThe Plan Bay Area housing distribution is guided by the policy direction of the ABAG Executive Board, which voted in July 2011 to support equitable and sustainable development by “maxi-mizing the regional transit network and reducing GHG emissions by providing convenient access to employment for people of all incomes.” This was accomplished by distributing total housing growth numbers to: 1) job-rich cities that have PDAs or additional areas that are PDA-like; 2) areas connected to the existing transit infrastructure; and 3) areas that lack sufficient affordable housing to accommodate low-income commuters. The housing distribution directs growth to locations where the transit system can be utilized more efficiently, where workers can be better connected to jobs, and where residents can access high-quality services.
Table 2 SF Bay Area Total Housing Unit Growth 2010-2040, Top 15 Cities
Rank Jurisdiction
Total Housing Units 2010-2040 Housing Unit Growth
2010 2040 Total Growth
Percentage
Growth
1 San Jose 314,040 443,210 129,170 41%
2 San Francisco 376,940 469,350 92,410 25%
3 Oakland 169,710 221,200 51,490 30%
4 Sunnyvale 55,790 74,780 18,990 34%
5 Concord 47,130 65,170 18,040 38%
6 Fremont 73,990 91,610 17,620 24%
7 Santa Rosa 67,400 83,420 16,020 24%
8 Santa Clara 45,150 58,920 13,770 30%
9 Milpitas 19,810 32,430 12,620 64%
10 Hayward 48,300 60,580 12,290 25%
11 Fairfield 37,180 48,280 11,100 30%
12 San Mateo 40,010 50,180 10,160 25%
13 Richmond 39,330 49,020 9,690 25%
14 Livermore 30,340 40,020 9,670 32%
15 Mountain View 33,880 43,270 9,390 28%
Source: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, ABAG, 2012Substantial housing production is expected on the Peninsula and in the South Bay, where eight of the top 15 cities expected to experience the most housing growth are located. Two-thirds of the region’s overall housing production is directed to these 15 cities, leaving the more than 90 remaining jurisdictions in the region to absorb only limited growth. This development pattern preserves the character of more than 95 percent of the region by focusing growth on less than 5 percent of the land. (See Table 2 above.)
36
12 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
Transportation Investments Plan Bay Area structures an infrastructure investment plan in a systematic way to sup-port the region’s long-term land use strat-egy, relying on a performance assessment of scenarios and individual projects. The plan makes investments in the region’s transporta-tion network that support job growth and new homes in existing communities by focusing the lion’s share of investment on maintaining and boosting the efficiency of the existing transit and road system. Plan Bay Area also takes a bold step with strategic investments that provide support for focused growth in Priority De-velopment Areas, including the new One Bay Area Grant program.Plan Bay Area transportation revenue forecasts total $289 billion over the 28-year period. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of these funds are from regional and local sources, primarily dedicated sales tax programs and bridge tolls. Making up the remainder of the pie are state and federal revenues (mainly derived from fuel taxes). Of the total revenues, $57 billion are “discretionary,” or available for assignment to projects and programs through Plan Bay Area.The plan invests those discretionary funds via six key investment strategies, as shown in Figure 2 and presented in greater detail in Chapter 4. (See Table 3 for a look at the “big-ticket” plan in-vestments, overall.) The first two discretionary strategies merit special mention.
Maintain Our Existing SystemThough its fund sources are many and varied, Plan Bay Area’s overriding priority in invest-ing those funds can be stated quite simply: “Fix It First.” First and foremost, this plan should help to maintain the Bay Area’s transportation system in a state of good repair. Plan Bay Area’s focus on “fix it first” ensures that we maintain existing transportation assets, primarily con-centrated in the region’s core, which reinforces the plan’s focused growth strategy.
Build
Next Generation
Transit
($5 Billion)
9%
Boost
Freeway and
Transit Ecienc y
($4 Billion)
7%
Protect Our
Climate
(<$1 Billion)
<1%
Reserve
($2 Billion)
3%
Maintain
Existing
System
($15 Billion)
26%
Support
Focused Growth:
One Bay Area
Grant Program
($14 Billion)
25%
County
Investment
Priorities
($16 Billion)
29%
Figure 2 Plan Bay Area — Discretionary
Investment Summary
(in year-of-expenditure $)John BensonCaltrain Baby Bullet train
37
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 13
In total, Plan Bay Area dedicates 87 percent of all available funding (committed and discre-tionary) to sustaining the existing transportation network. Given the age of many major assets — BART turned 40 last year and S. F. Muni turned 100 — this should come as no surprise.
Support Focused Growth — One Bay Area Grant ProgramThe OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region’s transportation funding program with SB 375 and the land use pattern outlined in Chapter 3. The OBAG program rewards jurisdictions that focus housing growth in Priority De-velopment Areas (PDAs) through their planning and zoning policies, and actual production of housing units. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in a community’s transportation infrastructure by providing funding for Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to Schools projects and Priority Conservation Areas.
Plan Bay Area Achieves Key Performance Targets As described earlier, Plan Bay Area was developed within a framework of objective perfor-mance standards, both mandatory and voluntary or aspirational. As has been the case in past long-term transportation plans, no single strategy is able to achieve all the plan’s performance targets. An analysis of the 10 main targets and five sub-targets (for a total of 15 performance measures) clearly bears this out. Specifically, the draft plan meets or exceeds six targets, including the statutory greenhouse gas emissions and housing targets, narrowly misses three targets, falls well short of two targets and unfortunately moves in the wrong direction on four of the targets. In other words, the draft plan makes great progress on nine of 15 performance
“Top 10” Plan Bay Area Investments, by Project
(includes Committed and Discretionary funds)
Table 3 Ten Largest Plan Bay Area Investments
Rank Project
Investment
(YOE*
M illions $)
1 BART to Warm Springs, San Jose, and Santa Clara $8,341
2 MTC Regional Express Lane Network $6,657
3 Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Downtown Extension (Phases 1 and 2)$4,185
4 Integrated Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)$2,259
5 Presidio Parkway/ Doyle Drive US 101 seismic replacement $2,053
6 Caltrain Electrification and Service Frequency Improvements $1,718
7 SF MUNI Central Subway: King St to Chinatown $1,578
8 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Express Lane Network $1,458
9 San Jose International Airport Connector $753
10 Hunters Point and Candlestick Point: New Local Roads $722
* YOE = Year of Expenditure
38
14 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT
measures, which represents a solid first effort. The region will need to focus future attention on conceptualizing breakthrough strategies to achieve the four targets where we are falling behind. For a more detailed discussion of the plan’s performance as measured against each individual target, please see Chapter 5.
A Plan to Build On Plan Bay Area is a work in progress that will be updated every four years to reflect new ini-tiatives and priorities. It builds upon the work of previous initiatives, complements ongoing work and lays the groundwork for closer examination of certain critical issues that can further prepare the region to meet the future head-on. The plan highlights the relationship between transportation investments and land use planning, and represents the region’s newest effort to position itself to make the most of what the future will bring. No single level of government can be expected to address all the critical components needed to create a stronger and more resilient Bay Area. It will take a coordinated effort among diverse partners to promote regional economic development, adapt to climate change, prepare for natural disasters, get creative about how to provide affordable housing for all Bay Area resi-dents, ensure clean and healthy air for our communities, and prepare for emerging technolo-gies that will change the way people work and get around. Further steps will be needed to fully realize the Plan Bay Area vision and implement some of its forward-looking plans and policies. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of some needed “next steps.”)But we have made a strong start. Look closely at Plan Bay Area, and you will see a plan that takes great strides toward:
Tackling problems that cross boundaries and require regional solutions Housing, air quality, traffic, jobs, economic development, open space preservation — the list is a long one.
Embodying local visions Priority Development Areas were recommended by local governments, and land use and transportation strategies are linked to local input and priorities; different kinds of investments and development are envisioned for different parts of the region.
Helping to ensure a vibrant and healthy region for our children and grandchildren Cleaner air, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, more housing options, improved infra-structure, better access to jobs, and access to open space and recreation — these are the building blocks of a better future.
Making Bay Area businesses more competitive A well-constructed, sustainable regional plan can help us attract private sector invest-ment and compete for federal and state funding.
39
Overview | Introducing Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region 15
Providing a range of housing and
transportation choices A greater variety of multifamily and single family housing will be available in places with better transit access, and improved walking conditions and local services.
Stretching tax revenues through
smart investments By making the most of existing infra-structure, using a performance-based approach to transportation investments and coordinating the location of future housing and jobs with major transporta-tion investments, we can get more bang for our buck in public expenditures.
Preserving open spaces, natural resources,
agriculture and farmland By developing in existing downtowns, main streets and neighborhoods, we don’t need to develop on open spaces or in places that over-utilize our water supply, energy resources and road capacity.
Helping to create healthy communities More people will be able to live in neighborhoods where they can walk to shops, transit and local parks because of the groundwork laid in this plan.Plan Bay Area cannot guarantee these outcomes, of course, but we believe it can greatly boost the region’s odds of achieving them. For surely we must work together as a region to promote sustainability, and to leave a better Bay Area for our children and grandchildren. By helping to harmonize local decision-making and regional goals, by better integrating transportation in-vestment and land use planning, by more closely aligning our policies with our vision — in short, by creating a strategy for a sustainable region — Plan Bay Area gives us a chance to do that.
