list of tables
Table 1-1: Transit Funding Categories and Levels of Funding 14
Table 1-2: TCSP Funds Granted in 1999 to California Communities 26
Table 1-3: Projects Receiving TLC Funding 33
Table 3-1: CDLAC Criteria and Points: Year 2000 Procedures 10
The Mineta Transportation Institute, formerly known as the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies, has received funding through the federal Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to conduct policy related activities in the areas of research, education, and information sharing to benefit the United States transportation industry. This publication is the result of a project that was jointly sponsored by Caltrans and RSPA under the title "Construction of Transit-Based Developments: New Policy Initiatives for Government."
After the Mineta Institute published IISTPS 97-1, Public Land with Private Partnerships for Transit-Based Developments, many local governments expressed a need for more policy guidance in implementing transit-based development (TBD). The prior study identified both policy and legislative issues that impeded implementation of TBDs, in spite of stated policies encouraging such development. This current study, Construction of Transit-Based Developments, looks at potential actions at all levels of government that would encourage more TBDs. These actions include additional legislative powers, and monetary and policy incentives such as tax credits and environmental exemptions.
This project reviews policies and legislative programs that can be adopted at all levels of government to encourage transit-based development. The focus of the study is on local government implementation because cities and counties have the land use responsibility of planning and zoning. The study also investigates how higher levels of government (regional, state, and federal) can encourage development through legislative powers and policy incentives. The study recommends additional land use, legislative, and fiscal powers that are needed by local jurisdictions so that they can carry out these incentives.
DEFINITION OF TRANSIT-BASED DEVELOPMENT
For the purposes of the study, transit-based development is defined as a higher density, residential or mixed-use development built within a half mile of a transportation corridor. Transportation corridors include all intensely used surface transportation passageways, i.e. rail and major bus lines as well as freeways. Freeways are included because of their current high use and their future possible use for alternative transportation passageways such as designated bus lanes, commuter lanes, rail lines, and so forth. Transit-based developments may be constructed by for-profit companies, non-profit organizations or by public-private partnerships.
The research team chose six cities to review for this project: San Jose, Mountain View, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, California; and Portland, Oregon. Each one of these cities has taken a different approach to promote transit-based development. Each city has used incentives to encourage the private sector to develop within transit corridors and all have used the existing planning tools available to local government to implement sound development policy.
The members of this team have a variety of backgrounds and interests, which contributed to the excellence of this study. The Department of Urban and Regional Planning at San José State University supplied two intelligent and hard-working graduate students: Britta Buys and Diana Castillo. Also assisting for a short period was graduate student Erin Mayer. Mineta Institute Research Associate John Vargo did basic research on planning policies in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as well as the editing and production layout. Research Associate Stephen Mattoon assisted with the review of tax credit and property tax exemptions for transportation-based developments. Mr. Mattoon also looked at the financial implications of various policy incentives. Dr. Scott Lefaver, Mineta Transportation Institute Research Associate, was the team leader.
Task 1: Review Existing Incentives for Transit-Based Development.
Research existing incentives at the local, state and federal level. These incentives include:
Federal level: TEA-21; Livable Communities Fund; Tax Credits for Affordable Housing.
California state level: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Fund; Surface Transport Progress Fund; SB 2559 and AB 3152.
Other states: Review other states and their incentives.
Local level: General plan and zoning policies; bonds/assessment districts; redevelopment/community development block grants; congestion management programs; development regulations.
Task 2: Review Successes Using the Above Incentives.
Have there been development successes that specifically used the above incentives? If so, investigate the projects.
Describe the project, its location, number of units; profile the development.
Find out which incentive or combination of incentives was used and how they were used.
Task 3: Review Expanding Incentives for Transit-Based Development.
Review legislation already in place. Can it be changed, added to, or extended in some fashion to further assist local governments to encourage transit-based development?
Development of other methods that allow local governments to entice the private sector to develop TODs:
Task 4: Create Development Scenarios Using a Public-Private Partnership
Given the research above and using the new methods for incentives, the research team will develop scenarios that demonstrate how to successfully implement transit-based development using public-private partnerships and incentives. Variables to be used include financing, timing, and permit processing including CEQA review. The team will also look at various settings and attitudes that can create an environment for a successful public-private partnership.
Task 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Given the above research, the research team will make recommendations for legislative and program changes at the local, state, and national levels. They will explain what works and under what circumstances these incentives can work. They will give their conclusions on how to proceed.
Based on our research, governments could use the following strategies and changes in the law to further encourage transit-based development.
Local Government
Lead the way by adopting local land use policies that encourage transit-based developments. These include general plan policies, specific plans, and zoning ordinances.
Implement the policies and ordinances adopted. Do not wait for a developer to obtain a general plan amendment before proceeding with that amendment or the rezoning of a property for transit-based development.
Formulate incentives that will attract development. These incentives include density bonuses, flexibility within certain ordinances such as parking, and the use of redevelopment and enterprise zone legislation.
Understand the limits of public policy requirements and how they fit into the market. Financial feasibility drives markets. Local jurisdictions must understand commercial financing needs.
State Government
Adopt legislation that encourages transit-based development, such as the High Density Housing/Mass Transit Act of 1991 (SB 2559) and the Transit Village Act (AB 779). Expand existing legislation, such as Enterprise Zones, to specifically include transit-based development.
Use tax credit and tax-exempt private development set-asides to encourage affordable housing within transit corridors.
Use the welfare exemption (not paying local property tax) to encourage affordable housing within transit corridors. Allow private developers the same latitude as non-profit organizations in developing low-income housing.
In California, exempt housing that is within a designated transit corridor from the California Environmental Quality Act, as suggested in AB 2343, introduced by Assembly Member Ducheny.
Federal Government
Expand legislation, such as TEA-21 and the Transportation Enhancement Fund, to encourage transit-based development.
Raise the limit on tax credits and tax exempt private activity bonds for affordable housing or, for a specific period of time, perhaps four years; eliminate the ceiling for low-income housing projects within transit corridors.
