A Agenda - Silicon Valley Leadership Group

 Marrch 7, 2012 1:30 – 3:30 pm
m BD B
Bioscience
es 2222 Q
Qume Drive San Jose J
Joint Tran
sportation
n and Hou
using/Land
d Use Com
mmittee M
Meeting A
Agenda
Time 1:30 Ite
em W
Welcome & Int
troductions Fe
ebruary 2011 Minutes App
proval (both ccommittees) Who Melissa ZZucker, Solariia Chris Waall, City Nation
nal Bank Paul Shepherd, Cargill Craig Rob
binson, Silicon Valley Bankk 1:35 Su
ustainable Co
ommunities SStrategies & the One Bay Arrea Grant 2:00 AB
B 32 Cap‐and‐Trade Reven
nue Expenditture Principle
es Mike Mieelke, Leadership Group 2:45 Th
he Future of W
Work: Shiftin
ng Employment to Transit‐‐
Se
erved Centerss (http://www.sp
pur.org/policyy/future‐of‐w
work) Egon Terrplan, SPUR 3:20 An
nnouncemen
nts •
•
•
•
3:30 SPUR SJ Launch, Tomorrrow! 3/8 @ 5
5:30‐7:30 Next Meettings: o TPC
C – 4/4 @ 1:3
30‐ 3:30, BD B
Biosciences o Ho
ousing – 4/9 @
@ 2‐4, SVLG
SV Bike Ad
dvocacy Summ
mit, 4/17 @ 2
2‐8pm, at the
e Oshman Faamily Jewish Community C
Center: 3921 Fabiaan Way in Palo Alto Ryan Avent, Economist,, at Greenbellt Alliance Event, 4/19
9 @ 7pm M
Meeting Adjou
urn Scott Hayywood, VTA All Februarry 14, 2012 2:30 – 4:30 pm
m Siliicon Valle
ey Leadersship Group 200
01 Gatewaay Place, SSuite 101E San Jose M
Minutes
Joint Transportattion and H
Health Care Committtee Meetting Click ffor original ba
ackground Ag
genda & Mateerials at http:://svlg.org/wp
p‐
conten
nt/uploads/20
012/02/TPC‐P
Packet‐2‐12.p
pdf 1.. WELCOMEE AND INTRO
ODUCTIONS The Transpo
ortation Policyy Committee meeting was called to ord
der at 2:30 p.m
m. Transportation and/or Heealth Care Committee Mem
mbers: Melissa Zuckker, Solaria (TTPC co‐chair)
Chris Wall, C
City National B
Bank (TPC co‐‐chair) Kerry Haywo
ood, represen
nting NetApp (by phone, partial) Denny Yau, SSJSU Otto Melara, SJSU Sherri Sager,, Lucile Packaard Children’ss Hospital Melissa Burkke, Lucile Packard Children
n’s Hospital Patty Pine, EEbay Brendon Harrrington, Goo
ogle Justin Bean, Streetline Angus Davol, Stanford Ken Veach, SSVB (by phone) Blake Gilmorre, Enterprisee FM Betty Garza, NXP Semicon
nductor Katie Heatley, Outreach Paul Shepherd, Cargill Sylvia Covarrrubias, El Cam
mino Hospitall Patty Fisher,, The Health TTrust Staff: Jessica Zenk,, Director of TTransportatio
on Bena Chang,, Senior Assocciate of Transsportation and Housing Odbayar Battmunkh, Transportation Co
oordinator Pooja Trived
di, Health Caree Coordinator Shiwani Bedekar, Health Care Coordinator Brett Barley,, Director of EEducation Dennis Cimaa, Senior Vice President Emily Lam, SSenior Directo
or of Health C
Care and Fedeeral Issues 2.. JANUARY 2012 TPC MINUTES APPR
ROVAL Motion—M/S Angus Davol / Chris Wall—Carried unanimously —Approve the minutes of the January 2012 TPC meeting. 3. Evaluating Transportation Tax and Fee Options: What’s Effective, Equitable, & Politically Acceptable? Professor Asha Weinstein Agrawal, SJSU and the Mineta Transportation Institute, provided an overview of: 1. Current sources of revenue 2. Evaluation criteria 3. Focus: political acceptability & voter support a. Source of info b. Factors increasing support Main sources of transportation funding: • Gas taxes – state and federal • Weight fees – state and federal • General funds – state and local • Dedicated sales or other taxes – state and local • (NOT: Bond proceeds!) Motor vehicle fuel tax revenues are declining, which forces us to look elsewhere in the future. There are a number of evaluation criteria we could use, including: 1. Revenue generation 2. Ease of implementation 3. Transportation system performance 4. Political feasibility 5. Promotion of interlinked public policy goals (equity, sustainability, economic development, etc.) In terms of political acceptability, we can look to past performance of ballot measures and survey information for data. In 2010, 77% of 57 “transportation” ballot measures were approved nationally (CFTE data). Californian voters have approved: • Local‐option sales taxes in 19 counties • Toll increase on Bay Area bridges • Local vehicle registration fee surcharges Raising transportation taxes/fees can be acceptable to the public, if carefully crafted. Voter support is most likely if the transportation ballot measure: • Is local • Supports specific projects • Has a specific purpose • Supports themes of environment, maintenance, safety • Involves voter education More information is available at www.transweb.sjsu.edu or by emailing [email protected] At 3:05PM, the Joint Health Care/Transportation Meeting began. 4. Active Transportation & Health Heather Wooten, Public Health Law & Policy, gave an overview of the connection between active transportation and health, as well as concrete ways we can improve our communities to support healthy living. Bonnie Broderick and Susan Stuart followed with concrete ways Santa Clara County is promoting healthy living and preventing obesity through active transportation and physical activities. Discussion/Questions/Answers: •
•
•
•
Melissa Zucker: What is the education component of these programs? Bonnie: With Safe Routes to Schools, it is really through the school (teachers, parents); the education is through the media for other programs. Susan: A key target for education is the policy makers, as our focus is on changing policies. Patty Fisher: What could SVLG members do? Bonnie: Connect with your schools, support resolutions at City Council (see Information from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department at http://svlg.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/Santa‐Clara‐