MTC and ABAG welcome your comments on this draft Plan Bay Area. An extensive
outreach eff ort is planned during the spring of 2013 to provide ample opportunity
for the region’s residents to make their views known. Please see “What’s Next for
Plan Bay Area” at the end of this plan for details, or visit http://onebayarea.org Karl Nielsen40
16 Plan Bay Area | DRAFT41
Preferred Land Use and Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Transportation Investment StrategyStrategyJoint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative Joint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative CommitteesCommitteesMay 11, 2012May 11, 201242
2Why a Plan Bay Area?Strengthen the connection between housing, jobs and transportationGrow the regional economy to provide employment opportunities for all. Build upon the Bay Area’s legacy of visionary leadership and investment and provide a prosperous future for future generations.Ensure stewardship of the spectacular scenic and natural resources of our region.Demonstrate how a large, growing metropolitan region like the Bay Area can do its part to reduce GHG emissions by making its existing cities more vital.43
333Plan Bay Area Reinforces Land Use and Transportation Integration per SB 375:1.PDAs are organized around transit corridors, thus enhancing mobility to housing and offering greater return on transit investment by promising greater ridership.2.The transportation “Fix it First” commitment undergirds the in-fill housing strategy featured in the growth element.3.The One Bay Area grant program incentivizes housing production, especially for low-income residents, and encourages local governments to adopt policies to reduce displacement risk of existing residents.4.New transit expansion projects proposed for funding in the federal New Starts program will be adjacent to nearly 800,000 jobs and housing units in nearby TODs.5.Housing and transportation elements are guided by the three E's of sustainability: building a stronger economy, protecting our natural environment, and enhancing opportunities for Bay Area residents from all walks of life.344
444Thousands Give Input on Plan Bay AreaSpring 2011 & Winter 2012Two telephone polls (March/April 2011; 1,069 residents) and Nov. 2011/Jan. 2012; 1,610 residents) and two rounds of focus groups Ten public workshops spring 2011 (790 participants) and 9 public workshops winter 2012 (1,100 participants)Partnered with 14 non-profits to conduct two rounds of outreach in low- income communities/ communities of color (1,600 surveys and 10 focus groups with 150 participants)Strong web presence (web survey, social media, e-newsletter)Ongoing meetings with our various advisory groups (eg Policy Advisory Council, Regional Advisory Working Group meeting, Regional Equity Working Group)Extensive, ongoing outreach to local government and stakeholders45
555Preferred Land Use Scenario: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy46
66Goal 1: Create Jobs to Maintain and Sustain a Prosperous and Equitable Economy47
77Goal 2: Increase the amount, accessibility, affordability, and diversity of housing48
88Goal 3: Create a Network of Complete Communities49
99Goal 4: Protect the Region’s Unique Natural Environment50
101010Regional Growth 2010 2040Growth2010 - 2040Jobs3,385,000 4,505,0001,120,000Population7,152,000 9,299, 0002,147,000Housing Units2,786,000 3,446,000660,00051
1111Jobs-Housing Connection ScenarioSupport for the Scenario’s alignment of Jobs, Housing and TransitHousing distributions in unincorporated counties, communities with limited transit-service/access to employment is too highHousing Distributions in suburban employment centers is too low11What we heard:52
1212Jobs-Housing Connection ScenarioAddresses shortcomings in the draft Jobs-Housing Connection (JHC) scenario related to the regional objective of focused growth and access to opportunityNarrows the gap relative to the GHG performance targetIncorporates jurisdictional feedback on draft JHC12Responses:53
13Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario: Household Growth 2010-2040Draft JHC (March)Revised JHC*(May)DifferenceAlameda157,850160,400+2,550Contra Costa90,03087,740-2,290Marin11,1808,700-2,480Napa9,2507,300-1,960San Francisco93,470101,720+8,250San Mateo58,28057,270-1,010Santa Clara196,420214,980+18,560Solano35,67026,910-8,760Sonoma47,97035,070-12,900Bay Area Total700,120700,090*Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario revision is a significantly more focused growth pattern that is not reflected in county totals54
14Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario Employment Growth 2010-2040Draft JHC (March)Revised JHC (May)DifferenceAlameda252,450253,170+720Contra Costa122,920120,530-2,390Marin19,29018,380-910Napa19,56018,920-640San Francisco175,060191,500+16,440San Mateo112,730100,290-12,440Santa Clara296,600303,490+6,890Solano50,97047,810-3,160Sonoma70,35065,820-4,530Bay Area Total1,119,9201,119,92055
151515Regional Housing Needs Allocation56
161616Proposed MethodologyFocused70% allocated based on PDA growthFair Share30% allocated based on transit, jobs and housing outside PDAs Forward-LookingGoal is to increase housing diversity and affordability in all jurisdictions57
171717Regional Housing Need DeterminationBay Area’s total housing need for 8-year RHNA periodHCD’s methodology accounts for economic recession and vacant / foreclosed housing units2007-2014 RHND2014-2022 RHND214,500187,99058
181818Regional Housing Needs AllocationWhat we heard:- Housing Methodology Committee supports overall RHNA methodology- Unincorporated counties allocations too high- Some smaller jurisdictions hit hard by 40% household growth formation minimum- PDA-like places with significant employment have allocations that are too low- Jurisdiction’s need greater HCD transparency with housing element approvalResponses:-Removed the 40% household formation growth minimum for counties- Capped RHNA at not more than 50% above previous cycle for any community- Made Employment Center adjustments to the Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario - ABAG staff will assist and meet with HCD 59
191919Preferred Transportation Investment Scenario60
202020What We HeardRequire Muni and BART to maintain at least an existing state of repairCommit an additional $70 million per year ($2.7 billion over 28 years) to restore recent bus service cutsResponse to CommentsProposed approach ensures that all operators maintain existing state of repair for all critical assets, including Muni and BARTAssertion that all transit services cut in recent years were on productive routes not supported by transit operatorsTSP recommendation to improve transit cost/service hours by 5% provided $4.7 billion that was used to close transit operating needs for existing service levelsFunding the $2.7 billion would require unfunding other investment strategies (eg Climate, high performing projects, OBAG, transit rehab), or require transit operators to increase operating efficiencyProposed RecommendationsNo change from April proposal20Fix-It First61
212121216 Wins for Social Equity Network62
22222222National Transit Database63
232323What We HeardNeed to address resident displacement and encourage affordable housingToo much authority for investment decisions transferred to countiesResponse to Comments•These and other comments are being addressed in separate agenda itemProposed Recommendation•These and other revisions are being addressed in separate agenda item23OneBayArea Grant Framework64
242424What We Heard$660 million in New Starts/Small Starts reserve should be set aside for North Bay and East Bay projectsResponse to CommentsWill present language for committee considerationProposed RecommendationConsider adopting following policy:24Fund High-Performers“The $660 million New Starts reserve, or a regional investment equivalent, is proposed to support transit projects that are located in or enhance transit service in the East and North Bay counties before additional investment policy commitments are considered for projects in San Francisco, San Mateo, and/or Santa Clara counties. All projects are subject to evaluation for cost-effectiveness and for performance against the TOD Policy and Plan Bay Area performance targets. Further, projects to be funded through the New Starts and/or regional investment equivalent will be established through an amendment to Resolution 3434, or a successor transit expansion program.”65
Regional Express Lanes NetworkWhat We HeardFully integrate express bus, vanpools and carpools with Express LanesAnalyze how low-income commuters can benefitEliminate I-80 to Yolo Co and I-580 to San Joaquin Co. Response to CommentsMTC will consult with transit operators during the Express Lane design and environmental process to develop a project that fully integrates express bus, vanpools and carpools with Express LanesThe environmental clearance process will evaluate the impacts on low-income and minority residentsThe Commission will have ample opportunity to review the full Network scope and phasing in light of actual performance of earlier segments of the NetworkProposed Recommendation•Support inclusion of the entire Network previously approved by MTC and the CTC 25Ri lE L Nt kSqueeze More Efficiency Out of Our Existing System66
26262622222222222222222222666666666666666666666666666666666222222222222222222226666666666666666666666666666222222222222222222226666666666666666666666666666222222222222222222226666666666666666666666666666Regional Express Lanes Network26Total Cost: $3.6 BillionTotal Miles: 290 Conversion Miles: 150New Lane Miles: 120Operational Gap Closure Miles: 2067
272727What We HeardConsider regional road pricing and other local parking pricing initiatives Response to CommentsHad previously considered congestion and parking pricing during target-setting but lacked support/regional authorityLocal agencies establish parking policies so regional impacts difficult to quantifyExpress Lanes represent the regional road pricing strategy in the financially constrained/preferred ScenarioInvestment strategy does include SFMTA’s downtown cordon pricing and Treasure Island pricing programsMTC will be providing funding to SFMTA for SF Go/parking pricing initiativeProposed RecommendationConsider pricing options in the SCS/RTP EIR to assess regional impacts27Pricing Strategies68
28282828T2035 by Function - $218 B O&M - Transit51%O&M - Roads and Bridges30%Expansion- Roads & Bridges5%Expansion -Transit14%Plan Bay Area by Function - $277 BO&M - Transit58%O&M - Roads and Bridges30%Expansion - Roads and Bridges3%Expansion - Transit9%Plan Bay Area Summary69
292929How Does the Preferred Land Use and How Does the Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy Transportation Investment Strategy Perform Against Targets?Perform Against Targets? 2 Mandated 2 Mandated ––GHG and HousingGHG and Housing 8 Others Adopted8 Others Adopted in January 2011 Plus Equity Indicators in January 2011 Plus Equity Indicators 2970
30303030TARGET (2035)GOALPREFERRED SCENARIOCarbon Dioxide (CO2)per capita-15%-17%Adequate Housing100%100%111222PREFERREDSCENARIO:Meets or Exceeds TargetFalls Shortof TargetMoves in theWrong Direction371
313131AdoptedT2035 / Proj 07+2%0%-2%AdoptedT2035 /Proj 09-15%-10%DraftPreferredJobs-HousingConnection2035: -17 % GHGTarget #1GHG Emission Reductions Target - 203531“… set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from autos and light trucks to achieve … GHG emission reduction targets approved by ARB…”- SB 375 (Section 65080 et al)72
323232Climate Policy InitiativesWhat We HeardToo heavily focused on improving vehicle efficiency; should be reducing auto dependencyFund programs for low-income groupsInclude other bike/ped programsMainly negative reaction to 55 mph speed limitResponse to CommentsNeed strategies that move us measurably toward our GHG reduction target85% of 2035 Bay Area trips still by auto“Greening the fleet” a critical ARB strategy$180 billion in “Fix it First”, which includes Lifeline, and “Transit Expansion” support mobility for low- income groupsProposed RecommendationsEliminate 55 mph speed limit Add Commuter Benefits OrdinanceEvaluate SFMTA and VTA requests for funding low-income transit pass pilot programs 32Target #1Close the GHG Gap73
PolicyInitiativeCost2035inmillionsYOE$)PerCapitaCO2EmissionsReductions2035CostperGHGtonReduced2035ElectricVehicleAcceleration•RegionalPublicChargerNetwork$2400.9%$812VehicleBuyBack&PlugInorElectricVehiclesPurchaseIncentives$1800.8%$684CarSharing•ForProfitandNonProfitCarSharing(includescleanvehiclecarsharing)•PeertoPeerCarSharing(includescleanvehiclecarsharing)$41.2%$10VanpoolIncentives$60.6%$29CleanVehiclesFeebateProgram$25foradmincosts0.7%$108SmartDrivingStrategy•TirePressureCapRebateProgram•InvehicleFuelEconomyMetersRebateProgram•EducationCampaign$2302.2%$322CommuterBenefitsOrdinanceNoAdditionalInvestment0.3%$0Total$6856.7%N/ATarget #1Recommended Climate Policy Initiatives:3374
343434Target #2 Adequate HousingProvision of adequate housing for all income groups by 2040660,000 new units + 40,000 existing vacant units = 700,000 householdsVery low 26%, Low 17%, Moderate 17%, Above moderate 39%Housing linked to job growth 79 percent of new housing in Priority Development Areas, close to jobs and transitAffordable housing production assumes planning support, coordination of regulations, and increase in public funding.75
3535352000 2010 2040EmployedResidents3,377,000 3,269,000 4,350,000Jobs 3,753,000 3,385,000 4,505,000Jobs less Employed Residents376,000 117,000 155,000•Difference between jobs and employed residents is a result of two factors: employed residents with multiple jobs, and net-commuting into the region. Target #2 Adequate Housing76
36Sufficient housing for in-commute and multiple job- holders to remain at 2010 ratio, 40 percent of 2000 level.0501001502002503003504001990 2000 2007* 2010 2020 2030 2040ThousandsDifference between Jobs and Employed ResidentsTarget #2 Adequate Housing77
37373737TARGETGOALPREFERRED SCENARIOCarbon Dioxide (CO2)per capita-15%-17%Adequate Housing100%100%Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)(premature deaths due to emissions)-10%-73%Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)(tons of particulate emissions)-30%-19%Particulates in CARE Communities(achieve greater reductions than Non-CARE communities)YesYesCollisions(fatalities & injuries)-50%+15%Active Transport(time spent walking/biking)+70%+15%1112223a3a3a3b3b3b3c3c3c444555PREFERREDSCENARIO:Meets or Exceeds TargetFalls Shortof TargetMoves in theWrong Direction78
