BILL ANALYSIS �
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.