BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: AB 2008
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  Quirk
                                                         VERSION: 5/7/14
          Analysis by:  Nathan Phillips                  FISCAL:  NO
          Hearing date:  June 17, 2014


          SUBJECT: 

          Transit village plans:  goods movement

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill allows cities and counties to include, as one of the  
          required public benefits of a transit village development plan,  
          dedicated loading and unloading facilities for commercial space.

          ANALYSIS:

          The Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (AB 3152  
          [Bates], Chapter 780, Statutes of 1994) allows a city or county  
          to prepare a transit village plan (TVP) for a transit village  
          development district (TVDD) that increases transit usage by  
          addressing the following characteristics: 

           A neighborhood centered around a transit station that allows  
            residents, workers, shoppers, and others to find it convenient  
            and attractive to patronize transit
           A mix of housing types, including apartments, within  mile of  
            a transit station
           Retail districts and civic uses, including libraries and day  
            care centers
           Pedestrian and bike access to a transit station
           A transit system that encourages multi-modal service and  
            access other than single-occupant vehicles
           Dense, compact development

          In addition to the required elements of a TVP described above,  
          TVPs must also demonstrate public benefits beyond an increase in  
          transit usage, including any five of the following criteria:

           Relief of traffic congestion
           Improved air quality
           Increased transit revenue yields
           Increased stock of affordable housing
           Redevelopment of depressed and marginal inner-city  




          AB 2008 (QUIRK)                                        Page 2

                                                                       


            neighborhoods
           Live-travel options for transit-needy groups
           Promotion of infill development and preservation of natural  
            resources
           Promotion of a pedestrian-friendly environment around transit  
            stations
           Reduced need for added travel by providing retail shops at  
            transit stations
           Promotion of job opportunities
           Improved cost-effectiveness through the use of the existing  
            infrastructure
           Increased sales and property tax revenue
           Reduction in energy consumption
           This bill  adds the provision of dedicated loading and unloading  
          space as a 14th demonstrable public benefit to the existing list  
          of 13, and changes from five to six the number of public  
          benefits that must be chosen from among the list of 14, required  
          as part of a TVP. 
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose  .  The state's encouragement of high-density infill  
            development has the desirable effect of bringing residential  
            and commercial areas closer together to reduce travel  
            requirements, but, according to the author, a negative side  
            effect is increased traffic congestion and safety hazards  
            associated with delivery vehicles that must idle, circle  
            blocks, and double-park to deliver goods.  The author's  
            purpose is to reduce these negative aspects of transit  
            villages by including an option for dedicated loading and  
            unloading facilities in commercial spaces in transit-oriented  
            developments, as part of a TVP.

           2.Urban freight impacts  .  According to a recent World Bank  
            study, urban freight delivery represents between 10% and 15%  
            of vehicle miles traveled on city streets worldwide, and, in  
            an example cited from Dijon, France, amounted to 26% of total  
            petroleum consumption and between 20% and 60% of criteria  
            pollutant emissions.  Safety hazards of urban freight movement  
            are also significant: In European cities, 5% to 10% of traffic  
            fatalities involve light commercial trucks and 10% to 15% of  
            fatalities involve heavy commercial trucks.  Reducing the  
            number of miles driven by delivery trucks and double parking  
            will have environmental, congestion, and safety benefits.

           3.Diversity of delivery modes  .  The author primarily cites  




          AB 2008 (QUIRK)                                        Page 3

                                                                       


            problems associated with delivery trucks like UPS or FedEx  
            that motivate this bill, but TVPs addressing this issue would  
            encompass a wide variety of delivery vehicles, from cargo  
            bikes to tractor-trailers.  Moreover, a loading dock is not  
            "the end of the line;" an office or home often is.  The home  
            delivery market, for example, is growing rapidly, which may  
            not be served well by a centralized delivery facility.  This  
            bill only refers to loading space, but other strategies may be  
            more effective in addressing delivery congestion, such as  
            vehicle size limits of loading facilities and required  
            provisions for low-power and zero-emission delivery vehicles  
            at loading docks (e.g., charging plugs or cargo bike racks).   
            In addition, favoring green delivery vehicles over motorized  
            transport may be more appropriate to walkable,  
            pedestrian-dense transit villages.

           4.Five or six required benefits  ?  With the addition of a 14th  
            criteria to the existing 13 in statute, the author proposes  
            increasing from five to six the number of demonstrated  
            criteria that must be used to qualify a development as a  
            transit village.  Any of the following options could have been  
            proposed for amending existing law:  1) adding a criterion and  
            keeping the number of required benefits at five; 2) adding a  
            criterion and increasing the number of required benefits to  
            six; or 3) requiring this criterion outright instead of adding  
            it to the list of options.  The first two options means the  
            issue may or may not be addressed in any particular zone, but  
            requiring six may increase the odds of the zone addressing  
            delivery space.  Weighing these different options, the  
            author's intent seems best served by the second proposed  
            option.

           5.Maximum flexibility, minimal impact  ?  This bill offers a high  
            degree of flexibility in how TVPs may address loading and  
            unloading facilities in transit villages.  For example, there  
            are no prescriptions regarding the number of loading  
            facilities per square foot of development, per volume of  
            expected goods delivered, or per capita.  Moreover, size of  
            loading facility or delivery vehicles is left unspecified.   
            The non-prescriptive nature of this bill has both benefits and  
            potential drawbacks.  The benefit is to afford flexibility for  
            planners and developers, who, in implementing TVP provisions,  
            are allowed to work appropriately with the unique physical and  
            economic geography that characterizes each development  
            location.  A potential drawback that could minimize this  
            bill's impact is that it could invite loading dock  




          AB 2008 (QUIRK)                                        Page 4

                                                                       


            proliferation, known as "logistics sprawl," which could negate  
            the desired outcomes of this bill.  An even more negative  
            potential drawback is that, without guidelines, developers  
            implementing TVP provisions could use the proposed criterion  
            to build facilities that invite large and polluting delivery  
            trucks, like diesel tractor-trailers, into transit-oriented  
            developments.  The existence of ordinances around the world  
            which prohibit trucks of a certain size from entering into  
            residential, commercial, or mixed-use zones within cities is  
            evidence that without such guidelines, this potentially  
            negative outcome could be realized, especially if facilities  
            are designed which by their nature and size facilitate such  
            delivery vehicles.  Ultimately, this bill trusts that, in  
            interpreting this new provision of a TVP, local planners and  
            developers have the expertise and values to design loading  
            facilities that enhance rather than erode walkable,  
            human-centered, transit-oriented villages.

           6.Technical amendment  .  Subdivision (h) of this bill references  
            an obsolete and non-existent code subdivision and should be  
            removed.
          
          Assembly Votes:

               Floor:  68-0
               Nat Res:    5-0

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on  
               Wednesday,
                       June 11, 2014.)

               SUPPORT:  Breathe California
                         Regional Asthma Management and Prevention Program

               OPPOSED:  None received.