38383838TARGETGOALPREFERRED SCENARIOOpen Space/Ag. Preservation(development within urban footprint)100%99%Low-Income H+T Affordability(for households less than $60,000)-10%+2%Gross Regional Product (GRP)+90%+114%Non-Auto Mode Share26%20%VMTper capita-10%-8%Local Road Maintenance (PCI)+19%+5%Highway Maintenance(distressed lane-miles)-63%+51%Transit Maintenance(assets past their useful life)-100%+87%PREFERREDSCENARIO:Meets or Exceeds TargetFalls Shortof TargetMoves in theWrong Direction6667778889a9a9a9b9b9b10a10a10a10b10b10b10c10c10c79
3939393911112222333344445555INDICATORPOPULATIONBASEYEARPREFERREDSCENARIO%CHANGEHousing + Transportation Affordability% of income spentHH < $30K72%75%+3%HH > $30K41%42%+2%Displacement Risk % of today’s rent-burdened households at risk for displacement from future growthCOCn/a33%n/aRemaindern/a9%n/aVMT Density daily VMT on major roads near developed areas(avg. VMT per sq. mi. / total population wgt.)COC6.75.9–12%Remainder1.81.7–5%Non-CommuteTravel TimeminutesCOC1213+1Remainder13130CommuteTravel TimeminutesCOC2526+1Remainder27270Equity Analysis Results80
40404040Relative Expenditures in Communities of ConcernTotal of $277 Billion over 28 YearsTotal Expenditures per Capita ($000)$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70C of C Others
81
414141Follow-up Activities:Bay Area Economic Strategy Framework (Joint Policy Committee/Bay Area Council Economic Institute): develop regional strategies to support strengthened economic competitiveness and business economic growthBay Area Economic Impact Report (MTC, ABAG): assess how the next SCS/RTP can provide a more rigorous analysis of the plan’s impact on the region’s economyHUD Regional Planning Grant (MTC, ABAG): focus on creating middle-income jobs and developing and preserving affordable housing in transit-served communities41Target #8Bay Area Economic Forecast:2035 Gross Regional Product (in billions)$0$200$400$600$800$1,000$1,200Year 2035PreferredScenario$1,042TARGET90% GROWTH$487Year 200582
424242Next StepsMay 17, 2012 - Special Joint meeting of MTC Commission and ABAG Executive BoardJune 2012 – Select alternatives to be evaluated in Plan Bay Area EIRDecember 2012 – Release Draft Plan Bay Area and EIRJanuary 2013 – Hold public hearings/workshopsApril 2013 – Adopt final Plan Bay Area and certify final EIR4283
Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth
Campbell 27,230 35,050 7,820 29%
Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 7,880 10,220 2,340
Cupertino 25,990 33,350 7,360 28%
Gilroy 17,600 21,900 4,300 24%
Downtown Transit Town Center 2,370 3,600 1,230
Los Altos 14,700 18,160 3,460 24%
Los Altos Hills 3,580 4,440 860 24%
Los Gatos 23,580 28,980 5,390 23%
Milpitas 45,060 57,640 12,580 28%
Transit Area Suburban Center 5,240 9,560 4,320
Monte Sereno 450 570 120 27%
Morgan Hill 17,520 22,080 4,560 26%
Downtown Transit Town Center 1,660 3,000 1,340
Mountain View 47,800 63,380 15,570 33%
Downtown Transit Town Center 9,410 10,250 850
East Whisman Employment Center 8,710 12,380 3,670
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,770 6,630 850
North Bayshore Suburban Center 7,390 15,070 7,690
San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 3,150 4,330 1,180
Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 650 1,210 560
Palo Alto 89,370 119,030 29,650 33%
California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 3,370 5,030 1,660
San Jose 375,360 522,050 146,680 39%
Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 11,520 12,910 1,390
Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,700 2,660 960
Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 6,140 12,180 6,040
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 880 1,720 840
Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 5,600 7,630 2,030
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 2,340 5,580 3,250
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 4,070 7,060 2,990
Communications Hill Transit Town Center 3,940 5,650 1,710
Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 2,550 3,040 490
Downtown "Frame"City Center 26,760 31,090 4,330
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 9,950 13,380 3,430
Greater Downtown Regional Center 27,950 55,970 28,020
International Business Park Employment Center 11,650 19,730 8,080
North San Jose Regional Center 84,290 130,190 45,900
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Suburban Center 5,430 9,700 4,270
Old Edenvale Employment Center 6,900 14,690 7,790
Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 3,520 5,520 2,000
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 5,680 8,020 2,340
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Mixed-Use Corridor 8,940 15,600 6,660
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 3,440 5,230 1,790
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,040 6,820 2,780
Santa Clara 112,460 145,560 33,100 29%
El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 4,390 6,980 2,590
Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 10,020 12,750 2,740
Saratoga 11,870 14,500 2,630 22%
Sunnyvale 74,610 95,320 20,710 28%
Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 3,750 5,660 1,910
East Sunnyvale Urban Neighborhood 8,050 9,240 1,180
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 13,190 16,390 3,200
Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 4,160 5,380 1,220
Moffett Park Employment Center 11,420 18,890 7,470
Peery Park Employment Center 5,980 7,920 1,940
Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 3,050 3,720 680
Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,540 2,530 980
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 39,060 47,800 8,740 22%
Valley Transportation Authority
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Mixed-Use Corridor 90,770 118,380 27,610
JOBS
97
84
Household Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name Place Type 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth 2010 2040 2010-2040 % Growth
Campbell 16,950 19,990 3,040 18% 16,160 19,430 3,270 20%
Central Redevelopment Area Transit Neighborhood 1,340 2,820 1,470 1,260 2,750 1,490
Cupertino 21,030 25,820 4,790 23% 20,180 25,050 4,870 24%
Gilroy 14,850 17,570 2,710 18% 14,180 17,040 2,860 20%
Downtown Transit Town Center 980 2,900 1,930 880 2,820 1,940
Los Altos 11,200 12,300 1,100 10% 10,750 11,840 1,100 10%
Los Altos Hills 3,000 3,100 100 3% 2,830 2,940 110 4%
Los Gatos 13,050 13,820 770 6% 12,360 13,220 860 7%
Milpitas 19,810 32,430 12,620 64% 19,180 31,680 12,500 65%
Transit Area Suburban Center 790 7,870 7,080 750 7,720 6,970
Monte Sereno 1,290 1,370 80 6% 1,210 1,290 80 7%
Morgan Hill 12,860 16,690 3,830 30% 12,330 16,150 3,820 31%
Downtown Transit Town Center 570 1,990 1,420 510 1,930 1,420
Mountain View 33,880 43,270 9,390 28% 31,960 41,790 9,830 31%
Downtown Transit Town Center 5,240 6,390 1,150 4,790 6,030 1,240
East Whisman Employment Center 720 720 0 690 690 0
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 9,190 11,150 1,960 8,740 10,830 2,090
North Bayshore Suburban Center 360 1,790 1,420 350 1,750 1,410
San Antonio Center Transit Town Center 3,590 6,350 2,760 3,420 6,180 2,770
Whisman Station Transit Neighborhood 670 1,670 1,010 650 1,640 990
Palo Alto 28,220 35,620 7,410 26% 26,490 34,360 7,870 30%
California Avenue Transit Neighborhood 800 1,650 850 750 1,600 850
San Jose 314,040 443,210 129,170 41% 301,370 431,910 130,550 43%
Bascom TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 680 2,240 1,560 650 2,190 1,540
Bascom Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 2,590 810 1,670 2,520 850
Berryessa Station Transit Neighborhood 1,880 7,990 6,110 1,850 7,850 6,000
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 640 1,720 1,080 610 1,680 1,070
Camden Urban Village Mixed-Use Corridor 490 1,480 1,000 480 1,460 980
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Mixed-Use Corridor 860 7,100 6,240 820 6,960 6,140
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Suburban Center 1,090 3,340 2,250 1,060 3,270 2,210
Communications Hill Transit Town Center 6,810 10,140 3,340 6,540 9,910 3,360
Cottle Transit Village Suburban Center 0 3,580 3,580 0 3,510 3,510
Downtown "Frame"City Center 18,120 28,210 10,090 16,980 27,410 10,440
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 7,180 13,370 6,200 6,750 12,980 6,230
Greater Downtown Regional Center 4,590 19,750 15,150 3,670 19,310 15,640
International Business Park Employment Center 200 200 0 190 190 0
North San Jose Regional Center 10,880 43,730 32,850 10,420 42,820 32,400
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Suburban Center 1,910 9,200 7,300 1,790 9,020 7,240
Old Edenvale Employment Center 150 150 0 140 140 0
Saratoga TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 3,550 1,120 2,340 3,460 1,130
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 2,620 7,800 5,170 2,500 7,620 5,120
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Mixed-Use Corridor 11,150 20,960 9,810 10,320 20,410 10,100
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Suburban Center 850 3,340 2,490 800 3,270 2,480
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,850 6,850 2,000 4,630 6,690 2,050
Santa Clara 45,150 58,920 13,770 30% 43,020 57,240 14,220 33%
El Camino Real Focus Area Mixed-Use Corridor 1,840 5,400 3,560 1,650 5,220 3,580
Santa Clara Station Focus Area City Center 480 3,880 3,410 450 3,800 3,350
Saratoga 11,120 11,750 630 6% 10,730 11,350 620 6%
Sunnyvale 55,790 74,780 18,990 34% 53,380 72,760 19,380 36%
Downtown & Caltrain Station Transit Town Center 1,840 3,810 1,980 1,730 3,710 1,980
East Sunnyvale Urban Neighborhood 1,020 4,270 3,260 950 4,170 3,220
El Camino Real Corridor Mixed-Use Corridor 10,990 15,400 4,410 10,350 14,940 4,590
Lawrence Station Transit Village Transit Neighborhood 1,660 5,210 3,550 1,560 5,100 3,540
Moffett Park Employment Center 20 20 0 20 20 0
Peery Park Employment Center 130 130 0 110 120 10
Reamwood Light Rail Station Employment Center 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tasman Station ITR Mixed-Use Corridor 1,440 3,270 1,830 1,390 3,200 1,810
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 29,690 32,490 2,800 9% 28,080 31,060 2,980 11%
Valley Transportation Authority
Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas Mixed-Use Corridor 48,380 67,690 19,300 46,070 65,750 19,680
HOUSING UNITS HOUSEHOLDS
103
85
Target Analysis for Year 2040Target GoalNo ProjectProp.PlanTransit Priority FocusEnhancedNetwork of CommunityEnv.Equity and Jobs1Reduce per capita emissions from cars and light duty trucks-15% -8%-18%-16% -16% -17%2House the region’s projected growth100% 100%100%100% 118% 100%3aReduce premature deaths from exposure to fine particulates (PM2.5)-10% -71%-71%-72% -69% -72%3bReduce coarse particulate emissions (PM10)-30% -16%-17%-17% -14% -18%3cAchieve greater reductions in highly impacted areasYes YesYesYes No Yes4Reduce injuries and fatalities from collisions-50% +18%+18%+17% +23% +16%5Increase average daily walking or biking per person+70% +12%+17%+18% +13% +20%Achieves or exceedsFalls shortWrong direction3986
Target Analysis for Year 2040Target GoalNo ProjectProp. PlanTransit Priority FocusEnhancedNetwork of CommunityEnviron. Equity and Jobs6Direct all non-agricultural development within the 2010 urban footprint100% 53%100%100% 100% 100%7Decrease share of low- and lower-middle income residents’ household income consumed by transportation and housing -10% +8%+3%+5% +3% +2%8Increase gross regional product (GRP)+110% +118%+119%+118% +123% +118%9aIncrease non-auto mode share26% 19%20%20% 19% 21%9bDecrease automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita-10% -5%-9%-8% -9% -9%10aIncrease local road pavement condition index (PCI)75 506868 68 7110bDecrease share of distressed lane-miles of state highways10% 44%44%44% 30% 41%10cReduce share of transit assets exceeding useful life0% 36%24%24% 24% 24%Achieves or exceedsFalls shortWrong direction4087
To: California City Officials
From: Bill Higgins1
Legislative Representative
& Sr. Staff Attorney
Date: January 23, 20092
RE: Technical Overview of SB 375 (v 1.3)3
I. Introduction
SB 375, by Senator Darrell Steinberg, builds on the existing regional transportation
planning process (which is overseen by local officials with land use responsibilities) to
connect the reduction of greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions from cars and light trucks to
land use and transportation policy. In 2006, the Legislature passed AB 32—The Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006,—which requires the State of California to reduce GhG
emissions to 1990 levels no later than 2020. Passenger vehicles account for 31 percent of
the state’s total emissions. In 1990 greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light
trucks were 108 million metric tons, but by 2004 these emissions had increased to 135
million metric tons. SB 375 asserts that “Without improved land use and transportation
policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.”4
AB 32 set the stage for SB 375—or at least something like it. The issue was not “if” land
use and transportation policy were going to be connected to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions but “how” and “when.” The issue was not “if” a governmental entity would
1 Acknowledgement. The author acknowledges and is grateful for the very significant contributions of the
League’s special counsel, Betsy Strauss, in preparing this document
2 This version includes mostly minor corrections to the September 19, 2008 version. It update s Section III,
subsection 4 related to the setting regional targets and the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the CEQA analysis
insofar as it addresses local discretion in using the new CEQA streamlining provisions.
3 Work in Progress Disclaimer. This memorandum is a work in progress; it is not and should not be
considered legal advice. It represents our best thinking to date on the scope and major implementation
issues related to SB 375. As additional information becomes available, we will update this document.