CURRENT INCENTIVES FOR
transit-based development
Transportation Equity act for the 21st century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted into law on June 9, 1998.1 TEA-21 reauthorized the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and committed the financial resources of the Highway Trust Fund to highway, highway safety, transit, and transportation research programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA-21 authorizes $217 billion of funding over six years and is the biggest public works spending bill ever passed.
In 1956, the Highway Revenue Act established the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) as a mechanism for funding the Interstate Highway System. Its revenues come from highway user taxes such as the federal gasoline tax. Congress created a second account within the HTF in the early 1980s for mass transit support. Prior to TEA-21, transportation competed with all other budget items for funding by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Generally, less was spent on transportation programs in order to spend more elsewhere. With the enactment of TEA-21, all gasoline taxes must go to the HTF, and cannot be spent elsewhere.
Guaranteed Funding
TEA-21 includes a funding "guarantee," which simply means that a ceiling has been set but the money does not have to be spent. However, each state is guaranteed a minimum level of funding yearly. This amount is equivalent to 90.5 percent of each state's share of total gasoline tax contributions. The minimum guarantee includes flexible and targeted funds.
For the highway program, only the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program is not guaranteed. The transit program has a mix of guaranteed and non-guaranteed funds, for a total set level of $36 billion. Table 1-1 below shows the transit funding categories and their level of funding.
Changes in Funding
Overall, TEA-21 continues the programs established by ISTEA. However, some shifts in emphasis did take place. The total funding dedicated to the construction of new highways dropped by 54 percent to a total of 3.7 percent of funds. The transit program's share of total funds increased slightly and there was a modest increase in the portion of funding devoted to the repair and maintenance of the existing road system. By decreasing direct funding for highway construction, communities have been given the choice of spending their money on new roads or on other transportation projects.
New Opportunities
TEA-21 created new tools for the revitalization of communities through transportation planning. This includes the Transportation & Community & System Preservation Pilot (TCSP) program, which guarantees $120 million between fiscal years 1999-2003 for projects that increase transit efficiency while decreasing environmental impacts.2 TCSP is a Federal Highway Administration program (FHWA) that has been jointly developed with the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Rail Administration, the Office of the Secretary, the Research and Special Programs/Volpe Center (U.S. Department of Transportation), and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Clinton-Gore administration's Livability Initiative promotes regional "smart growth" strategies and preservation of green space. TCSP, as part of this initiative, acknowledges the transportation system's essential role in shaping our communities, the economy, and the environment. The TCSP program encourages governmental agencies to respond to the challenge of designing flexible and efficient transportation systems that promote livable communities and economic opportunity by exploring all opportunities to "reconcile transportation system performance, infrastructure costs, economic needs, and environmental impacts."3
Funding is given to state, local, and regional agencies that partner with community groups, non-profit organizations, or private investors to create transportation and land use connections. The competitive grant process gives priority to teams that are pursuing innovative approaches to transportation problems by investigating the relationships between transportation and community, exploring system preservation practices, and developing private sector-based initiatives to support TCSP goals.
In 1999, the TCSP program received over 500 requests for grants. Governmental organizations in 27 states and the District of Columbia were awarded funding totaling $13.1 million in the first year. The grantees are all working toward developing "successful strategies to improve transportation efficiency; reduce infrastructure costs; ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade; and encourage private-sector development patterns that achieve these goals."4
Other Funds
Transportation Enhancement Funds
Transportation Enhancement Funds increased with the passing of TEA-21, acknowledging the important link between communities and transportation. This program encourages diverse modes of travel and fosters local economic development.
The program provides funds for enhancement activities that relate directly to transit, and which result in activities that are accessible to the general public or targeted to a broad segment of the general public. Although the funds will go to only the 125 largest urban areas in the nation, the $30 million annual appropriation can make a difference in many communities. Eligible activities include:5
Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicycles.
Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites.
Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities).
Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals).
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including conversion for use by pedestrians or bicycles).
Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
Archaeological planning and research.
Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
Establishment of transportation museums.
Projects that are not on this list may qualify for transportation enhancement funds "if they are an integral part of a larger qualifying activity."6 Environmental analysis, project planning, design, land acquisition, and construction enhancement activities are also eligible for funding.
In 1995, the National Highway Systems Designation Act, which mandated specific streamlining measures for implementation of Transportation Enhancements (TE) activities, was adopted. TEA-21 took additional steps to increase the efficiency of the TE process. Measures include:7
TE projects may be processed as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, eliminating the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement.
TE projects are generally exempt from Section 4(f) evaluation.8
While TE projects are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement has made it possible to streamline the historic preservation coordination requirements.9
As with the TCSP Program, Transportation Enhancement activities emphasize the partnership of a wide variety of organizations and non-traditional partners. This includes local government, metropolitan planning organizations, FHWA field offices, the State Department of Transportation, non-profits, and private business. Intensive public involvement is also encouraged.
Private Investment
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) of 1998 provides federal credit assistance to major transportation investments that are designated to be of critical national importance.10 These systems would include such activities as border crossing infrastructure, highway, rail, transit, and intermodal facilities. The credit program will provide supplemental and subordinate capital to fill market gaps and entice private co-investment.
Financial assistance through TIFIA is provided through secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit. Flexible repayment terms are part of the secured loan terms, which offer combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs.11 The federal government offers full guarantees to institutional investors who make loans for projects. Secondary sources of funding are provided through the standby lines of credit, secured through federal loans, which can be employed within the first 10 years of a project's operation if they are required.
Up to 33 percent of total project costs can be secured through the federal credit assistance program.12 All projects that are eligible for federal assistance through surface transportation programs are eligible for TIFIA assistance.13 Funding is also available to other types of projects, including inter-city passenger bus and rail facilities and vehicles.
Credit assistance amounts for fiscal year 2000-2003 total $9 billion. These funds lapse if they are not awarded by the end of the fiscal year for which they are provided.14
Potential Concerns
Environmental Streamlining
Section 1309 of Title 23 mandates that time schedules for agency review be developed between the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and other Federal agencies so as to eliminate delays, conflicts, and added costs. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are working to implement environmental streamlining to meet the challenge of TEA-21. The FHWA has determined that to meet the streamlining goal, the following efforts, among others, will be required:
Effective environmental decision-making will be handled in a timely manner.
