Draft SB 375 Targets: Ambitious? Achievable? You be the judge.

Yesterday, the California Air Resources Board released draft regional transportation GHG emissions reduction targets. This may sound very boring, but these targets are the performance target upon which California's anti-sprawl and GHG reduction will be based. Weak targets will mean that regional and local transportation policymakers can relax and not worry to much about infill development or transit. Overly strong targets could mean that regions must introduce a level of transportation pricing that goes beyond creating system efficiencies and hurts Gross Regional Product. Finding a reduction target that is just right will help the state ease the transition to a low carbon economy and mitigate the effects of sudden fuel price spikes, like the state experienced in 2007-2008:

Ford Foundation announces $200 million sustainable development investment

Helping America’s Metropolitan Regions Build Prosperity and Expand Opportunity

A $200 Million Ford Foundation Investment Will Support Growth Through Innovative Regional Approaches to Housing, Transportation and Land Use

WASHINGTON, D.C., 18 May 2010 — The Ford Foundation today announced a five-year, $200 million effort to help transform the way cities, suburbs and surrounding communities grow and plan for the future, promoting a new metropolitan approach that interweaves housing, transportation and land-use policy to foster greater economic growth. The new funds will allow Ford to develop and significantly expand successful collaborations and policy innovations that it has supported in communities throughout the country, providing models that can be adopted and adapted in other metropolitan regions.

>>>More at fordfound.org

Opinion: SB 375 suspension on funding concerns is unnecessary and will hurt good public policy

Recently the League of California Cities Task Force on AB 32 and SB 375 recommended the state suspend or delay SB 375 implementation until proper funding is available.  I argue that SB 375 implementation can and should proceed, even amidst funding uncertainty. 

It is true that ideal SB 375 implementation will require additional investments in models and data, and variety of funds are available from multiple sources, including Prop 84 (though held up by state’s inability to sell bonds at a decent price).  Part of the League’s concern appears to be the belief that SB 375 requires a new planning process for greenhouse gas emissions.  This is simply not the case.

Explaining California's SB 375 without Acronyms

California’s Senate Bill 375 (passed in 2008, sponsored by Senate President Pro tempore Darrell Steinberg) is often discussed and frequently misunderstood, even by urban planners.  In this entry, I attempt to explain the Act to an audience with no background in urban and regional planning, using fewer than 1000 words.  To be up front, I think the goals of SB 375 are good goals, although I could think of many ways to improve upon the language of the bill.

For several decades, metropolitan areas in California have engaged in separate processes to plan for housing growth and new transportation infrastructure.  A side effect of these separate processes, which have not always been coordinated, is that the transportation system has not always been able to accommodate new growth.

Upcoming Climate and Energy Webcasts for State and Local Governments

From the US EPA:


April 2010-Upcoming Climate and Energy Webcasts for State and Local Governments

This message provides details about ten upcoming webcasts being offered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). All webcasts are offered free of charge, but space may be limited.

Local Climate and Energy Program Webcasts

• Smart Grid for Local Governments, April 29
• Green Roofs, late May

ENERGY STAR Webcast Opportunities

• Purchasing and Procuring Efficient Equipment, April 21
• Portfolio Manager for EECBG Grantees and State and Local Governments, April 21
• Benchmarking Water/Wastewater Plants in Portfolio Manager, April 28
• ENERGY STAR and Green Building Rating Programs, April 29
• Financing Energy Efficient Upgrades with ENERGY STAR, May 11
• K-12 Benchmarking 101, May 13

Additional Webcast Opportunities 

• DOE: Midsize Wind Turbines for the U.S. Community Wind Market, April 28
• CHP Partnership: District Heating, May 20 

The Fed's guide to Mixed, Use, Mixed Income, Mixed Modes (Transit Oriented Developments)

This site may be useful for cities looking for resources on transit-oriented development.  Mixed income TOD's are a good way to increase the transit utilization from new TOD projects as 1) new product is often more expensive than existing product in a neighborhood (just the way the market functions) and 2) lower income groups have a higher propensity to use transit (but can't afford to buy or rent in new TOD projects).

From the U.S. EPA:

HUD and FTA Sponsor Transit Oriented Development Guide; Upcoming Smart Growth Opportunities

The Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Development Action Guide is an online tool designed to help local jurisdictions and planners develop strategies to create mixed income transit oriented development (MITOD) around planned transit stations. This interactive site was developed by the Center for Transit Oriented Development in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Action Guide walks users through three critical data gathering and analysis components of plan development: Existing Conditions Analysis, MITOD Strategies Analysis, and MITOD Opportunities Analysis. These three areas of analysis are composed of questions—to be answered by the planner—that span several subjects: demographics, housing, real estate markets, land capacity, and neighborhood stability. Each question highlights key information that will be used to help local jurisdictions select and direct policy tools to achieve their MITOD goals.

The Action Guide is available at: http://www.mitod.org

Congratulations to Los Angeles, which once again has the most ENERGY STAR buidings

from the U.S. EPA:

EPA has released its second annual ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas with the most energy-efficient buildings that earned the ENERGY STAR rating in 2009. The city with the most ENERGY STAR labeled buildings is Los Angeles, which also ranked #1 in 2008. Washington, DC, had the second-highest number of ENERGY STAR labeled buildings in 2008, followed by San Francisco, Denver, and Chicago. New York City entered the top 10 for the first time in 2009.

EPA awards the Energy Star to commercial buildings that perform in the top 25 percent of buildings nationwide compared to similar buildings. Thirteen types of buildings can earn the Energy Star, including schools, hospitals, office buildings, retail stores and supermarkets. During 2009 alone, 3,900 commercial buildings earned the ENERGY STAR, a 40 percent increase over the previous year. Annual utility savings have increased to almost $1.6 billion while avoiding greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than one million homes.

To see the list of the Top 25 Cities in 2009, visit: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/2009_Top_25_cities_chart.pdf