Readers who are aware of issues not addressed here, identify inadvertent errors, or want to make additional
comments, should contact Bill Higgins at higginsb@cacities.org or 916/658-8250
4 See SB 375 (2008), Section 1(c) [uncodified].
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
88
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 2
regulate the car and light truck sector in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – the
CARB already has that authority under AB 32 – but “how” and “when.”
SB 375 has three goals: (1) to use the regional transportation planning process to help
achieve AB 32 goals; (2) to use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects which help achieve AB 32
goals to reduce GhG emissions; and (3) to coordinate the regional housing needs
allocation process with the regional transportation planning process.
To be sure, the League remains fundamentally concerned about keeping the line as bright
as possible between regional planning and local land use authority. In the end, however,
SB 375 answers the questions “how?” and “when?” by choosing regional agencies
(controlled by cities and counties) rather than the CARB to lead the effort in this area;
and by integrating the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) with transportation
planning to allow cities and counties to align existing housing element requirements with
transportation funding. Those cities and counties that find the CEQA streamlining
provisions attractive have the opportunity (but not the obligation) to align their planning
decisions with the decisions of the region.
II. SB 375 in Context: AB 32, CARB, and Global Warming
AB 32 granted CARB broad authority over any “source” of GhG emissions.5 The
definition of “source” includes automobiles and light trucks,6 which account for more
than 30 percent of the state’s GhG emissions. AB 32 authorizes the CARB to require
“participation” in CARB’s program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to “monitor
compliance” with the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit.7
SB 375 represents a “program” for the automobile and light truck sector.8 It provides a
means for achieving the AB 32 goals for cars and light trucks. This is important to
understanding why the agreement on SB 375 was reached: it provides more certainty for
local governments and developers by framing how AB 32’s reduction goal from
transportation planning for cars and light trucks will be established. It should be noted,
however, that SB 375 does not prevent CARB from adopting additional regulations under
its AB 32 authority.9 (However, given the degree of consensus that emerged on SB 375,
such actions should be politically difficult for CARB at least for the foreseeable future).
5 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38560
6 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38505(i)
7 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38562 and following
8 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38562.
9 This is because the scope of authority granted to CARB to regulate any “source” of GHG emissions is
very broad.
89
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 3
SB 375 requires the CARB to establish the GhG emission reduction targets for each
region (as opposed to individual cities or households) and to review the region’s
determination that its plan achieves those targets. Each Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) must include a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) in the
regional transportation plan that seeks to achieve targeted reductions in GhG emissions
from cars and light trucks if there is a feasible way to do so. CARB establishes the targets
for each region in accordance with the following:
CARB must take other factors into account before setting target. Before setting a
reduction target for the reduction of GhGs from cars and light trucks, CARB must
first consider the likely reductions that will result from actions to improve the fuel
efficiency of the statewide fleet and regulations relating the carbon content of fuels
(low carbon fuels). 10
Targets are set regionally, not locally. SB 375 assures that the target to reduce GhGs
from cars and light trucks will be regional. (CARB has received many comments and
suggestions on its Scoping Plan that it should adopt targets and enforce requirement
on an agency-by-agency basis).
Committee to advise CARB. A Regional Targets Advisory Committee, which
includes representation from the League of California Cities, California State
Association of Counties, metropolitan planning organizations, developers, planning
organizations and other stakeholder groups, will advise the Board on how to set and
enforce regional targets.
Exchange of technical information. Before setting the targets for each region, CARB
is required to exchange technical information with the MPO for that region and with
the affected air district. The MPO may recommend a target for the region.
The CARB’s role in SB 375 is limited. Although the CARB retains its broad grant of
authority to act independently under AB 32, SB 375 provides the framework for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in the car and light truck sector through the tie between land
use and transportation planning.
Moreover, SB 375 indirectly addresses another longstanding issue: single purpose state
agencies. The League, among others, has argued that these agencies often fail to
recognize other competing state goals enforced by a different state agency. SB 375 takes
a first step to counter this problem by connecting RHNA to the transportation planning
process. As a result, SB 375 will require CARB to look at how new climate regulations
could affect state and regional transit and housing policies; likewise, the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) will have to consider the effects of
housing policy on state and regional efforts to address climate change.
10 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(A)(iii). Citations to language in SB 375 is to the section of the code as it
proposed to be amended based on the August 22 version of SB 375 that was approved by the Assembly and
concurred with by the Senate.
90
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 4
III. Planning for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction within the RTP
Regional transportation plans have long been a part of the transportation planning horizon
in California. Federal law requires regional transportation plans (RTPs) to include a land
use allocation and requires the metropolitan planning organizations that prepare RTPs to
make a conformity finding that the Plan is consistent with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act. Some regions have also engaged in a regional “blueprint” process to
prepare the land use allocation.
1. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
SB 375 integrates AB 32’s goal to reduce GhG emissions by requiring that a sustainable
communities strategy (SCS) be added to the RTP. SB 375 recognizes that, because of the
constraints of federal law and inadequate funding for infrastructure and public transit, an
SCS may not be able to achieve the region’s targets. If the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO)11 determines that the SCS cannot achieve the targets, then the MPO
must develop an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) (see discussion below). The
biggest single difference is that the SCS is part of the RTP and the APS is not.
To fully understand what an SCS is—and is not—it’s worth taking a step back and look
at what is required in existing regional transportation plans. RTPs are regulated by a
conglomeration of state and federal law. State law requires that an RTP include “clear,
concise policy guidance to local and state officials” regarding transportation planning.12
The federal law requires that RTPs, among other things, work toward achieving the goals
of the Clean Air Act. To that end, RTPs must be based upon “current planning
assumptions.”13 A conformity finding is unacceptable if it is based upon planning
assumptions which would keep the air clean but which will never occur because they are
dependent upon, for example, the extension of public transit.
Thus, current RTPs include a likely or realistic forecasted development pattern for the
region for the next 20 to 30 years. This estimate informs the decision-making process for
transportation funding. The forecasted growth pattern must be based upon “current
planning assumptions” to assure that the air conformity provisions are meaningful. Put
another way, if the growth pattern is not realistic, then the accompanying policies to
11 A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is “the policy board of an organization created and
designated to carry out metropolitan transportation planning.” 23 CFR 450.308
12 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(a).
13 See 40 CFR § 93.110 (making Clean Air conformity determination in federal actions). Particular
attention should be paid to (a) 23 CFR § 450.104 (definitions); (b) 23 CFR 450.308 (MPOs and
transportation funding); (c) 23 CFR § 450.322 (development and content of tra nsportation plan); (d) 23
CFR § 450.324 (development and content of the transportation improvement program – TIP); (e) 40 CFR §
93.100 (implementation of Clean Air Act in federal actions); and (f) 40 § CFR 93.110 (making Clean Air
conformity determination in federal actions). This last reference that is the source for the language that
says that a SCS is “subject to [federal law], including the requirement to utilize the most recent planning
assumptions considering local general plans and other factors” (65080(b)(2)(B)).
91
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 5
achieve air quality conformity relating to air pollutants from traffic are not likely to work.
If the federal government determines that the projected growth development pattern is not
realistic, it can withhold federal transportation funding.14
The contents of the SCS are similarly constrained. SB 375 states that the SCS is “subject
to” federal regulations under the Clean Air Act that include the requirement to use “the
most recent planning assumptions considering local general plans and other factors.”15
In addition, the SCS must consider or address several additional factors:16
Consider the spheres of influence that have been adopted by the local agency
formation commission (LAFCO).17
Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities
within the region;
Identify areas sufficient to house all economic segments the population of the region
over the long term planning horizon of the RTP;
Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the
regional housing need for the region;
Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region;
Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding
resource areas and farmland in the region (note, there is no requirement to act on this
information);
Set a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the
transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the
GhG emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible
way to do so,18 the GhG emission reduction targets approved by the state board: and
14 It is important to be aware that the SCS development pattern must be based upon “current planning
assumptions” only because of the requirement that the Clean Air Act imposes on the adoption of a regional
transportation plan. It is federal, not state law. It relates to maintaining air quality; not local land use
principles derived from the police power. It is not based upon local land use autonomy. The APS, which is
not a part of the RTP, is not required to be based on “current planning assumptions.”
15 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(B) (referencing Part 450 of Title 23 of, and Part 93 of Title 40 of, the
Code of Federal Regulations).
16 Unless otherwise cited, these requirements are in Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(B).
17 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(F).
18 The definition of “feasible” is the same as that used in CEQA. But unlike CEQA, the MPO’s
determination of “feasibility” is a quasi-legislative act that is reviewable under the “arbitrary and
capricious” standard (CCP § 1085) instead of the “substantial evidence” standard (CCP § 1094.5). As a
92
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 6
Quantify the reduction in GhG emissions projected to be achieved by the SCS and, if
the SCS does not achieve the targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, set
forth the difference between the amount that the SCS would reduce GhG emissions
and the target for the region.19
Of all these requirements, the one that has generated the most concern is the requirement
that the RTP development pattern must achieve the GhG emissions targets if there is a
feasible way to do so. Again, it is important to emphasize that this development pattern
must comply with federal law, which requires that any pattern be based upon “current
planning assumptions” that include the information in local general plans and sphere of
influence boundaries. If a certain type of development pattern is unlikely to emerge from
local decision-making, it will be difficult for the MPO to say that it reflects current
planning assumptions.20 Moreover, SB 375 provides additional protections when it
provides that the SCS cannot in any way supersede or require consistency for a local
general plan, local specific plan, or local zoning.21
2. The Alternative Planning Strategy
In the case where the SCS does not achieve the GhG emission reduction target, the MPO
must develop an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS).22 The APS is a separate document
from the RTP23 and therefore does not automatically affect the distribution of
transportation funding. The APS must identify the principal impediments to achieving the
targets within the SCS. The APS must also include a number of measures—such as
alternative development patterns,24 infrastructure, or additional transportation measures
or policies—that, taken together, would achieve the regional target.
The APS must describe how the GhG emission reduction targets would be achieved and
why the development pattern, measures, and policies in the APS are the most practicable
choices for the achievement of the GhG targets. Like the SCS the APS does not directly
affect or supersede local land use decisions; nor does it require that a local general plan,
local specific plan, or local zoning be consistent with the APS.25
result, the decision whether or not it is feasible to achieve the regional target within the SCS will be
afforded greater deference from courts.
19 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(G).
20 The CEQA changes made by the bill require residential projects to be consistent with the SCS in order to
take advantage of streamlined CEQA processing.
21 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(J).
22 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(H).
23 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(H).
24 The development pattern must still comply with the provisions of the SCS that require consistency with
the RHNA distribution and other factors.
25 The CEQA changes made by the bill require residential projects to be consistent with the APS in order to
take advantage of streamlined CEQA processing.
93
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 7
In addition, SB 375 provides that the APS does not constitute a land use plan, policy, or
regulation and that the inconsistency of a project with an APS is not a consideration in
determining whether a project may be deemed to have an environmental effect for
purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Some have asked about the purpose of the APS: Why should an MPO spend the time to
develop an alternative planning strategy if there is no requirement to actually implement
it? The answer is two-fold. First, a general consistency with a CARB approved plan—
whether it’s an SCS or APS—allows projects to qualify for the CEQA streamlining
provisions in the bill (see Part IV, below). Second, it adds a new focus for the regional
transportation planning and housing allocation: reductions in GhG emissions.
3. CARB’s Role in the Approval of the SCS or APS
CARB’s role in reviewing the SCS or APS is very limited. It can only accept or reject
the MPO’s determination that the plan would, if implemented, achieve the regional GhG
emission reduction target established by CARB.26 CARB must complete its review
within 60 days. It may not issue conditional approvals or otherwise interfere in any way
with local decision-making.
In addition, the process is designed so that there will be an extended exchange of
information between the MPO and CARB about the technical methodology that the
region intends to use to estimate the GhG emissions reduction. SB 375 encourages the
MPO to work with CARB until it concludes that the technical methodology it intends to
use operates accurately. CARB must respond to such consultations in a timely manner.