Environmental quality will not be compromised.
Both transportation and environmental agencies will have to improve their environmental processes.
Transportation agencies must demonstrate that they honor environmental laws and values.
The FHWA will provide the national leadership on environmental streamlining, working with the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS), National Parks Service (NPS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the National Trust, and other agencies.
National Memorandum of Understanding
Section 1309 of Title 23 "requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway and transit projects."15 In July of 1999, a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the six federal cabinet departments and the EPA to develop an efficient process for the review and approval of transit projects around the country. From this historic agreement, an action plan has been developed to implement the MOU. The revised Draft National Action Plan and Status Report was issued in February of 2000. It provides the goal, strategies, and objectives for environmental streamlining by the Federal agencies.
The goal of environmental streamlining is to "reduce transportation project delays while enhancing and protecting the environment."16 Specific strategies are defined to achieve the goal, and focus areas are established in which to implement actions. The five environmental streamlining strategies are to:17
Establish timely, and where feasible, concurrent project reviews through active and rigorous coordination among federal, state, and local partners through early and sustained, continuous involvement of federal and state resource agencies.
Promote avoidance of environmental impacts and greater use of compensation, region-wide and area-wide mitigation activities with improved data inventories, and the development of programmatic agreements.
Allocate the resources needed to support early involvement, adequate staffing, interagency training, and information dissemination requirements through mutually agreed upon interagency priorities.
Keep projects on schedule through successful conflict avoidance and resolution practices.
Measure continuous improvement and progress through best practices and evaluation techniques such as benchmarking and performance standards.
The five key focus areas in which to implement the strategies are listed below.
National Leadership
Bi-annual executive sessions with senior managers, officials, and stakeholders to assess streamlining opportunities and challenges.
Coordinated regulatory reviews, solicitation of interagency discussion on streamlining related policies, procedures and guidance.
Through a designated "interagency response team," the rapid resolution of escalated field issues.
Coordinated Strategies and Effective Communication
Update, upgrade, and make interactive (e.g., with a chat room) the Internet home page for environmental streamlining for easier citizen participation and input.
Revise and update the action plan and facilitate the "customized" implementation in the field.
Develop and coordinate through the interagency team the national polices and procedures, guidelines, and standards regarding the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) process and issues.
Add streamlining to various federal agency conferences, workshops, and training.
Training and Technical Support
Identify cross training needs and opportunities.
Assist the field offices in advancing local action plans.
Develop, with national input, prototype agreements for area-wide strategies and programmatic agreements.
Facilitate baseline data inventory coordination and resource-sharing strategies, when appropriate.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Establish a network of "qualified neutrals" to facilitate conflict avoidance.
Define conflict avoidance, problem resolution, and escalation process.
Performance Measures
Complete a series of quantitative and qualitative studies to be included in a baseline survey and evaluation of time and cost delays, case studies of lessons learned, perception surveys, and environmental outcome assessments.
Implement bench marking through best practices and peer reviews.
Public Input
The Transportation Enhancement and Environmental Streamlining (TCSP) programs encourages public involvement in the transportation-related planning process, yet they do not mandate that any processes be established for public input. In order for any major development to be truly successful, the public must approve a project. This is especially crucial with transportation-related projects. Without public involvement in the planning process, especially for areas targeted for higher density, mixed-use development in transit corridors, agencies may face major opposition at the implementation phase and the possible failure of completed projects.
In a current planning effort in San Francisco, the Planning Department is focusing on establishing strong links between transit activities and land uses. Using a TCSP grant as the foundation for its transit-oriented planning efforts, specific area plans will be prepared for selected sites based on an inventory and analysis of existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities.18 The Planning Department understands that public involvement in the planning process is key in determining how each community will evolve around the city's transit facilities. Residents are the best source for identifying neighborhood needs and, through early involvement in the planning process, can help the local agency prepare plans that will create better neighborhoods in the future.
Local Decision Making
TEA-21 stresses the need for cooperation and coordination between the major agencies involved in transit-related development to allow for more efficient and quicker review and approval of projects. TEA-21 also encourages local agencies to work closely with non-traditional partners at the local and regional level to develop transportation-related projects that are innovative and will improve the linkage between transportation systems and land uses while improving the quality of life for the communities. By making funds available directly to cities and counties through various programs, TEA-21 is putting the decision-making process for spending transportation-related funds in the hands of local agencies. No longer will the state and federal agencies alone determine the scope of transportation related improvements across the country.
While many local agencies are successfully implementing new transportation projects, there is the concern that regional transportation needs will be overlooked for local ones. As cities and counties address their local transportation needs, regional efforts may be neglected, which can result in decreased efficiency and failed transit systems on a greater scale.
Transit-Oriented Development
TEA-21 has made transit-oriented development more feasible. Agencies are no longer forced to use federal monies to build new roads. Communities that develop creative projects -- those that increase transit use, decrease reliability on the automobile, and encourage non-traditional partnerships and private investment in the planning and development processes -- now have the opportunity to see their visions materialize.
THE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program was established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). CMAQ funds are allocated to states, which use them for transportation control measures (TCM), for programs to help implement transportation and air quality plans, and to attain the national standards for carbon monoxide, ozone and, in some cases, small particulate matter.19
CMAQ funds are granted to projects to improve or to maintain air quality by reducing vehicle emissions in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Programs and projects that are typically eligible for CMAQ funding can be categorized in the following manner:
Transit Improvements. Bus and rail service expansion; operational improvements or demand market strategies to make alternative transit more attractive.
Shared-Ride Services. Establishing vanpool or carpool programs, designating storage areas for those vehicles, and instituting programs to match drivers and riders for ride sharing.
Traffic Flow Improvements. Improving signs and signals for more efficient traffic flow and traffic management and control, such as incident management, ramp metering, and the addition of turn lanes.
Demand Management Strategies. Finding methods to reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel; strategies to improve air quality by decreasing vehicle miles traveled through alternate transportation strategies; promoting employee trip reduction programs; developing transportation management plans; and establishing "auto-free zones."
Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs. Creation of trails for bicycles and pedestrians, bicycle storage facilities, and promotional activities designed to encourage bicycle use.
Inspection and Maintenance Programs. Reduce emissions by detecting and repairing serious violators; funding for start-up activities such as updating quality assurance software or developing mechanic training programs.
A less typical example of a project eligible for CMAQ funding might be the conversion of public fleets to alternative-fueled vehicles.
CMAQ funds are under the primary control of a public agency but public and private partnerships are encouraged for land, facilities, vehicles, and project development. Over $8.1 billion has been authorized for projects in the years 1998 to 2003. Approximately $57 million has been apportioned annually for CMAQ projects within the nine Bay Area counties. Applications for these grants can be made through metropolitan planning organizations.
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
In 1999, the Clinton/Gore administration declared that the United States economy was the strongest in a generation. This was exhibited by the fact that unemployment and inflation were at their lowest levels in decades, that over 18 million new jobs had been created, and that real wages were growing at their fastest rate in 25 years. The administration also noted, however, that growth and economic resurgence may negatively impact the quality of life within many U.S. communities.
To assist local governments in responding to issues that threaten the quality of life for their residents, the administration created the Livable Communities initiative. According to the initiative, "livable communities" are places where:
Young and old can walk, bike, and play together.
Historic neighborhoods, farms, forests, and green spaces are preserved.
Parents spend less time in traffic and more time with their children, spouses, and neighbors.
Older neighborhoods thrive again.
These communities would contain safe streets, good schools, and public and private spaces that help foster a spirit of community. The purpose of the initiative is to build or preserve livable communities for the 21st century. To encourage the pursuit of this goal, the initiative's objectives seek to broaden the choices available to communities and to allow them to:
Sustain prosperity and expand economic opportunity.
Build a stronger sense of community.
The Livable Communities initiative receives its funding from more than a dozen federal agencies and uses its resources to support the efforts of local agencies. The federal government observes two principles when assistance is provided to these agencies:
The communities know best and can make the appropriate decisions regarding growth.
The role of the federal government is to inform and assist, not to direct community efforts.
One of the Livable Communities Initiative's most prominent programs, the Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program was established under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 is a six-year surface transportation law that was approved by President Clinton on June 8, 1998. TCSP is administered through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). TCSP provides grants and research information to communities that are providing responses to the interrelated problems of transportation, land development, environmental protection, public safety, and economic development.
TCSP grants are awarded to communities to encourage:
Reducing the negative effects of transportation on the environment.
Improved access to jobs, services, and trade centers.
A reduction in the need for costly future infrastructure.
The revitalization of underdeveloped and brownfield sites.
The grants can also be used to study urban development patterns and to create strategies that encourage private companies to work toward these goals in designing new developments.
An estimated $13.1 million in grants were awarded under the TCSP in 1999. Over five hundred initial requests for funding were evaluated by a multi-disciplinary panel from the department's Federal Highway, Federal Transit, Federal Railroad, and Research and Special Programs Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Of these projects, 35 were approved for funding and represented 27 states and the District of Columbia. In California, three projects were awarded a total of $557,000 in 1999.
Source: TSCP Website (tcsp-fhwa.volpe.dot.gov)
Grants available through TCSP are not awarded to private developers but are available to states, local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations, and may be spent over a period of up to two years. Applicants submit a grant request describing the project, its purpose and criteria, partners, schedule, budget, and project evaluation plan. Because of the great interest shown, the TCSP grant program was increased to $31.1 million in the year 2000, and the 2001 budget for TCSP grants may increase to $50 million.
transit village development planning act of 1994
(AB 3152)
Approved by Governor Wilson on September 24, 1994, the California land use law, AB3152, encourages the establishment of transit village development districts. Transit village districts are clustered housing and commercial developments that are located within a quarter-mile radius of transit stations and in the city or county that has jurisdiction over the station areas. The law authorizes a designated community agency to prepare a plan defining the transit, community, and commerce features of a transit village and permits an existing plan to be adopted, amended, or repealed. The transit village plan must be consistent with the general plan of a community.
The enactment of the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 was encouraged by the following trends:
Federal, state, and local governments in California were investing in new and expanded rail transit systems in areas throughout the state, including Santa Clara County.
Public investment in rail transit was unrivaled in the state's history and represented over $10 billion in planned investment.
Studies of transit ridership in California indicated that persons who lived within a quarter-mile radius of rail transit stations utilized transit systems in far greater numbers than did the general public living elsewhere.
Only a few rail transit stations in California had any concentration of housing nearby.
Interest in clustering housing and commercial development around rail transit stations had gained momentum.
A transit village plan can include the following elements:
Planned and designed neighborhood developments centered near transit stations that attract residents, workers, shoppers, and others who find it convenient and attractive to patronize transit.
A mix of housing types that includes apartments, within a quarter mile of transit stations.
A mix of land uses that provides retail sites oriented to the transit station, and civic uses including day care centers and libraries.
Promotion of pedestrian and bicycle access routes to the transit stations.
Demonstrable public benefits beyond transit use, including the relief of traffic congestion, improved air quality, increased transit revenue yields, and an increased stock of affordable housing.
Density bonuses of 25 percent permitted on sites near transit stations.
Communities that create transit village plans may be eligible for transportation funding. The creation and implementation of a transit village plan is not mandatory within California communities.20
Background
Senate Bill 2559, the High Density Housing/Mass Transit Act, was adopted in 1991.21 Authored by Senators Kopp and Greene, SB 2559 awarded "consideration" to cities and counties that applied for selection as a demonstration site for transit-based development.22 Those chosen locations qualified for state transportation and other infrastructure bond funds, and were to be included in their local regional transportation planning agency's transportation improvement program.23 Demonstration sites, either existing or proposed, were to be located within one-half mile of a rail transit station, and would incorporate a 25 percent density bonus for residential development.24 The sites chosen for the program were required to have adopted land use policies and programs that encouraged the development of high-density residential projects in the vicinity of mass transit facilities.
