Why a Regional Plan?

Why a Regional Plan?

Population Growth in the Golden State California grows by 300,000 500,000 people each year due mostly to new births and longer lifespans 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1940-50 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-2000 2000-2010 Average Annual Increase in State Population

1940 Sprawl in the Bay Area

2010 1940 Sprawl in the Bay Area

Traffic Growth in the Golden State Our land use pattern has resulted in greater dependence on the automobile for mobility California Population vs. Traffic Growth 1970-2000 70% 162% Population Growth Vehicle Miles Traveled

AB 32 Emission Reduction Strategy Sustainable Communities Strategy 7% Forestry 4% Cap & Trade 16% Clean Car Standards 28% Renewable Energy 20% Low Carbon Fuels 12% Energy Efficiency 13%

SB 375: The Sustainable Communities Strategy Intent: Reduce GHG emissions by discouraging sprawl development and dependence on car travel Requires regional transportation plans to include a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) to: 1. Meet GHG reduction targets for vehicle travel: - Achieve a 7% per capita reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, and a 15% reduction by 2035 2. Accommodate all of the region s projected housing need Coordinates Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with Regional Land Use Plan and directs funds towards GHG reduction plan needs

By the Numbers

Adopted Performance Targets

Focuses growth in elective Priority Development Areas (PDAs) 200 voluntary PDAs 77% of new housing in PDAs 63% of new jobs in PDAs

Priority Development Areas

Priority Development Areas Potential Planned

Household Growth 2010-2040 13

Household Growth 2010-2040 27% 36% 9% Bay Area Santa Clara County Marin County

Marin County Household Growth Rates 16% SCS 9% 1980-2010 2010-2040

Job Growth 2010-2040 33% 33% 17% Bay Area Santa Clara County Marin County

Marin County Job Growth Rates 42% SCS 17% 1980-2010 2010-2040

Job Growth Projections One-third of forecasted job growth will replace jobs lost since 1970 This will reduce the amount of new commercial space needed for the projected job increase

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Marin Housing Allocations Over Time 6515 4882 2292 1999-2006 2007-2014 2014-2022

Transportation Investments 2010-2040 28-Year Funding: $289 Billion 90% Committed to Road and Transit Maintenance

Transportation Investments 2010-2040 Discretionary Funding: $57 Billion Funds included for widening Novato Blvd. 50% of Marin s share of OBAG grants goes to PDAs

Transportation Policies (Part of Plan): Freeway Performance: Implement ramp metering at 300 locations Funding for traffic signal coordination projects Funding for vanpool incentives, clean vehicle rebates, EV charging stations, car sharing Smart Driving campaign

Alternative Transportation Policies: Increase toll on the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge to $8 Impose a VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) Fee to increase funding for additional transit Impose a Regional Development Fee on new development based on vehicle miles traveled to discourage low density suburban and rural development, with proceeds used to subsidize urban infill

And the Impacts Are

Alternative Intent # HH in Marin No Project (Status Quo) Plan Bay Area # Jobs in Marin % HH Growth in PDAs % Job Growth in PDAs Existing local plans 111,509 126,343 24% 20% Proposed plan Alternatives 112,021 129,110 77% 63% Transit Priority Network of Communities Environment, Equity and Jobs Growth focused on transit corridors; funding shift from highways to transit Bullish on jobs and housing; more dispersed growth pattern Maximizes affordable housing; increases transit service in disadvantaged areas 105,702 133,703 53% 33% 111,224 156,472 46% 38% 108,135 124,095 57% 33%

Alternative No Project (Status Quo) Plan Bay Area Transit Priority Transportation Policy n/a Proposed plan Regional development fee on new development to discourage low density suburban and rural development, with proceeds used to subsidize urban infill Increase SF-Oak Bridge toll to $8 Network of Communities Increase SF-Oak Bridge toll to $8 Environment, Equity and Jobs Alternatives Impose a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax to fund additional transit Increase SF-Oak Bridge toll to $8 Focus OBAG grants on affordable housing Discourages CEQA streamlining

Alternatives Alternative % CO 2 Reduction in 2020 % CO 2 Reduction in 2035 % Decrease Vehicle Miles Travelled Goal -7% -15% -10% Added Acres of Urbanized Land No Project (Status Quo) -6.2% -7% -5% 20,702 Plan Bay Area -10.3% -16.4% -9% 7,547 Transit Priority -10.5% -15.4% -8% 8,113 Network of Communities -8.5% -14.8% -9% 7,586 Environment, Equity and Jobs -11.1% -16.4% -9% 9,596 Fails to meet mandated standard