This type of communication before the actual submission should reduce the chance that
CARB will find a particular plan does not achieve the regional target.
4. Setting the Regional Target for GhG Emissions
SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets by September 30, 2010 (draft targets will
be released to the regions by June 30).27 The target may be expressed in gross tons, tons
per capita, tons per household, or in any other metric deemed appropriate by CARB.
The Scoping Plan states that 5 million metric tons (MMT) of emissions will be reduced
as a result of transportation related planning programs, or almost 3% of the 174 million
metric ton reduction needed to achieve AB 32’s 2020 target.28 This number, however, is
26 See 65080(b)(2)(I)(ii).
27 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(A).
28 Cars and light trucks account for approximately 31 percent of all GHG emissions in California . The
Scoping Plan outlines programs that will reduce emissions by cars and light trucks by a proportional 33
percent. These policies include reductions from light-duty vehicle standards (31.7 MMT), low carbon fuel
standards (15 MMT), vehicle efficiency measures (4.5 MMT) and regional transportation relate d GHG
targets (5 MMT). Together, these measures total 56.2 of the 169 MMT in needed reductions .
94
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 8
more of a placeholder as the Scoping Plan states that the total target “will ultimately be
determined during the SB 375 process.”29
SB 375 authorized CARB to appoint a Regional Targets Advisory Committee to
recommend factors and methodologies to be used for setting these targets.30 The
committee is made up of representatives from the League of California Cities, California
State Association of Counties, MPOs, affected air districts, planners, homebuilders,
affordable housing organizations, environmental justices organizations, and others. The
committee will make its report to CARB by September 30, 2009.
In addition, prior to setting the target, CARB must exchange technical information with
the MPO and air district. The MPO may also recommend its own target for the region.
The MPO must hold at least one public workshop within the region after receipt of the
report from the Advisory Committee. CARB shall release draft targets for each region no
later than June 30, 2010. In setting these targets, CARB must first consider the GhG
reductions that will be achieved from improved vehicles emission standards (overall fuel
efficiency improvements), changes in fuel composition (such as low carbon fuels) and
other measures that CARB has adopted to reduce GhGs from other emissions sources.31
The MPO may The MPO may recommend to the ARB a target for the region.
Once set, the targets must be updated every 8 years, which is consistent with the new
RHNA planning cycle and two RTP planning cycles in non-attainment areas. The board
can also, at its discretion, revise the targets every four years based on changes in fuel
efficiency, use of low carbon fuels, or other factors that CARB can take into account in
setting the target.32 Before revising or updating the regional targets, CARB must engage
the primary stakeholders (Dept. of Transportations, MPOs, air districts, and local
governments) in a consultative process. The MPO may, at its discretion, recommend to
the ARB a target for the region for CARB’s consideration.33
5. What SB 375 means for transportation funding
SB 375 requires the RTP to be internally consistent much like the internal consistency
requirement of a city or county’s general plan. This means that the “action element” and
the “financial element” of the RTP must be consistent with the SCS, since the SCS is part
of the RTP. (The “action element” and the “financial element” of the RTP, however, do
not need to be consistent with the APS, since the APS is not part of the RTP.) This
means that decisions about the allocation of transportation funds must be consistent with
the SCS, its land use plan, and its transportation policies. The land use plan must be
based upon the most recent planning assumptions. These are taken in part from local city
29 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (October 2008) p 49.
30 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(A)(i)
31 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(A)(iii).
32 65080(b)(2)(A)(iv).
33 (65080(b)(2)(A)(ii)).
95
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 9
and county general plans. As cities and counties use the CEQA streamlining in SB 375,
their planning assumptions will align more closely with those in the SCS or APS,
whichever CARB agrees would achieve the region’s GhG target, if implemented.34
SB 375 makes explicit the authority that already exists in the law. MPOs already have
authority to impose policies or condition transportation funding. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, for example, does not fund certain types of transit projects
unless they serve areas that meet minimum density standards.35 Even without SB 375,
MPOs were likely to take additional steps in the direction of adopting policies related to
reducing GhG emissions within their RTPs planning because the California
Transportation Commission recently amended its RTP Guidelines to require that MPOs
consider GhG emissions as part of the RTP process.
It is worth noting that MPO decision-makers are made up of local elected officials.
Accordingly, MPOs are not likely to support measures that limit the discretion of cities
and counties, particularly in those MPOs where every city and county in the region has a
seat on the MPO board. Only two regions, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), do not fit
that model. SB 375 provides an exception for SCAG that allows for sub-regional
development of the SCS and APS, where local representation is more broadly reflected.
6. How are Local Officials and the Public involved in Developing the SCS/APS
Once the region has its target, the question turns toward developing a regional plan to
achieve GhG reductions. SB 375 requires the following public and local official
participation processes before the plan can be adopted:
Local Elected Official Workshops. MPOs must conduct at least two informational
meetings in each county for local elected officials (members of the board of
supervisors and city councils) on the SCS and APS, or alternatively, only one meeting
if it is attended by representatives representing the county and a majority of the cities
representing a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of that county.
General Public Participation. Each MPO must adopt a participation plan consistent
with the requirements of the participation plan required by federal law that includes a
broad range of stakeholder groups. These workshops must be sufficient to provide
the public with a clear understanding of the issues and policy choices. At least one
workshop shall be held in each county in the region. For counties with a population
greater than 500,000, at least three workshops shall be held. Each workshop, to the
34 This is because the CEQA streamlining should act to change some of the projects as they are proposed to
be built by developers. Assuming that the CEQA streamlining is sufficient to motivate developers to
propose projects that are consistent with the SCS or APS, this may impact the “current planning
assumptions” for the region. Nothing requires local agencies to approve such proposals, but if local
agencies indicate a willingness to support such proposals, the projected development pattern for the region
will change accordingly.
35 See MTC Policy 3434 (www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf)
96
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 10
extent practicable, shall include urban simulation computer modeling to create visual
representations of the SCS and the alternative planning strategy. The MPO must also
provide a process where members of the public can provide a single request to receive
notices, information, and updates.
Circulation of Draft SCS/APS. A draft of the SCS and APS must be circulated at
least 55 days before the adoption of the RTP.
Public Hearings. The MPO must hold at least three public hearings on the SCS and
APS in multiple county regions, and two public hearings in single county regions.
The hearings should be in different areas to maximize participation opportunities.
7. Agencies and Regions Affected by SB 375
SB 375 applies to the 18 MPOs in the state (including the Tahoe MPO). Together, these
organizations cover 37 counties and represent almost 98 percent of the state population.
These include four multiple county MPOs, including the Association of Monterey Bay
Area Governments (AMBAG - Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties),
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC - Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano,
Marin, Napa, Sonoma, San Francisco, San Mateo, an Santa Clara counties), Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (SACOG – Sacramento, Yolo, El Dorado, Placer, Yuba,
and Sutter counties) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG—
Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and Orange counties).
Affected single county MPOs include Butte, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Diego,
San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties.
8. Exempt transportation projects
Transportation projects funded by the MPO must be consistent with the SCS except that
projects programmed for funding on or before December 31, 2011 are not required to be
consistent if (1) they are contained in the 2007 or 2009 Federal Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program; and (2) they are funded pursuant to Section 8879.20 of the
Government Code; or (3) were listed in a ballot measure prior to December 31, 2008
approving a sales tax measure for transportation purposes. In addition, a transportation
sales tax authority need not change funding allocations approved by the voters for
categories of transportation projects in a measure adopted prior to December 31, 2010.
10. Exceptions for the SCAG region
SB 375 provides a special set of exceptions for the development of the SCS/APS within
the region of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).36 Here, a
subregional council of governments and the county transportation commission may work
together to propose a SCS or APS for the subregional area. Although SCAG may still
address interregional issues in the SCS/APS, SCAG must include the subregional SCS or
APS to the extent that it is consistent with the requirements of a regional transportation
36 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(C).
97
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 11
plan and federal law. SCAG is still responsible for creating an overall public participation
plan, ensuring coordination, resolving conflicts and making sure that the plan complies
with all applicable legal requirements.
11. Special Provision for the Eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs
In order to encourage regional cooperation among the eight counties in the San Joaquin
Valley, SB 375 specifically encourages two or more counties to work together to develop
cooperative policies and develop a multiregional SCS or APS.
12. MPOs in Attainment Areas and RTPAs Not Within an MPO
There are a few counties in the state that are actually in “attainment” for air quality
purposes. Federal law requires that these regions update their RTPs at least every five
years instead of every four years (the requirement for non-attainment MPOs). In
addition, there are a number of other counties that are not included within an MPO at all.
Given that SB 375 is based on a eight year cycle that includes one RHNA planning
period and two RTP planning periods, the five year requirement would place attainment
MPOs out of sync with the non-attainment MPOs.
SB 375 solves this by allowing attainment MPOs, or a regional transportation planning
agency (RTPA) not within an MPO, to opt into an 8 year planning cycle.37 In other
words, they may maintain their status quo with a five-year RHNA planning cycle that
may or may not be aligned with their RTP planning cycle. Or they may opt into the 8-
year cycle upon meeting the following conditions:
Opting to adopt a plan not less than every four years
This election must be made prior to June 1, 2009 or at least 54 months prior to the
deadline for the adoption of housing elements for jurisdictions within the region (in
order to afford HCD with sufficient time to develop and distribute an 8 year number).
Public hearing
13. Rural Sustainability
MPO or county transportation agency must consider financial incentives for cities and
counties that have resource areas or farmland. The idea is that to the extent that SB 375
drives more transportation investments to existing urban areas, some consideration
should be given to rural areas that nevertheless help address the emissions targets by not
building. An MPO or county transportation agency shall also consider financial
assistance for counties to address countywide service responsibilities in counties that
contribute towards the GhG emissions reductions targets by implementing policies for
growth to occur within their cities.
37 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(L).
98
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 12
IV. NEW CEQA EXEMPTIONS AND STREAMLINING
The environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for a RTP will consider the impact of
the Plan on global warming and the growth-inducing impacts of the Plan. SB 375’s
CEQA incentive eliminates the requirement to analyze the impacts of certain residential
projects on global warming and the growth-inducing impacts of those projects when the
projects achieve the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by their proximity to
transit or by their consistency with the SCS or APS.
1. Two Types of CEQA Streamlining
SB 375 includes two types of CEQA streamlining. One is for residential projects that are
consistent with the SCS (or APS) that CARB agrees is sufficient to achieve the GhG
targets for the region if it was implemented.38 The other is for Transportation Priority
Projects (which also must be consistent with the SCS/APS). Each of these is discussed in
more detail below.
2. Projects Consistent with the SCS/APS
A residential or mixed-use project which is consistent with the general use designation,
density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either
a SCS/APS is not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth-inducing impacts;
or (2) project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips on
global warming or the regional transportation network if the project incorporates the
mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document.
In addition, an EIR prepared for this type of project is not required to reference, describe,
or discuss a reduced residential density alternative to address the effects of car and light-
duty truck trips generated by the project.
3. Three Types of Streamlining for Transit Priority Projects
SB 375 amends CEQA in three ways for “transit priority projects” (or TPPs). A TPP is a
new type of project created by SB 375 that must meet the four requirements: (1) be
consistent with an SCS or APS in which CARB has agreed would, if implemented,
achieve the region’s GhG target; (2) contain at least 50% residential use (commercial use,
if any, must have floor area ratio of not less than 0.75); (3) have a minimum net density
of 20 units per acre; and (4) be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high
quality transit corridor included in a RTP.39
Total CEQA Exemption for a Sub-Set of TPPs. A TPP is exempt from CEQA if it
complies with a long list of criteria including the following:
38 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(I)
39 “Major transit stop” is defined at Section 21064.3 of Public Resources Code and in SB 375 in Section
21155(b). “High quality transit corridor is defined in SB 375 in S ection 21155(b).