Outcome of SB2559
The outcome of SB2559 was that nothing happened. No projects were included in either the 1991 or 1992 Transit Capital Improvement Programs or the subsequent State Transportation Improvement Program. A final report was to be prepared evaluating the impact of the demonstration program on the level of use of mass transit by residents living within a half-mile of mass transit. This report was to have been submitted to the legislature no later than January 1, 1996. According to our research, no report was issued.
Why is this Legislation Important?
SB 2259 was one of the first attempts at the California state level to address the issue of transit-based developments and to use incentives to create such developments. Although it would seem that the legislation and its demonstration programs were not implemented, it is a good example of what state legislation can do to encourage the development of housing along transit lines. Such legislation should be implemented and expanded to include demonstration projects in major communities.
Background
Version 1
In February 1999, Assembly Member Torlakson, Democrat, 11th District, introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 779, Transit Village Development. The bill sought to revise the provisions of the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994, which authorizes the preparation of transit village development plans.25 The 1994 Act allows city and county agencies to increase residential densities around rail transit stations. In those areas targeted for intensification, local agencies can grant 25 percent residential bonuses and require developers to agree to the bonuses established in a transit village plan. Further, the development agreement can state that no project-related action will be taken if the project is not consistent with the adopted transit village plan.
AB 779 proposed a revision to the 1994 Act to apply to public transit stations and allow for the density bonus to be applied to commercial and mixed-use developments. A 15 percent reduction in parking requirements would also be available to commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects located within a quarter-mile of a public transit station. Any project that triggers environmental review under CEQA would be required to include the density bonuses and the parking reduction. Project alternatives under CEQA could not reduce either the bonus or the reduction, unless public health or safety would be adversely affected.
Had the bill found support in this format and been approved, it would have permitted a metropolitan planning organization or a transportation planning agency to deposit state and federal transportation planning money in a revolving fund for loans to cities and counties to prepare transit village plans. However, due to opposition from local governments and the California League of Cities, the bill was amended. Apparently, the opposition was in response to the mandatory encouragement of transit-oriented development near rail stations.26 In its revised state, AB 779 provides "smart growth" grants for economically distressed areas.
Version 2
AB 779 was amended on August 9, 2000 to address the Health and Safety Code, Sections 44501, 44502, 44520, 44526, 44525.5 and 44525.6 that relate to pollution.27 Specifically, AB 779 authorizes the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA) to provide grants and loans to cities and counties to develop and implement growth policies and programs that reduce pollution hazards and environmental degradation in impoverished neighborhoods. The monies can also be used to promote infill development to revitalize communities. Basically, CPCFA will provide funds to cities and counties "that do not have the resources or expertise to develop revitalization plans and identify and complete competitive applications for state, federal, or private resources to implement those plans."28
Plans and programs receiving funding under AB 779 will be required to incorporate smart growth strategies. This includes remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites for infill development or transit-oriented development to address traffic congestion. In 1999 the Legislature approved Senate Resolution (SR) 12 (Solis) and House Resolution (HR) 23 (Keeley), which require state officials to incorporate smart growth principles in plans and policies that address the state's future growth and development.29 AB 779 in its current version supports the policies set forth by SR 12 and HR 23.
Support and Opposition
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), sponsor of the original AB 779, sees transit villages as "an important component in the broader field of smart growth."30
ABAG recognizes the need to offer the public and private sectors incentives and assistance to spur transit-oriented development. Other supporters included the California Housing Council, California Transit Association, Planning and Conservation League, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, Sierra Club, and Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group.
Groups in opposition to the original bill included the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. As the bill's sponsor and the Assemblyman were unable to revise the original bill in a manner satisfactory to the cities and counties that opposed the mandatory requirements, the bill's focus changed to pollution control through planning efforts. There is currently no known opposition to the current version of AB 779, sponsored by the State Treasurer.
Status
AB 779 failed passage on June 21, 2000, and was granted reconsideration and heard once again on July 5, 2000. Failing to gain support in its original format, the amended version was heard and approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee with a majority vote on August 9, 2000. The legislation reached the Governor at the end of August and he signed the bill into law on September 29, 2000. The legislation amended Sections 44501, 44502, 44520, and 44526 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Impact of Passage
Had AB 779 been adopted in its original format, a significant step would have been taken in forcing cities and counties to adopt land use policies favorable to development in transit corridors. Higher density mixed-use development with parking requirement reductions would offer local agencies and developers the opportunity to collaborate on creative solutions for development around transit facilities.
While infill and transit-oriented development are addressed in the revised version of AB 779, the focus of the bill is to provide money to cities and counties to develop and implement growth policies and programs in neighborhoods requiring revitalization. The bill has lost its punch, moving from transit village plans to pollution-control financing. Including transit-oriented development in city and county strategies to address growth and traffic congestion remains merely an option for local agencies.
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
Available through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area's transportation planning and financing agency, the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program provides funds and technical assistance for transportation projects concerning streetscapes and developments oriented toward improving pedestrian, transit, and bicycle projects that will help to revitalize local communities and town centers.31 The primary goals of the program are to:
Develop innovative projects whose transportation elements support a community's development or redevelopment efforts.
Provide "success stories" to encourage the integration of transportation and land use throughout the region.
Forge partnerships between local jurisdictions, community organizations, transportation service providers, and the development community.
Make a significant contribution to the creation of a livable community.
Planning grants and capital grants are available through the TLC program. Projects that are in an early stage of development are eligible for TLC planning grants. These grants are used to refine project ideas. A planning grant can be awarded up to the amount of $50,000. Technical Planning Assistance grants, which are also planning grants, can reach $10,000 per project and can be utilized to secure urban design, architectural, and transportation planning input from professionals and firms. Capital grants are also available and provide funds for projects for pedestrian and bicycle improvements, bus shelters, and landscaping on or near eligible roadway routes or transit projects.32 These grants range from $150,000 to a maximum of $2 million.
Since 1999, a total of 33 planning and capital projects have received over $11 million in funding. Within Santa Clara County, three projects have received funding. These are shown in Table 1-3.