County‐Active‐Transportation‐Health.pdf for template), and/or address your organizational practices. Betty Garza: There is a natural tie in with schools – especially Junior Colleges – for pushing good transit and active transportation programs; Denny Yau: Agreed – the 522/22 carries 25% of SJSU students who ride transit. Paul Shepherd: Is the highway department getting any better at including bikes, etc.? Jim Helmer: They have incorporated complete streets as part of the highway manual; in terms of City General Plans, San Jose’s is a good example. Resources: •
•
Heather Wooten's Presentation on Active Transportation & Health (http://svlg.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/02/Active‐Transportation‐and‐Health.pdf) and additional links from Heather – o Creating Healthy Regional Transportation Plans: A Primer for California's Public Health Community on Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies http://www.transformca.org/files/creating_healthy_regional_transportation_pl
ans_report_january_2012.pdf o Getting Involved in Transportation Planning: An Overview for Public Health Advocates http://www.phlpnet.org/healthy‐planning/products/transportation‐
planning o Healthy Places, Healthy Regions: A Closer Look at Opportunities to Invest in Health and Sustainability in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties http://www.phlpnet.org/phlp/products/CA‐healthy‐regions Information from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department http://svlg.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/02/Santa‐Clara‐County‐Active‐Transportation‐Health.pdf 5. Active Transportation & the Federal Transportation Bill Ian Dewar (Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Board, Bikes Belong) provided information on the Federal Transportation Bill and how it could impact funding and programs that support active transportation and health. The following links include Ian’s handout and follow up resources: •
•
•
•
•
•
Ian’s handout from 2/14/2012 http://svlg.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/State‐of‐
Current‐Cycling‐Funding.docx Outdoor Industry Foundation: Contribution to US Economy http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/ResearchRecreationEconomyBicyclin
g.pdf Safe Routes to School California List: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/srts_list.htm Transportation Enhancement Programs In California http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/TransEnhAct/TransEnact.htm and click on "Local Recovery Act TE Projects" America Bikes Link to House and Senate Amendments That Support Cycling: http://www.americabikes.org/Documents/Cardin‐Cochran‐amendment.pdf http://www.bikeleague.org/news/petri_amendment_text.pdf Read Ian’s Blog at http://iandewar.typepad.com/ for up to date information on the Federal Transportation bill's pedestrian & bike provisions 6. Upcoming Active Transportation Opportunities o
o
Colin Heyne and Jen Brecheen of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition presented ways that your company can support active commutes (http://svlg.org/policy‐
areas/transportation/active‐transportation‐bikeped) and Bike to Work 2012 (http://svlg.org/policy‐areas/transportation/bike‐to‐work), including these handy fact sheets from the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition on the benefits of bike commuting (http://svlg.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/benefits‐of‐bike‐
commuting.pdf) and the 2012 Company Bike Challenge (http://svlg.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/02/120214‐cbc‐tbc‐overview.pdf) Bret Andersen provided information on the 2012 Drive Less Challenge (http://svlg.org/wp‐admin/drivelesschallenge.com), which starts on Earth Day (April 22nd) and runs through May 5th 7. Transportation Policy Committee adjourned at 4:35; Health Care Committee continued. MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: February 29, 2012 Transportation Policy Committee & Housing and Land Use Committee Bena Chang, Housing &Transportation Senior Associate Clorama Dorvilias, Housing & Community Development Associate Update on Plan Bay Area and One Bay Area Grant Subject: ACTION Receive update on Plan Bay Area and the One Bay Area Grant proposal. Provide policy feedback to staff. BACKGROUND In 2008, the governor signed into law SB 375 (Steinberg). SB 375 is a companion piece to the landmark AB 32, California’s global warming bill. The law makes three major changes to land use and transportation planning: 1. Transportation: The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) will achieve a regional greenhouse gas emission target set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For the Bay Area, the goal is a 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 and 15% by 2035. 2. Housing: Coordinates the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process with the regional transportation plan. 3. Offers California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining for developments that are consistent with the regional plan and meet a list of criteria. The combined planning process will produce a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that dictates how and where growth will occur in our region along with a transportation investment plan to support growth. In the Bay Area, the Sustainable Communities Strategy is called Plan Bay Area. The planning process is led by the Association for Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). FEBRUARY 2012 UPDATE The transportation and housing committees last heard about Plan Bay Area in July, 2011. Since then, here are the major updates to the planning process: Preferred Scenario The preferred scenario is the “work product” due to the state that shows how the region intends to achieve the greenhouse gas targets through transportation and land use planning. Late last year, MTC and ABAG analyzed five alternative scenarios that looked at pairs of land use and transportation investment scenarios to see what it would take to reach the region’s greenhouse gas emission goals. MTC/ABAG plan to release a revised draft scenario in March with final adoption in April 2013. Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requires cities to identify and zone areas to accommodate an eight‐year projection of regional housing need. A crucial step in the RHNA process is determining the methodology the region will use to distribute housing numbers to individual cities. The Leadership Group is a member of the Housing Methodology Committee charged with coming up with the methodology to distribute the numbers. So far, the conversation has centered on putting 70% of the region's housing need in priority development areas (PDAs). Priority Development Areas are places where cities have self‐nominated to grow in the future. The Housing Methodology Committee work is on‐going and the final methodology is scheduled to be adopted in July 2012. ABAG will adopt the final allocation of homes in May 2013. Regional Transportation Plan The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) maps out a transportation investment strategy for the next 30 years. Transportation projects have to be in the RTP in order to receive state or federal funds. At the regional level, MTC recently released results from a project performance assessment. The purpose of the assessment was to assess major transportation projects as well as categories of transportation investments (e.g. roadway efficiency projects like ramp metering or pothole repair). Projects were scored according to a ratio of cost to value of benefits. MTC staff also looked at whether projects benefited a set of regional goals adopted by the MTC/ABAG boards for Plan Bay Area. In Santa Clara County, projects like the phase 2 extension of BART to Silicon Valley were included on the high performance list. Projects like Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on El Camino Real and Silicon Valley High‐Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes were on the medium performance list. Dumbarton Rail, the Capitol Expressway Light‐Rail Extension to Eastridge and the Vasona Light‐
Rail Extension to Los Gatos were on the low‐performance list. Congestion Management Agencies (VTA in this county) will have to present a compelling case to the MTC Commission for projects on the low performance list. During March and April, the MTC Board will hear the compelling case arguments and decide which projects are in the plan. One Bay Area Grant While it is important to plan for transportation infrastructure and housing growth, successful implementation is key to enacting change. At the same time discussions are happening around Plan Bay Area, MTC is also discussing major program changes to its transportation block grant program. The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program embodies one implementation strategy for the policies in Plan Bay Area. OBAG directs certain pots of federal funds to local jurisdictions. MTC is increasing the amount of funds it will pass directly onto counties versus the amount for regional discretionary programs. Santa Clara County will receive $66 million under this new formula. Under the previous formula, the County would have received $28 million. OBAG differs from previous grant cycles by providing more flexibility for local jurisdictions to use transportation dollars for local priorities. Instead of having separate pots of funding for local streets rehabilitation, bike and pedestrian projects, and Transportation for Livable Communities grants, OBAG consolidates these pots into one large pot. This new flexibility comes with additional strings: 1) At least 70% of funds must serve Priority Development Areas (PDAs), and 2) Cities must adopt Complete Streets policies that require them to accommodate ALL users in the city’s General Plan. They also must have an approved Housing Element which enacts the requirements of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. ANALYSIS The Leadership Group strongly supported SB 375 and the coordination of housing and transportation planning at the regional level. Unfortunately, land use decisions are made at the local level, on a city‐by‐city basis. Without local support, these plans cannot be implemented. SB 375 offers the opportunity for local cities to participate in a larger regional planning effort and to discuss high‐level trade‐offs. The Leadership Group’s ultimate goal is to create the political and financial climate that supports building density in the right places (urban core, next to transit and amenities). Leadership Group staff would like feedback on these areas: One Bay Area Grant – One of the major challenges to implementing the One Bay Area Grant is the tension with investing the majority of funds (70%) in Priority Development Areas that will mainly serve future rather than existing residents. Given that funding is limited, is it okay to spend more money in places that are slated to grow significantly in the future? Or should it be a more equal (50‐50) split between existing and future neighborhoods? Transportation Investment Trade‐Offs – Does the organization think maintenance funding (e.g. pothole repair, state of good repair for transit) should be prioritized over expansion projects. (e.g. BART to Silicon Valley, High‐Occupancy Toll Lanes)?