99
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 13
Not more than 8 acres and not more than 200 residential units
Can be served by existing utilities
Does not have a significant effect on historical resources
Buildings are 15% more energy efficient than required and buildings and
landscaping is designed to achieve 25 percent less water usage
Provides EITHER a minimum of 5 acres per 1,000 residents of open space,
OR 20 % housing for moderate income, or 10% housing for low income, or
5% housing for very low income (or in lieu fees sufficient to result in the
development of an equivalent amount of units). 40
TPP: Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. A TPP that does not
qualify for a complete exemption from CEQA may nevertheless qualify for a
sustainable communities environmental assessment (SCEA) if the project
incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from
prior applicable environmental impact reports. A SCEA is similar to a negative
declaration in that the lead agency must find that all potentially significant or
significant effects of the project have been identified, analyzed and mitigated to a
level of insignificance. There are four significant differences:
Cumulative effects of the project that have been addressed and mitigated in
prior environmental impacts need not be treated as cumulatively considerable.
Growth-inducing impacts of the project are not required to be referenced,
described or discussed.
Project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light duty truck trips on
global warming or the regional transportation network need not be referenced
described or discussed.
A SCEA is reviewed under the “substantial evidence” standard. The intent of the
author was to eliminate the “fair argument” test as the standard of review for a
sustainable communities environmental assessment.
Transit Priority Projects – Traffic Mitigation Measures. SB 375 also authorizes the
adoption of traffic mitigation measures that apply to transit priority projects. These
measures may include requirements for the installation of traffic control
improvements, street or road improvements, transit passes for future residents, or
other measures that will avoid or mitigate the traffic impacts of transit priority
projects. A TPP does not need to comply with any additional mitigation measures for
the traffic impacts of that project on streets, highways, intersections, or mass transit if
traffic mitigation measures have been adopted.
40 This is a partial listing of the criteria.
100
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 14
4. To Streamline or Not: Lead Agency Discretion over New CEQA Provisions
A city or county that is concerned about the environmental impacts of a project defined
by SB 375 as a TPP may elect to complete traditional or modified environmental review.
SB 375 allows—as opposed to requiring—a local lead agency to take advantage of the
CEQA streamlining provisions included in the bill.
This analysis is most straightforward for projects that are consistent with the SCS/APS:
the language states that the lead agency “is not required” to reference, describe, or discuss
growth inducing impacts, project specific cumulative impacts, or a reduced residential
density alternative. The language is permissive; nothing prohibits the lead agency from
making the decision to address these issues in the environmental documents for projects
that are consistent with the SCS/APS.
A lead agency also has discretion in determining whether a project meets all of the
requirements of a transportation priority project.41 When a project is statutorily exempt
from CEQA, the language providing for the exemption begins with “This division does
not apply to….”42 SB 375 is consistent with this approach; it invites (“If the legislative
body finds….”), but does not require, a lead agency to hold a public hearing to determine
whether the TPP meets the requirements for a statutory exemption.43 (If a public hearing
was required it would state that “the legislative body shall hold a public hearing ….”).
Thus, a writ of mandate could not be brought because the determination of whether to
hold the public hearing is within the discretion of the local agency.
Likewise, nothing in SB 375 requires a lead agency to opt for a sustainable communities
assessment or modified EIR. A TPP that has incorporated all feasible mitigation
measures, performance standards, or criteria of a prior applicable EIRs and adopted
findings pursuant to Section 21081, is eligible for either a sustainable communities
environmental assessment or a modified EIR.44 The statute does not direct the lead
agency to complete the sustainable communities assessment or modified EIR.
Finally, all three provisions (the exemption, assessment, and modified EIR) require that
the TPP incorporate mitigation measures, performance standards, and other relevant
information from prior EIRs. This means, for example, that if an EIR for a general plan
requires certain environmental standards (e.g., traffic generation or air quality standards)
for projects within the jurisdiction, the city or county may need to complete
environmental studies to determine whether those standards can be met by the TPP.
41 See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155.1. The project must meet all of the provisions of subdivisions (a) and
(b) and one of the requirements of subdivision (c). If lead agency finds, based upon substantial evidence,
that the TPP meets all of these requirements, then the project is a “sustainable communities project” and
exempt from CEQA.
42 See, for example, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080.8 to 21080.33.
43 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155.1.
44 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155.2
101
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 15
V. Changes to the Housing Element Law
Before SB 375, federal and state law ignored the fact that in most areas in California,
regional transportation plans and regional housing allocation plans are prepared by the
same regional organization. Conflicting deadlines policies have historically caused a
disconnect between regional transportation planning and regional housing policy. SB
375 eliminates this disconnection by requiring the RTP to plan for the RHNA and by
requiring the RHNA plan to be consistent with the projected development pattern used in
the RTP.
This will make two significant changes in this regard. First, cities and counties in Clean
Air Act non-attainment regions will have an eight-year planning period,45 which means
that the housing element must be updated every eight years rather than every five years.
Second, cities’ and counties’ RHNA will change because consistency between the
regional housing needs allocation plan and the RTP means that the concept of “fair share”
will change. Under existing law, the COG adopts the regional housing allocation plan.
The plan distributes to each city and to each county its fair share of the regional housing
need.46 Under SB 375 the plan must be consistent with the development pattern included
in the SCS (although each jurisdiction still must receive an allocation).47 In trying to
encourage a growth development pattern for residential housing that would reduce GhGs,
SB 375 had to address the potential conflicts with the existing RHNA and housing
element goals and process.
1. Establishing an Eight Year Planning Period in Non-Attainment Regions
Local governments within a region classified as “non-attainment” under the Clean Air
Act and local governments within a region that has elected48 to adopt a regional
transportation plan every four years are required to revise their housing element every
eight years (instead of the current 5 years).49 All other local governments remain on the
five-year schedule (see “12. MPOs in Attainment Areas and RTPAs Not Within an MPO”
on page 11).
45 SB 375 allows attainment regions to elect to prepare an RTP every four years which will then mean that
cities and counties in that region to have an 8-year planning period.
46 SB 375 changes the methodology that HCD uses to calculate the existing and projected regional need.
This number must now reflect “the achievement of a feasible balance between jobs and housing within the
region using the regional employment projects in the applicable regional transportation plan” Cal. Gov't
Code § 65584.01(d).
47 See Cal. Gov't Code § 65584.04(i)..
48 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(L).
49 See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65588(b). and (e)(7)
102
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 16
2. When the Eight Year Planning Period Starts
Local governments in non-attainment areas are required to adopt their fifth revision of the
housing element no later than 18 months after the adoption of the first RTP adopted after
September 30, 2010. Local governments that have elected to adopt the RTP every four
years are required to adopt their next housing element 18 months after the adoption of the
first regional transportation plan following the election. All local governments within the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are required to adopt their fifth
revision no more than 5 years from the fourth revision and their sixth revision no later
than 18 months after adoption of the first RTP adopted after the fifth revision due date.
3. Timeline for RHNA Allocation and the Housing Element
In areas where the eight-year planning period applies, the MPO will allocate the RHNA
number to the individual cities and counties at approximately the same time it adopts the
RTP (which includes the requirement that the SCS must accommodate the 8 year RHNA
allocation). Once the city receives its RHNA allocation, it has 18 months to prepare its
housing element and submit it to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
All local governments within the jurisdiction of an MPO, except those within SANDAG,
shall adopt its next housing element 18 months after adoption of the first RTP that is
adopted after September 30, 2010.
4. Consequence of Failing to Submit a Timely Housing Element
Local agencies that fail to submit a housing element to HCD within the 18 month
timeline fall out of the eight year housing element cycle and must submit their housing
element every four years to HCD.50 These agencies must still complete their zoning
within three years and 120 days of the deadline for adoption of the housing element or be
subject to the sanctions provision described below. 51
5. Timeline to Re-Zone Sites to Meet RHNA Need
Each housing element includes an inventory that identifies sites to accommodate the
jurisdiction’s RHNA. Jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element must rezone sites
to accommodate that portion of the RHNA not accommodated in the inventory no later
than three years after the date the housing element is adopted or the date that is 90 days
after receipt of the department’s final comments, whichever is earlier.52
Rezoning of the sites includes adoption of minimum density and development standards.
A local agency that cannot meet the 3-year requirement may be eligible for a one-year
extension if it can prove that it has completed 75 percent of its zoning requirement and
50 Cal. Gov't Code § 65588(b)
51 Cal. Gov't Code § 65583(c)(1)(A)
52 Cal. Gov't Code § 65583(c)(1)(A).
103
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 17
was unable to rezone for one of the following reasons: (1) because of an action or
inaction beyond the control of the local agency, (2) because of infrastructure deficiencies
due to fiscal or regulatory restraints, (3) because it must undertake a major revision to its
general plan in order to accommodate the housing related policies of an SCS or APS.53
6. Scheduling Actions Required by the Housing Element Program
Current law also requires a housing element to include a program of actions that the local
agency intends to undertake during the planning period to encourage that the needs of all
economic segments of the community will be met. SB 375 requires local agencies to
develop a schedule and timeline for implementation as to when specific actions will have
“beneficial impacts” within the planning period. 54
7. Public Hearing for HCD Annual Report
Local governments must now hold a public hearing and provide an annual report on the
progress made during the year on the programs within the housing element. This
requirement to make this report on an official form approved by HCD has been in the law
since 1995, but has not been officially applicable because HCD has not yet finalized the
form under the administrative rulemaking process55.
8. Extension of Anti-NIMBY for Affordable Housing Projects
SB 375 extends a strict anti-NIMBY law protection (now called the Housing
Accountability Act) for housing development projects, which are defined as projects
where at least 49 percent of the units are affordable to families of lower-income
households. 56(In most circumstances, a development that meets the 49 percent threshold
is a development where 100 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income
households).
The new anti-NIMBY provision applies to an agency’s failure to zone a site for low- and
very low-income households within the three year time limit (four years if an agenc y
qualifies for an extension). If an affordable project is proposed on that site and the
project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, including
design review standards, then the agency may not disapprove the project, nor require a
conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary permit, or
impose a condition that would render the project infeasible, unless the project would have
a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method
to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
53 Cal. Gov't Code § 65583(f).
54 Cal. Gov't Code § 65583(c);
55 Cal. Gov't Code § 65400(a)(2)(B).
56 Cal. Gov't Code § 65583(g)
104
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 18
9. Potential “Sanctions” for Failing to Meet Zoning Timeline
Any interested person may bring an action to compel compliance with the zoning
deadline and requirements for the new eight-year housing element.57 If a court finds that
a local agency failed to complete the rezoning, the court is required to issue an order or
judgment, after considering the equities of the circumstances presented by all parties,
compelling the local government to complete the rezoning within 60 days or the earliest
time consistent with public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action
was filed. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried
out. If the court determines that its order or judgment is not carried out, the court is
required to issue further orders to ensure compliance and may impose sanctions on the
local agency,58 but must consider the equities presented by all affected parties before
doing so.
10. Adoption or Self Certification of Housing Element Remains the Same.
Although SB 375 changed the housing element planning period from five years to eight
years for some jurisdictions, and added time frames for completing certain actions which
must be taken during the planning period, SB 375 did not change either the way in which
the housing element is adopted except to the extent that the regional housing allocation
plan must be consistent with the SCS. The RHNA process remains itself. Self-
certification of the housing element remains an option (and triggers the three year
requirement to zone). SB 375 did nothing to alleviate the struggle that some cities and
counties face in trying to plan for their entire RHNA except that HCD review of the
housing element will occur less frequently for jurisdictions that move to an eight year
planning period.
57 Cal. Gov't Code § 65587.
58 This provision is similar to the requirement to file an annual housing element report on form approved
through the state rulemaking process. See Cal. Gov't Code § 65400(a)(2)(B). A local agency that fails to
file such a report is subject to sanctions. Most agencies are not familiar with this provision, however,
because HCD has not yet formally adopted the forms that would trigger this requirement (though a draft of
such a form is posted on the HCD website—it has not yet been formally approved).
105
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 19
KEY DATES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 375
December 31, 2008* Projects specifically listed on a local ballot measure prior
to this date are exempt from the requirement to be
consistent with the SCS
January 1, 2009 CARB adopts Scoping Plan, which will include the total
reduction of carbon in million metric tons from
transportation planning
January 31, 2009 CARB shall appoint a Regional Targets Advisory
Committee (RTAC) to recommend factors to be
considered and methodologies to be used for setting
reduction targets
June 1, 2009 MPOs in attainment areas and Regional Transportation
Planning Agencies not within an MPO may elect to opt
into the 8 year planning cycle.