Approximately $18 million in capital funds and $95,000 in planning funds will be awarded in June of 2000.
Local jurisdictions, transportation agencies, and non-profit organizations certified by the Caltrans District 4 Office of Local Assistance and located in one of the nine Bay Area Counties are eligible to apply for TLC funding. Application for grants must identify a lead agency that will head the project and any partnerships with organizations that may be co-sponsors of the project.
Although no matching grants from local agencies are required, they are preferred. To be eligible for capital program grants, matching funds of 11.5 percent for the total cost of the transportation project are required from the local or state government.
Background
Santa Clara County, located just south of the San Francisco Bay, contains 15 cities in an area of approximately 1,316 square miles. The largest city is San Jose. Known as the "Silicon Valley," Santa Clara County is home to an estimated 1,739,800 people33 whose mean household income is $83,300 (June 2000). The county contains an estimated 565,730 households with an average of 3.01 persons per household,34 consisting of mainly flat lands that extend from the San Francisco Bay in the north to the city of Gilroy, 45 miles to the south.35 The county is bounded by the Diablo Mountains to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and southwest.36
Prior to 1950, Santa Clara County's industry was dominated by agriculture and the county was known as the "Valley of Heart's Delight." Over the last 50 years, however, electronics and high technology have dominated the business environment.37 Employment opportunities in "Silicon Valley" have drawn thousands of people from international locations. The growth in population and in housing needs has overwhelmed the inventory of available apartments and homes, inflating apartment rental rates and the sale price of homes. Workers in Silicon Valley have sought relief from high housing costs by relocating to communities in the counties northeast and southwest of Santa Clara County. In exchange for more affordable housing, however, many professionals spend significant portions of their day traveling over 50 miles from their homes to their job sites.
Although some workers avoid congested roadways by using public transit, the majority of Santa Clara County residents rely on private vehicles to travel to work and to leisure destinations. Interstate Highways 280, 680, and 880 and Highway 101 are the major surface transportation routes in Santa Clara County. State Highways 85 and 87 also serve the county. Mass transit modes that serve Santa Clara County include train, light rail transit (LRT), and bus.
Passenger train services are offered by Caltrain and the Altamont Commuter Express. Caltrain carries commuters to and from the northern counties of San Francisco and San Mateo to the Santa Clara County cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy.38 The Altamont Commuter Express provides access to Santa Clara County from Stockton, Tracy, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Fremont.39
History of Public Transit in Santa Clara County
Before the rise of the automobile, public transit was important to Santa Clara County's residents. In the mid-nineteenth century, horse drawn cars were used for routine travel in many Northern California cities and towns.40 For example, in 1850 a tri-weekly horse-drawn car service from San Jose to San Francisco was established.41 During the latter part of the nineteenth century, a regular railroad service from San Jose to San Francisco was introduced. Although horse-drawn cars were a popular means of transportation, business and community leaders felt the need for better transit in Santa Clara County and local electric and steam rail services eventually replaced horse drawn cars.
The depression of the 1930s had a significant impact on Santa Clara County's mass transit. The reduced demand for travel to sites of employment and less disposable income reduced the need for rail services.42 Once the effects of the depression had subsided, reliance on public transit flourished again and technological innovations revolutionized transit. For example, the introduction of gas-powered buses during the late 1930s decreased the use of local rail services.43
However, gasoline-powered private vehicles soon came to compete with mass transit. The construction of federally funded highways changed the residents' dependence on mass transit.44 Housing was constructed further from the city centers and away from rail lines and bus routes. Public transit began to lose customers and governmental agencies shifted their attention from mass transit to the construction of new expressways and freeways.45
During the 1960s and 1970s, energy consumption and the pollution created by cars brought attention back to the need for public transportation. A new county agency was established, known as the Santa Clara County Transit District (presently the VTA). Federal monies were provided to stimulate urban transit development, with an emphasis on innovation.
The residents of Northern California continue to struggle, however, with congested roads and pollution. The need for relief from congestion has prompted many civic leaders to seek a resolution based on improved residential development patterns tied to mass transit resources.
Valley Transportation Authority
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was created by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in 1972 to "oversee the transportation system within Santa Clara County."46 In 1995 the VTA separated from the county and merged with the Congestion Management Agency. Through this merger, the VTA assumed the responsibility for managing the county's plan to reduce congestion and improve air quality.47
On its website, the VTA reports that its mission is to "provide the public with a safe and efficient countywide transportation system."48 VTA also states that a safe and efficient system increases access and mobility, reduces congestion, improves the environment, supports economic development, and enhances the residents' quality of life.
The responsibilities and functions of the VTA are as follows:
Transit service. Operate, maintain and improve bus, light rail, and paratransit services.
Transit Planning. Plan, design and construct new light rail extensions, stations, and facilities.
Highway Planning. Plan, design, and construct new highways and undertake roadway improvements.
Caltrain Service. Administer and fund the Caltrain commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy in partnership with the transit agencies of San Mateo and San Francisco Counties.
Congestion Management Program (CMP). Prioritize transportation projects for local, state, and federal funding, including transit, highway, and roadways.
Regional Transit Partnerships. Join with transit operators in other counties to explore improved transit resources for inter-city travelers through enhanced bus and rail services.
The VTA has an annual operation budget that exceeds $200 million, a fleet that consists of 460 buses serving a 350 square mile urbanized area, and 50 rail cars that travel over 21 miles of track. Statistics published by the VTA show that in the 1997-1998 fiscal year, its buses served 42.16 million passengers and light rail served approximately 6.88 million passengers.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) has over 40 stations within Santa Clara County.49 LRT routes extend from South San Jose through Central San Jose to the northern county cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View.50 Future expansion of the LRT lines into other Santa Clara County areas, such as East San Jose, is under consideration. The bus service operated by the VTA complements the rail services by offering links to the LRT and Caltrain stations. VTA has 65 routes that service employment centers, city halls, parks, and airports.51
City of San Jose
San Jose contains the bulk of the county's population with an estimated 967,600 persons and 290,800 households with 3.27 persons per household.52 The mean household income in San Jose is $73,100.53 Although employment and residential locations are currently dispersed throughout the city, an attempt is underway to redevelop the city's center by adding high-density housing, commercial spaces, and hotels.
