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.