September 30, 2009 RTAC must report its recommendations to the CARB
June 30, 2010 CARB must provide draft targets for each region to
review
September 30, 2010 CARB must provide each affected region with a GhG
emissions reductions target.
October 1, 2010 Beginning this date, MPOs updating their RTP will begin
8 year planning cycle that includes SCS-APS and
alignment for the RHNA process.
December 31, 2010* Transportation sales tax authorities need not change
allocations approved by voters for categories of projects in
a sales tax measure approved by voters prior to this date.
December 31, 2011 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Projects
programmed before this date are exempt from the
requirement to be consistent with the SCS
* A project category is different from a specifically listed project insofar as a local initiative may
authorize funding for a certain type of improvement without specifying a specific location.
106
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 20
NEW RTP – RHA PLANNING CYCLE
(Underlined provisions indicates new law. Plain text represents current law).
RHNA PROCESS YEAR RTP PROCESS
HCD consults with COG regarding assumptions and
methodology to be used to determine housing needs
COG Develops Regional Growth Forecast
COG conducts survey of its member jurisdictions
HCD gives regional housing number to COGs
COG develops methodology for distributing RHNA
consistent with development pattern in SCS
-2 to
-1
MPO begins forecast process for RTP including involvement of
broad stakeholder groups
MPO holds informational meetings for local elected officials
MPO circulates a draft SCS, and possibly a draft APS if
needed, at least 55 days prior to final adoption
MPO quantifies the reduced GhG emissions from SCS or APS
MPO holds public hearings
SCS is approved by MPO; APS may also be approved
CARB agrees or disagrees with MPO’s assessment that SCS or
APS would, if implemented, achieve the GhG target
COG distributes draft RHNA allocation consistent with
SCS; every agency must within SCS must get some of the
housing allocation.
0 MPO adopts RTP that includes the SCS
First six months, agencies may request COG reconsider
allocation and file subsequent appeal
Local agency starts drafting housing element
Final RHNA allocation adopted by COG at 6 months
Housing element due to HCD 18 months after local agency
receives RHNA allocation (one year after final RHNA)
Local agency must adopt housing element 120 days after
statutory deadline to HCD to avoid a 4 year cycle;
90 days after receiving final comments on housing element
from HCD, or date housing element adopted by local
agency, 3 year time period to complete zoning of sites not
within inventory begins
Annual housing report with hearing to discuss
1 to 3
Transportation investments are consistent with forecasted
development pattern in SCS
Projects that are consistent with the CARB approved APS/SCS
are eligible for CEQA exemption and streamlining provisions
MPO reviews and updates forecasts and assumptions in RTP
(including SCS) for second RTP cycle
Deadline to complete zoning of sites not within inventory if
no extension applies; Failure to meet timeline can trigger
court-imposed sanctions and new anti-NIMBY remedy
New Anti-NIMBY provision applies to affordable housing
projects on sites designated in the element program to be
zoned at densities consistent with affordable housing (the
“Mullin densities”) but not yet zoned.
4 MPO submits RTP that is consistent with the RHNA allocation
four years earlier..
Local agencies that did not file a timely housing element in
year one must file another housing element that covers
Years 5 through 8 of the planning period
Local agencies that qualified for a one year extension are
required to complete their zoning of sites not in inventory
5
HCD provides MPO with regional number for next 8 year
cycle; COG begins process of developing next SCS/APS
6 COGs begins forecast for next RTP planning cycle
If agency has not zoned adequate sites in previous planning
period, zone or rezone in 1st year of planning period
unaccommodated portion of RHNA from previous period
8
Possible “Analysis Year” – Fed regs require MPOs to include
“analysis years” within RTP forecast period to take a hard look
at its assumptions. The first analysis year is 5 to 10 years out.
The 8 year RHNA cycle makes the 8th year a good analysis year
for the fed regs.
Repeat Process Repeat Process
107
Technical Overview of SB 375 (v. 1.3)
League of California Cities Page 21
KEY LEAGUE AMENDMENTS TO SB 375
Over the course of the SB 375 negotiations, the League identified a number of key amendments
it required in order for the board to consider supporting it. This table summarizes many of those
issues and explains the resulting outcome of the negotiations.
Issues SB 375
March 24, 2008 Version
SB 375
Final Version
Restrictions on
Transportation
Funding?
Transportation investments within the
RTP were based upon a set of
assumptions about resource lands that
did not necessarily reflect the content
of local general plans.
The requirement for the SCS to identify resource lands
is gone. Local officials on MPO boards retain
discretion over the funding within RTP. If the SCS
cannot achieve the regional GhG target, the region
must create an APS that could achieve the GhG target.
But the APS is not part of the RTP. Funding for
projects must be consistent with the SCS, but not
necessarily the APS.
Meaningful CEQA
Relief?
CEQA provisions had several
preconditions that made it unlikely
that they would broadly applied
Contains two forms of CEQA relief. The first exempts
residential projects from reviewing the impacts related
to cars and light trucks on projects that are consistent
with a plan to reduce GhGs from that source. The
second is for defined infill projects near transit choices.
Mandatory Growth
Allocations in SCS
of Regional
Transportation
Plan?
Required MPOs to do mandatory and
heavily prescribed growth
management within the regional
transportation plan (RTP), which
came to be known as “concentric
circle” planning
Mandatory growth management has been removed and
the requirement in earlier drafts that a region “identify
resource lands” has been changed to “gather and
consider the best practically available scientific
information about resource lands.”
Sweeping Resource
Land Definitions?
Resource definitions included new
ambiguous terms.
The ambiguous environmental land definitions have
been clarified to be consistent with current law.
Role for local
officials in
developing SCS?
None MPO must adopt an outreach process that includes
workshops for local elected officials in each county.
Local Participation
Setting Regional
GhG Reduction
Targets?
Called for a top-down process for
setting GHG targets that was
unacceptable
Bill now contains a fair process for setting regional
targets that includes a statewide advisory committee
with League representation. CARB must hold
workshops requirements in each region.
Confusion between
existing federal
laws and SB 375?
It was unclear how the new
“Supplement,” (now the APS) and the
existing federal RTP requirements
were related to each other.
Connection between the “Supplement” (now called the
“Alternative Planning Strategy or APS)” which is
required when a region’s RTP cannot meet the regional
targets) and the RTP; i.e., the land use pattern in the
Alternative Planning Strategy will not affect or be part
of the RTP or its funding.
RHNA Consistency
and Extension?
The new goal of encouraging infill
through transportation investments
and the RTP (4 year cycle) directly
conflicted with existing RHNA fair
share goals (5-year cycle).
The bill achieves a three-year extension of the RHNA
process (from 5 – 8 years), making it consistent with
the RTP process of two four -year cycles. This achieves
a major League goal.
108
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: May 8, 2013
Application: Food Truck Regulations
Location / APN: N/A
Owner / Applicant: N/A
Staff Planner: James Lindsay
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission requested staff to present information on how food trucks are
regulated within the City. Article 7-25 - Sale of Food (Attachment 1) of the City Code
requires that “mobile canteens” and “other mobile units” obtain approval from the County
Health Department to operate and serve food within the City. Since they are also
conducting business in the City each operator is required to obtain a Saratoga Business
License. Food trucks are a licensed vehicle and are allowed to park on the street in
compliance with any posted time limits.
DISCUSSION
Food trucks have been more visible in the City with the Gateway Business Community’s
“Foodie Fun on the Run” events and the food trucks parking on Big Basin Way in front of
the wine tasting rooms near 6th Street. Staff has not received any complaints about the
operators violating parking time limits or other City Code requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Article 7-25
109
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Sa ra toga , Ca lifornia , Code of Ordi na nce s >> Cha pte r 7 - HEALTH AND SANITATI ON >> Arti cle 7-25 - SALE
OF FOOD >>
Article 7-25 -
SALE OF FOOD
Se ctions:
7-25.01 0 - Definitions .
7-25.02 0 - Delegation of enforcem ent a uthority to County.
7-25.03 0 - Food es tablis hm ents .
7-25.04 0 - Itinerant ven ding of food.
7-25.05 0 - Prim a facie e vidence of being engaged in s ale of food.
7-25.06 0 - Raw m ilk reg ulations .
7-25.07 0 - Rules and regulations of Hea l th Officer.
7-25.08 0 - Seizure o f unwholes om e fo od.
7-25.09 0 - Meat prod ucts ; com pliance with State law; in s pection s tam ps .
7-25.10 0 - Violations of Article; penal ti es .
7-25.010 - D efinitions.
F or the pur poses of this Ar ticle, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires
other wise:
F o o d means all articles used for food, drink, confectionary, or condiment, whether
simple or compound, and all substances and ingredients used in the preparation
thereof.
F o o d e stablish me n t means any public or pr ivate restaurant, market, shop, store,
delicatessen, war ehouse, cold storage plant or other plant or place in or about which
any food is kept, held, sold, prepar ed, compounded or offered for sale for human
consumption. Such establishments shall specifically include, but shall not be restricted
to, bakeries, bottling works, food and condiment packers, fruit and vegetable stands,
markets and any other premises where food products are kept, stored, handled,
manufactured or offered for sale, ice stations and all food processing or cannery plants
of any type.
He alth Office r means the County Director of Public Health or any other person duly
author ized to act in his behalf.
M obile can te e n means any vehicle or other mobile unit purveying, for immediate
human consumption, foods that have been cooked, mixed, blended, compounded or
prepared in establishments permitted for that pur pose only and under an approved
local, State or feder al inspection service.
Othe r mo b ile u n its means any vehicle, truck, trailer, cart, wagon, dray, conveyance or
structure not firmly fixed to a permanent foundation which does not specifically require a
license to operate by the State Department of Motor Vehicles.
Pr o ce sse d me ats means any meat or meat food product that has been canned,
potted, cased, cooked, cured or otherwise prepared for human consumption under the
110
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
inspection, and carrying the br and, of an official meat inspection service approved by
the Bureau of Meat Inspection of the State Department of Agriculture. This definition
does not include fresh meat, cased fresh ground meat, fish or poultry of any kind.
Pr o ce ssing includes cooking, mixing, blending, compounding or the prepar ation of
foods for human consumption.
Re st aurant means any eating or drinking establishment which sells or offers for sale to
the public any food for immediate human consumption, and includes any coffee shop,
cafeteria, short-order cafe, luncheonette, tavern, bar, sandwich stand, soda fountain,
public school lunchroom or cafeteria, labor and construction camp kitchens, dining
rooms, public boardinghouse, box lunch establishments, catering services and
barbecue pits in which food or drink is prepar ed on the premises for sale or distribution
elsewhere. The ter m shall also include all cafeterias or restaur ants serving commercial
establishments as part of the organization and serving the public, whether as employees
or visitors.
Ute n sils means kitchenware, tableware, glassware, cutlery, containers, machinery,
implements and receptacles used in processing, storage, distribution or serving of food
or drink.
Ve h icle means any automobile, truck, trailer or other conveyance requir ing a license
from the State Department of Motor Vehicles.
7-25.020 - D elegation of enforcement authority to C ounty.
T he duty and authority to enforce the pr ovisions of this Article are hereby delegated to the
County, to be per formed by the Health Officer and his authorized representatives.
7-25.030 - Food establishments.
Pe r mit r e quir e d . No per son shall oper ate a food establishment in the City or sell, offer for
sale, distribute or have in his possession for sale or distribution in the City any food or drink
intended for human consumption unless possessing a permit to do so from the Health Officer.
Ap p licat io n for pe rmit ; in spe ction o f p r e mise s. Application for a permit under this Section
shall be made in writing to the Health Officer on such form as he may prescribe. The Health
Officer shall, upon receipt of such application, make or cause to be made an examination of
the premises for which such permit is requested.