Impact of Land Use Changes vs. Transportation Policies on GHG Reduction 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 6.6% 9.8% 6.6% 7% SB375 Threshold Transp. Policies Land Use 0 Plan Bay Area No Project

Alternatives - Conclusions The No Project (Status Quo) alternative has much greater impacts in most categories and doesn t achieve even half of the required GHG reduction by 2035 There are fairly minimal differences in impacts between the other four alternatives Alternative 5 (Environment, Equity and Jobs) is considered the environmentally preferable alternative

Areas of Controversy

Areas of Controversy: Local control Accuracy of growth forecasts Pace of growth Impact on the disadvantaged

Local Control: MTC and ABAG have no direct control over local land use planning. Nonetheless, regional efforts will be made through OBAG funding for assist local plan alignment with the Plan. Page 2.3-33 Draft EIR

Local Control: Local jurisdictions have local land use authority, meaning that in the case where the proposed Plan conflicts with local zoning or specific plans, the local jurisdiction would have ultimate land use authority. Page 2.3-42 Draft EIR

Local Control: The proposed Plan will only be implemented insofar as local jurisdictions adopt its policies and recommendations. Page 2.3-42 Draft EIR

Local Control: Local general plan updates are not required to use the Plan Bay Area growth projections for local growth

Accuracy of Growth Projections: California Dept. of Finance, 2013 2010 Pop 2040 Pop % Change Marin County 252,731 259,549 3% Region 7.1 million 8.4 million 18% ABAG Forecast, 2012 2010 Pop 2040 Pop % Change Marin County 252,409 285,323 13% Region 7.1 million 9.3 million 30%

Accuracy of Growth Projections: Dept. of Finance projections based on a demographic model of birth/death/migration assumptions ABAG s forecast assumes a more competitive Bay Area economy, increasing migration into the area for job growth DOF acknowledges that the ABAG employment methodology and its impact on migration is reasonable.

Pace of Growth: Marin County Job Growth Rates 42% SCS 17% 1980-2010 2010-2040

Pace of Growth: Novato Job Growth 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 2040* *estimated by Plan Bay Area

Pace of Growth: Marin County Household Growth Rates 16% 9% 1980-2010 2010-2040

Pace of Growth: Novato Household Growth 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 2040* *estimated by Plan Bay Area

Equity Issues: Social equity advocates were well represented during the Plan preparation One alternative (Environment, Equity and Jobs) was defined by equity advocates Proposed Plan and alternatives were measured against equity performance measures Equity Alternative found to be the environmentally preferable alternative

Big Remaining Questions: Will local agencies change their land use plans and make development decisions consistent with the Plan? Are there sufficient funds to improve regional transit and incentivize more compact development?

Impacts On Novato

Impacts On Novato: 3,490 new JOBS forecasted (17% growth 0.5%/year) 1,170 new HOUSEHOLDS forecasted (6% growth 0.2%/year) 1,060 new DWELLING UNITS forecasted (5% growth 0.2%/year) Novato added 1,610 new dwelling units between 2000 and 2010

Novato Job Growth 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 2040* *estimated by Plan Bay Area

Novato Household Growth 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020* 2030* 2040* *estimated by Plan Bay Area

Impacts On Novato: RHNA numbers way down since most Bay Area growth is projected in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) 2538 1241 411 1999-2006 2007-2014 2014-2022

Impacts On Novato: RHNA numbers way down since most Bay Area growth is projected in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) Novato will not compete well for discretionary transportation funds since we do not have PDAs

Impacts On Novato: EIR for General Plan Update will likely be able to tier off the Plan Bay Area EIR for cumulative impact analysis (regional air quality, transportation, GHG emissions, noise, etc.), reducing costs but requiring Council-approved overrides for significant, unavoidable cumulative regional impacts

Draft TAM Comments (Plan): Plan should recognize other efforts underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Marin Clean Energy, electric vehicles, Climate Change Action Plans, etc.) Jobs/housing growth needs to be reconciled with State s projections( ABAG and DOF) Sea Level Rise a high priority CEQA reform should recognize that uniform standards will not be appropriate to every local jurisdiction Housing unit definition used by HCD needs to be expanded Emphasize the importance of local control in implementation

Draft TAM Comments (DEIR): Comment period too short for 1,300 page document The difference between ABAG s and DOF s jobs and housing growth forecasts needs to be explained Infrastructure and public service needs are not adequately identified for the projected growth Mitigations for Sea Level Rise a priority CEQA exemptions are determined at the local level Housing unit definition used by HCD needs to be expanded

Adoption of Plan Bay Area Draft Plan Bay Area released Late March 2013 Public meetings in each county April-May 2013 Comment period closes Mid-May 2013 Comments presented to MTC/ABAG Early June 2013 July 18, 2013

Questions?