Mark Luce Plan Bay Area Presentation for Marcus & Millichap Bay Area Multifamily Forum: San Francisco & Beyond

1. Developing a
Sustainable Communities Strategy
For the Bay Area
Presented by Mark Luce,
President, Association of Bay Area Governments
Napa County Supervisor
November 14, 2013

2. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Executive Board
County Supervisors
David Cortese
John Gioia
Mark Luce
Eric Mar
Karen Mitchoff
Dave Pine
David Rabbitt
Katie Rice
Jane Kim
Linda Seifert
Mike Wasserman
Scott Haggerty
Warren Slocum
County of Santa Clara
County of Contra Costa
County of Napa
County of San Francisco
Count of Contra Costa
County of San Mateo
County of Sonoma
County of Marin
County of San Francisco
County of Solano
County of Santa Clara
County of Alameda
County of San Mateo
Other
Director Jason Elliott, Leg/Gov Affairs City of San Francisco
Jeff Buckley, Office of the Mayor City of San Francisco
Dep Dir Kelly Pretzer, Leg/Gov Affairs City of San Francisco
Director William Kissinger RWQCB
City Council members and Mayors
Desley Brooks,
City of Oakland
Kansen Chu,
City of San Jose
Mayor Pat Eklund
City of Novato
Mayor Leon Garcia,
City of American Canyon
Mayor Pedro Gonzalez City of South San Francisco
Mayor Bill Harrison
City of Fremont
Dave Hudson
City of San Ramon
Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
Wayne Lee
City of Milbrae
Sam Liccardo
City of San Jose
Jake Mackenzie
City of Rohnert Park
Mary Ann Nihart
City of Pacifica
Mayor Julie Pierce
City of Clayton
Mayor Harry Price
City of Fairfield
Mayor Jean Quan
City of Oakland
Libby Schaaf
City of Oakland
Mayor Greg Scharff
City of Palo Alto
Ash Kalra
City of San Jose
Joe Pirzynski
Town of Los Gatos
2
11/21/2013

3. Basic Questions
 Should government plan…?
 Govern: Latin origin “to steer” as in guiding a ship.
 Elected leaders are given the authority to lead.
 We are expected to anticipate and avoid problems and to
identify and create opportunities.
 Governing is about delivering and that requires planning.
 …and at what level?
 At the most local level possible, that will encompass the
breadth of a decision’s impact…where it is most accountable.

4. Plan Bay Area

Vision (understanding and moving toward the goal):

Strategic intent. Know what is important and adjust.
 What is important: Improve our quality of life.
• Accommodating growth, reducing greenhouse gasses, housing our
population, and maintaining a vibrant economy, are strategic objectives.
They are not an end to themselves.
• We are diverse and “improved quality of life” takes on different meaning
in each community. Plan Bay Area is respectful of local government
plans and directions. Mandating sprawl where it is not wanted is counter
productive and disrespectful.
What is required: Comply with State law.
 It is difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

– Yogi Berra

The best way to predict the future is to create it.
– President Abraham Lincoln

5. Plan Bay Area

Reality:
2 million more Bay Area residents in the next 20 to 40 years, limited
funds, aging infrastructure, diverse bay area values (urban/rural).
 The Bay Area is not an island. We are a worldwide destination.
Housing will always be expensive as long as we maintain our quality
of life.
 Beautiful and sensitive physical features (bay, river, wetlands,
mountains, etc.) that contribute to planning complexity.
 Healthy diverse economy.
 Plan Bay Area does not prevent local governments from expanding
their boundaries and zoning for more single family homes nor does it
force them to do so.
 Nothing gets approved unless local government supports it.
 Nothing gets built unless private developers believe they can
sell it.


6. What it says and does not say.
 Plan Bay Area EIR;

“The projected oversupply of single-family homes is expected to
reduce demand for other housing types by almost 170,000 units as
some households that would otherwise choose multifamily units
instead opt for single family homes made more affordable due to
excess supply.”
 Randal O’Toole;

“Implementation of Plan Bay Area will require the demolition of
more than 169,000 single-family detached homes, or one out of
every nine such homes in the region, according to table 2.3-2 of the
draft environmental impact report. Any earthquake or other natural
event that resulted in this much destruction would be counted as the
greatest natural catastrophe in American history.”

7. Plan Bay Area

Discipline


Accomplished through plans and programs that achieve our
objectives consistent with our goal. Prioritize areas for higher
density development near jobs and transit that LOCAL
GOVERNMENTs have volunteered as welcomed and appropriate.
Reward those plans with economic and policy support and
eliminate obstacles.
Courage

People coming together to move forward, refusing to compromise
our future to the voices of fear and futility.