Issuance or d e n ial o f p e r mit. If, upon examination of the premises for which application for a
permit is made, the Health Officer shall find such premises, buildings, and the equipment and
apparatus therein to be in accordance with the laws of the State, the requirements of this
Article and the rules and r egulations of the Health Officer, he shall issue a permit for the
conduct of such business. Such permit shall be issued annually for the calendar year. The
Health Officer is hereby empowered to deny or withhold a permit for which an application has
been made if, in his judgment, the requirements of State law or this Article are not met.
Pe r mit fe e s. The fee for issuance of a permit under this Section shall be such amount, and
payable at such time, as established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors.
Transfe r ability o f p e r mit. No permit for any food establishment within the City shall be
transferable.
Su spe n sio n or re v o cat io n of pe r mit . The Health Officer may suspend or revoke any permit
authorized by this Section whenever he finds that the holder of such a permit fails or refuses to
comply with the laws of the State, this Ar ticle, or any rules and regulations of the Health Officer.
If any per mit under this Section shall be suspended or revoked by the Health Officer, no
111
(g)
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
person shall, after such r evocation, or during the per iod of such suspension, sell or traffic in
any food or drink products at such establishment.
Re ne wal of pe rmit. Renewal of permits issued under this Section shall be applied for and
acted upon in the same manner as specified for the or iginal issuance thereof.
Exe mptio n s from p e r mit r e quir e me n t . No permit under this Section shall be required of any
food establishment licensed by the State Department of Health, the Bureau of Meat Inspection
of the State Department of Agricultur e or the meat inspection division of the United States
Department of Agricultur e.
Notificatio n of pur ch ase o r sale of fo o d e stab lish me nt. Every person who shall sell,
exchange, give away, abandon, or discontinue any food establishment within the City, and
every person who shall purchase or otherwise acquir e any such food establishment within the
City shall immediately notify the Health Officer as to the fact thereof.
7-25.040 - Itinerant vending of food.
Pe r mit r e quir e d . No per son shall vend, peddle, sell or hold for sale any food intended for
human consumption from a vehicle or other mobile unit in the City unless such per son has
applied for and received a permit from the Health Officer to do so for each vehicle or mobile
unit so used.
Exe mptio n f r o m pe r mit r e q u ir e me nt. No permit under this Section shall be r equired of
growers or producers who offer for sale only fruits or vegetables produced on their own or
leased pr emises within the confines of the City. Facilities and food handling methods shall in all
other particulars comply with the requirements of this Ar ticle.
Ap p licat io n for pe rmit ; in spe ction o f v e h icle o r o t h e r mobile unit. Applications for
permits required by this Section shall be made in writing to the Health Officer on such form as
he may prescribe. The Health Officer shall, upon receipt of such application, make or cause to
be made an examination of the vehicle or other mobile unit for which such permit is requested.
Pe r mit fe e s. The fee for issuance of a permit under this Section shall be such amount, and
payable at such time, as established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors.
Issuance or d e n ial o f p e r mit. If, upon examination, the Health Officer shall find such vehicles
or other mobile units and the equipment therein to be in accordance with the laws of the State,
the requirements of this Article and the rules and regulations of the Health Officer, the Health
Officer shall issue a permit for each vehicle or mobile unit. Such permit shall be issued
annually for the calendar year. The Health Officer is hereby empowered to deny or withhold a
permit for which an application has been made if, in his judgment, the requirements of State
law or this Article are not met.
Transfe r ability o f p e r mit; n o tice o f p u r ch ase o r sale of v e hicle . Permits for any vehicle
or other mobile unit issued pursuant to this Section shall not be transferable. Every person
who shall sell, exchange, give away, abandon or discontinue any such vehicle or other mobile
unit within the City and every person who shall purchase or otherwise acquire any such vehicle
or other mobile unit within the City shall immediately notify the Health Officer as to the fact
thereof.
Re ne wal of pe rmit. Renewal of permits issued under this Section shall be applied for and
acted upon in the same manner as specified for the or iginal issuance thereof.
Po sting o f p e r mit. Permits issued pursuant to this Section shall be posted in a conspicuous
place upon the vehicle or other mobile unit at all times. T he classification name of the food
products sold and the name and addr ess of the owner shall be displayed upon at least two
sides of each vehicle or other mobile unit for which a permit is granted.
Su spe n sio n or re v o cat io n of pe r mit . The Health Officer may suspend or revoke any permit
112
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
authorized by this Section whenever he finds that the holder of such permit fails or r efuses to
comply with the laws of the State, this Ar ticle or any rules and regulations of the Health Officer.
If any such permit shall be suspended or revoked by the Health Officer, it shall be unlawful
during the period of such revocation or suspension for any person to sell or traffic in any food
or drink pr oducts in the City in such vehicle or other mobile unit.
Insp e ctio n s b y He alt h Office r . T he Health Officer shall have the authority and shall be
permitted in the course of his duty to enter into and upon and to inspect all vehicles or other
mobile units and to inspect the foods, goods and merchandise sold or offered for sale as may
be necessary in the enforcement of this Article. Refusal of such inspection shall constitute a
violation of this Article and serve as gr ounds for permit revocation.
Pr o ce ssing o r pr e par atio n of fo o d s in v e h icle s pr ohib ite d . T he processing or
preparation of foods for human consumption in any vehicle or other mobile unit is prohibited.
Pr o ce sse d me ats o n ly t o be sold f r o m mobile can te e ns. Meats served from a mobile
canteen shall be processed meats. The sale of fresh meats, food products prepared with fresh
meats or prepared dinners is prohibited.
Sale of hig h ly p e r ish ab le foods pr ohib ite d . The sale of prepackaged salads, cr eam-filled
pastries or synthetic cream-filled pastr ies, custards and other foods of a highly perishable
nature is prohibited.
Sanitation r e q u ir e me nts. All vehicles and other mobile units for which a permit is issued
under this Section shall at all times comply with the following requirements:
All vehicles and other mobile units shall be maintained in a clean and sanitar y condition.
T he walls, shelves, floors and cabinet work of any vehicle or other mobile unit shall be
kept clean and in good repair. T hey shall have smooth, washable surfaces.
All openings to food storage areas shall be kept securely closed except during loading
and unloading per iods and when in the process of making a sale. Vehicles fr om which
fresh fruit or vegetables only are vended shall be excepted from the provisions of this
Paragraph.
All utensils and other equipment shall be kept clean and in good repair.
Refrigeration, where required by the Health Officer, shall maintain temperatures at or
below forty degrees F ahrenheit. Heating, where r equired by the Health Officer, shall
maintain temperatures at one hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit or higher.
Adequate provision shall be made for the stor age of waste material in the vehicle or
other mobile unit and for proper ultimate disposal.
All food shall be so stored, displayed or dispensed as to be reasonably protected from
dust, dirt, flies, vermin, unnecessary handling or other contamination. No food shall be
stored or displayed less than eighteen inches above the gr ound.
All vehicles or other mobile units in or from which unpackaged food is handled shall
have adequate facilities for complete daily cleansing of utensils and other equipment.
All employees and owners, while engaged in the operation of a vehicle or other mobile
unit, shall wear clean outer garments and shall keep their hands clean. Vehicles from
which fresh fruit or vegetables only are vended shall be excepted from the provisions of
this Paragraph.
No person shall wor k or be employed on a vehicle or other mobile unit who, in the
opinion of the Health Officer, is infected with or is a carrier of any communicable
disease.
All packaged foods shall bear a label identifying the product, the ingredients and the
name of the establishment where prepared. Packaged sandwiches shall bear a stamp
indicating the date of preparation.
113
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Mobile canteens shall not park on public highways or roads for the purpose of making
sales to the itinerant or casual customer. Vehicles or other mobile units par ked longer
than two hours in the same location shall be considered fixed establishments and as
such shall necessarily meet the requirements for food establishments as set forth in
Section 7-25.030 of this Article.
T he operator of every mobile canteen shall furnish the Health Officer with an itinerary of
his pr oposed route and a schedule of timing. T his itinerary shall be renewed from time
to time as the route and time may vary. T his requirement is for the express purpose of
facilitating inspection procedur es.
Each mobile canteen shall be identified by placing the business name and operating
addr ess on each side of the vehicle in permanent letters at least four inches high.
All food shall be packaged and sold in individual portions only. F ood in broken
packages may not be sold.
Coffee is the only bulk food permitted for sale. Coffee, other than instant coffee, shall be
prepared at an established plant under supervision. Tea or instant coffee are to be sold
in individual packets or envelopes only.
7-25.050 - Prima facie evidence of being engaged in sale of food.
T he presence of any food in or about the place of business of any person dealing in food or in
or about any vehicle used by any such person for the delivery of the same shall be pr ima facie
evidence of intent on the par t of such person to sell the same and of the fact that he is holding or
offering the same for sale.
7-25.060 - R aw milk regulations.
Sale an d distr ibution . No person shall sell or distribute to the retail trade in the City any raw
milk, raw cream or other r aw dairy product that does not meet the standards of certified milk or
guaranteed raw milk as defined in this Section.
Ce r tifie d milk. Certified milk is market milk which conforms to the r ules, regulations, methods
and standards for the production and distribution of certified milk adopted by the American
Association of Medical Milk Commissioner s and must bear the certification of a milk commission
appointed by a county medical association, organized under and approved by the medical
society of the State. Such commission shall make fair and uniform r ules pertaining to certified
milk, and shall certify milk for any applicant who complies with such r ules and the standards
prescribed in this Section. All cream, skimmed milk, buttermilk or other diary products sold,
designed or advertised as certified shall be conspicuously marked with the name of the
commission certifying it and certifying the milk from which such cream, skimmed milk and other
dairy product is obtained.
Guar an t e e d r aw milk. Guaranteed r aw milk is market milk which conforms to the following
minimum requirements:
T he health of the cows and goats shall be determined at least once each month by an
official representative of a milk inspection service approved or established by the
Director of the State Department of Agriculture.
It shall be produced on dairy farms which score not less than ninety percent on the dairy
far m scorecard.
It shall be bottled on the premises where produced and delivered in containers having
the pouring lip completely protected from contamination.
It shall be cooled immediately after being drawn from the cow or goat to fifty degrees
114
(5)
(a)
(b)
F ahrenheit or less, and so maintained until delivered to the consumer, at which time it
shall contain no mor e than 10,000 bacteria per milliliter.
It must be sold to the customer within thirty hours after production and labeled to
indicate the date of sale to the consumer. All per sons who come in contact with the
guar anteed raw milk must exer cise scrupulous cleanliness and not be afflicted with any
communicable disease or in a condition to disseminate the germs of any communicable
disease liable to be conveyed by milk. The absence of such germs in all such persons
shall be determined by bacteriological and physical examination by the County Health
Department or other person or laboratory approved in writing by the Health Department,
conducted at the time of employment and every six months thereafter in a manner
appr oved by the Health Officer.
7-25.070 - R ules and regulations of H ealth Officer.
T he Health Officer is her eby authorized to make such r ules and regulations, in addition to
those contained in this Article, as in his opinion will best serve the public interest.
7-25.080 - Seiz ure of unw holesome food.
T he Health Officer is her eby authorized and directed to seize and destroy or denaturize any
tainted, decayed, or partially decayed or unwholesome meat, fish, shellfish, fowl, fruits, vegetables or
other unwholesome food found within the City.
7-25.090 - Meat products; compliance w ith State law ; inspection stamps.
No person, or agent or employee of any person, shall sell, offer for sale, distribute or have in
his possession for sale or distribution in the City, any sausage or other meat food product,
unless the same has been manufactured or prepar ed in accordance with the laws of the State.
No person, or agent or employee of any person, shall sell, offer for sale, distribute or have in
his possession for sale or distribution in the City, the flesh of any cattle, horse, sheep, lamb,
swine or goat, unless the same bear s on each primal part thereof, the "Inspected and Passed"
stamp of an establishment operating under federal inspection, state inspection or approved
municipal inspection.
7-25.100 - Violations of Article; penalties.
T he violation of any provision contained in this Article shall constitute a misdemeanor and a
public nuisance, subject to the penalties as set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code.
115