Construction activity in San Jose is projected to be active, and an estimated 4,500 residential permits will be granted during the 1999/2000 fiscal year. San Jose's planning staff anticipates that "given a growing shortage of housing in Santa Clara County, brisk new home sales, and relatively low mortgage rates, residential construction activity is expected to remain quite strong beyond the year 2000."54 Commercial development is anticipated to reach $350 million with significant renovation activity in the downtown area. "On a citywide basis, pending and approved development applications (as of November 1999) propose a total of over eight million square feet of new commercial space."55
Valley Transportation Authority's Policies
The VTA has adopted a number of policies that encourage transit-based development in Santa Clara County. These policies were first established in 1993 and were based upon a report by Calthorpe Associates entitled, "Transit-Oriented Development Design Concepts." This report outlined policies for site selection, development criteria for commercial and residential areas, the use of local street circulation systems, the design of transit stops, and parking requirements. According to the report, a walkable environment is the key to these developments. Walkable areas are defined as an area within 2,000 feet or five minutes walking distance of a transit stop. Within a walkable area there should be local retail businesses, parks, and civic services, as well as the ability to combine trips to everyday activities. The walkable area should be pleasant with tree-lined streets and building entrances that connect transit stops with local destinations. To accomplish these goals, VTA applies three key principles to its planning efforts:
Intensifying activities within walking distances of stations
Creating pedestrian links to connect transit facilities to the surrounding communities
VTA is applying these concepts to three major projects. These projects are:
Ohlone-Chynoweth Conceptual Plan. The Ohlone-Chynoweth area in South San Jose is approximately one square mile. The plan will emphasize a high concentration of residential development with direct pedestrian links to the adjacent transit station.
Almaden Lake Village. This 250-unit high-density development in the Almaden area of San Jose is the focus of the case study below.
Tasman Station Area Concept Plans. Concept plans have been developed for three stations along the Tasman light rail line. These plans emphasize pedestrian and transit-oriented environments.
The City's General Plan
The City of San Jose's goals and objectives for physical development are described in its general plan. These goals include job capture and creation, land use intensification along major transportation facilities, jobs and housing balance improvement, and modest development beyond the 1993 Urban Service Area Boundary.56 San Jose's policies to encourage transit-oriented development are based on the findings of the 1991 San Jose Housing Initiative Study, which identified significant opportunities for high-density housing along major transportation corridors.57
Of specific relevance to this document is land use intensification. The general plan describes "intensification corridors" (or "transit-oriented development corridors") as areas suitable for higher residential densities, more intensive non-residential uses, and mixed uses.58 These corridors are centered along existing or planned LRT lines or major bus routes. Though not precisely defined, the corridors include properties within approximately 500 feet of the right-of-way of a corridor's central transportation facility or within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned LRT line.59 The purpose of these corridors is to "acknowledge the natural tendency toward development intensification in prime urban areas and to channel that development into areas where the intensified uses and public transit will be mutually supportive and will help create pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods."60 These corridors are expected to help achieve the city's objectives of economic growth, more affordable housing opportunities, and the efficient delivery of urban services.61
There are "six transit-oriented development corridors where higher intensities of development are encouraged consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan."62 These are the Guadalupe, Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street, Santa Clara Street/Alum Rock Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, Capitol Avenue/Expressway, and Vasona LRT Corridors. Intensification along these corridors is expected to occur gradually and will depend on the further development of the LRT system. It is also expected that residential density in these areas will equal or exceed 20 units per acre. Amendments to the General Plan, the use of Discretionary Alternate Use Policies, and a General Plan designation of Transit Corridor Residential of 20 units per acre should encourage dense mixed-use and residential development. However, each site within these corridors is uniquely evaluated and some may contain characteristics that could lead to reduced density.
In general, sites within these transit corridors should conform to the following policies:
Development inconsistent with the objectives of the corridor, such as low intensity residential uses and automobile related uses, should not be permitted.
Residential development should occur at the higher end of the allowed density ranges and should typically be at least 20 dwelling units per acre or the maximum density allowed by the existing residential land use.
Development should be compact and contain efficient use of existing services and facilities.
Building fronts and entrances should be oriented to transportation facilities and designed to encourage transit use and create a pedestrian friendly environment.
Parking lots should be minimized or located to the rear or side of buildings and away from transit facilities.
The city estimates that at least 10,000 transit-oriented residential units have been constructed or are approved for development. Most of these developments are located near LRT lines. City leaders anticipate that areas designated as Transit-Oriented Development Corridors, in conjunction with the city's Greenline (the designated perimeter of urbanization in San Jose that is intended to preserve open space resources and discourage growth in non-urban areas), will produce intense development and redevelopment within existing residential areas and more compact development near transit resources.63
Zoning Incentives
Although the city does not have a specific zoning designation for transit-based development, it has used its Planned Development (PD) zoning for these developments. Properties that are used for transit-based development are re-zoned and designated Planned Development (PD). Zoning applications are reviewed by various public agencies as well as by the city's departments for consistency with the city's general plan policies. These departments review these applications to identify public improvement requirements such as streets, storm and sanitary sewers, fire hydrants, and street lighting. Unlike the conventional zoning districts defined in the city's Zoning Ordinance, which designates development intensities and standards for residential, commercial, and industrial uses, PD zoning provides flexibility in the density and development standards for a particular site. By using a PD zoning, site developers, planners, and the city council can consider the unique characteristics of a site and its surroundings to better implement the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan.64
Case Study: Almaden Lake Village
One transit oriented development project in San Jose is the Almaden Lake Village. This apartment complex, which was completed in 1999, contains 250 units and is located upon a nearly rectangular 7.1-acre parcel. The complex is bounded by a LRT station parking lot to the north, Coleman Road to the south, the Guadalupe River to the west and Winfield Boulevard to the east. Almaden Lake Village is adjacent to and northwest of the headquarters of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which includes offices, maintenance shops, and recreational facilities available to the public. A trail along the western frontage of Almaden Lake Village was developed to connect to the city's Los Alamitos Trail Corridor. To the east of Winfield Boulevard and Almaden Lake Village is a multi-family, multi-story residential development, and across Coleman Road to the south is the recreational facility, Almaden Lake Park.