8. AB 32 Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006
AB 32 establishes the first
comprehensive program of regulatory
and market mechanisms in the nation
to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reductions
AB 32 sets GHG emissions limit for
2020 at 1990 level


Acknowledges that 2020 is not the
endpoint
Points way towards 80% reduction by 2050
Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted a
Scoping Plan to achieve AB 32’s GHG
emissions reduction target

9. California’s Three Pronged Approach to Reducing
Transportation Greenhouse Gases
(with AB 32 Scoping Plan estimates for GHG reductions in 2020)
Cleaner vehicles (Pavley, AB 32) - 38 tons
Cleaner fuels (Low-Carbon Fuel Standard) - 15 tons
More sustainable communities (SB 375) - 5 tons

10. SB 375 Basics
 Directs ARB to develop passenger vehicle
GHG reduction targets for CA’s 18 MPOs for
2020 and 2035
 Adds Sustainable Communities Strategy as new
element to RTPs
 Provides CEQA streamlining incentives for projects
consistent with SCS/APS
 Requires separate Alternative Planning Strategy
if GHG targets not met
 Coordinates RHNA with the regional
transportation planning process

11. ARB Adopted GHG Targets — September
2010
Percent Reduction in Per Capita Emissions from 2005 to Target Year
2020
2035
Bay Area
7%
15%
Sacramento
7%
16%
San Diego
7%
13%
Los Angeles
8%
13%
Central Valley
5%
10%

12. Location
Matters
Compared to
sprawl, compact
development results
in a 20 to 40
percent reduction in
VMT and hence in
CO2

13. Strategy for Growth
 What this means:
 The growth we are planning for over the next
several decades will be very different from the
outward expansion over the last few decades.
 With the demands for environmental resource
conservation and infrastructure efficiency,
infill development with streamlined permitting
and financial support will be primary
strategies.

14. Building on an Existing Framework

The region already has a local-regional
partnership to support growth in sustainable
Priority Development Areas and to protect
important natural resources identified as Priority
Conservation Areas.

SB 375 is structured as a voluntary, incentivebased program.

15. Priority
Development
Areas

16. Resources to Local Government Are Key
 State and regional
capital grants
 New federal funding
models
(e.g. joint
HUD/DOT/EPA
programs)
 Self-help tools
(e.g. value-capture such
as tax increment
financing)
PDA Capital Funding
Shortfall
Category
$ billions
Transportation
Infrastructure
6.3
Affordable Housing
2.0
Parks
1.4
Utilities
0.9
Other Public
Facilities
0.9
Pre-Development
Activities
0.6
TOTAL
12.1

17. SCS Implementation:
Regional, County, and Local Coordination
Local Jurisdictions
MTC
Transportation
CMAs
ABAG
Land Use
Housing
Jobs
17

18. Implementation Focus Areas
PDA
Implementation
Economic
Development
Open Space
and Farmland
Housing
Production and
Affordability
Research & Communications

19. PDA
Implementation
Transit Corridors
Inner Bay Area Corridors and
Regional Centers
Regional Rail
PDA (not exact
size)
Regional Center
Corridor

20. Transit Corridors: Grand Boulevard
Initiative
Development
coordination among
21 Jurisdictions
• San Mateo and
Santa Clara County
•

21. Transit Corridors: San Pablo Ave and East
Bay Corridor

22. Entitlement Efficiency
•
•
•
SB 375 and 226
SB 743 [Kings Arena]
CEQA Streamlining

23. Entitlement Efficiency
 IF projects are:
 -Consistent with SCS
 -Meet density/transit requirements
 -Located in areas with already adopted
programmatic EIRs

24. Entitlement Efficiency
 THEN some projects in PDA’s:
 -Won’t require add’l CEQA analysis,
 or
 -Have fewer issues to analyze in EIR

25. Entitlement Efficiency
 ABAG/MTC to develop advisory guidelines
to help determine if:
 -Local programmatic EIRs meet SB 375
thresholds for these benefits, and if not
 -What add’l CEQA analysis would be
needed to meet thresholds?

26. Regional PDA Planning Grants
 Previous Grants:
•
•
Supported 52 plans
Supported planning for
40,000 new housing
units and 60,000 new
jobs
 New Grants:
• $8 Million (2014-17)

27. State Housing Policy Coordination
•
•
•
Consult with local jurisdictions
Identify state policies/regs that may impede PDA
implementation
Coordinate with state agencies re: potential policy
adjustments

28. Place-Based Economic Development
Strategies
Downtown
San Jose
Downtown Sunnyvale
Downtown Berkeley

29. •
Data Analysis and Research
•
•
•
•
Tracking development trends
Refine land use model
Consolidate PDA data on website
Communication
•
•
•
Increase media response capacity
Update ABAG website
Conversations with delegates