Almaden Lake Village was developed by a partnership of the VTA, the city of San Jose, and New Cities Development. No city funds were used for the project. It was financed primarily through $27 million in city-issued, tax-exempt bonds and some $5.3 million dollars were obtained from private resources. A provision for the receipt of the tax-exempt bonds was that 50 units, 20 percent of the complex's units, would be available to low-income households for a period of 30 years.65 The project includes two, three-story residential podium structures. The 250-unit complex contains 100 one-bedroom units, 129 two-bedroom units, and 21 three-bedroom units. Amenities within the project include a clubhouse, pool, spa, and laundry facilities. The density of the project is 35.2 units per acre. In order to provide privacy from the adjacent LRT parking lot and station, the apartments and the parking and common areas are accessed by security gates.
Almaden Lake Village is on land that is leased from the VTA. The land had been vacant at least since the 1950s. Aerial photographs show that the property was paved and utilized as an extension to VTA's Park and Ride lot during the 1980s. At the time of the residential development application, the site was zoned M-1. The application requested that the site be rezoned to A(PD). The general plan designation at the time of the application was Transit Corridor High Density, with a density of 12+ units per acre. Since the site was paved, no significant topographic features existed on the site. Similarly, no rare or endangered species of flora or fauna were known to inhabit the site and no significant trees existed. Finally, no significant hazardous materials were present on the site. Although the parcel was in an area of potential geological sensitivity, all potential problems could be mitigated with standard engineering and construction techniques according to the geotechnical surveys made.
The majority of the development's 400 parking spaces are below grade with a limited number of parking spaces located at grade. There are two access roads to the project: from Winfield Boulevard to the east and Coleman Road to the south, both of which provide public access to the Almaden LRT station and its associated parking lot. The parking ratio that was approved for Almaden Lake Village equaled 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit, 0.1 spaces per unit below that called for by the city's residential design guidelines. This six percent reduction in parking spaces, from 425 to 400 spaces, was acceptable because the project is adjacent to mass transit.
With the limited supply of rental apartments available in both San Jose and Santa Clara County, it is difficult to assess whether Almaden Lake Village is more attractive to renters than other developments. Also difficult to assess is whether residents make use of public transit, like LRT, more often than residents living in other developments that are more distant from public transit resources. No surveys have been made of residents in Almaden Lake Village concerning their methods of travel and routines.
The project should be considered successful as it is compatible with surrounding residential uses, offers residents the opportunity to take advantage of adjacent open spaces and waterways, is conveniently located near mass transit, and has amenities such as a community center and swimming pool. Furthermore, this complex combines units for very low-income residents with units without rental rate restrictions and gives residents of limited financial means the opportunity to live in a pleasant environment.
Finally, the project can be judged successful in that it aids in the accomplishment of the goals of three distinct entities: the city, the VTA, and the private developer, New Cities Development. This project serves the city of San Jose's goal of encouraging the development of housing units,the VTA's goal of increasing public transit usage, and the developer's goal of creating profit and producing an appealing product. Unfortunately, opportunities like this one are limited since the VTA has identified only a handful of sites in Santa Clara County with conditions that would allow similar development projects.
Figure 2-1: Almaden Lake Village
Figure 2-2: Almaden Lake Village Neighborhood Map
Mountain View in Santa Clara County, California, is a city committed to mass transit and to development along public transportation routes. Although Mountain View is a low-density residential city dependent on the automobile, city leaders believe that public transportation, bicycles, and walking will help to ease traffic congestion on the city's streets.66 Mountain View's commitment to mass transit and alternate forms of transportation was shown by its contribution of $15 million towards the construction of a light rail line through Mountain View. The city also promotes mass transportation through its General Plan goals and policies, which encourage high-intensity development and a concentrated mix of uses along transit lines.67
Transit-oriented development (TOD) with high-intensity development is specifically promoted through Mountain View's rezoning strategies and transit overlay zones for commercial areas. Residential properties that have been rezoned and commercial areas identified as suitable for TOD are described in four of the city's precise plans. Precise plans enable the city's leaders and planning commission to guide redevelopment in targeted areas so that proposed changes to the city's landscape will benefit the entire community.68
These four precise plans also establish zoning frameworks for residential and industrial community areas near mass transit that are expected to undergo significant changes.69 Within residential areas, this zoning can permit developers to construct residential units at a density of 15 to 40 units per acre. The construction of commercial TODs is promoted through increased floor area ratios (FAR). FAR is the ratio of the total floor area to the gross site area, including public and private streets.70 The city's zoning regulations limit the allowable floor area of industrial and office buildings. Floor area restrictions are an attempt to manage traffic congestion by balancing new jobs with new and available housing in the community.71
Though each precise plan is unique, examples from the Whisman Station Plan show the methods by which TOD is encouraged. The Whisman Station Plan covers 75 acres north of Central Expressway, between State Route 237 and Whisman Road. Most of this land was re-zoned from industrial to residential in the 1990s.
The Tasman light rail line is adjacent to the properties identified in the precise plan. Mountain View's General Plan proposes that along this section of the light rail line there should be a mix of corporate offices, industrial and multiple-family residences.72 The objectives found in the Whisman Station Precise Plan implement the goals found in the city's General Plan and serve as the basis for specific development criteria. These objectives require that the precise plan:
Establish land use and urban design standards and guidelines that embrace the future rail station as the focal point of a new mixed-use community.
Provide for residential densities and industrial and office intensities that will support the public investment in light rail.
Integrate new residential uses with existing and redeveloping industrial areas.
Some of the design guidelines described in the Whisman Station Precise Plan require:
Residential units must contain at least one enclosed and secure bicycle-parking facility (defined as a bike locker, a locked room or enclosure accessible only to owners of the bicycles, or an enclosed cage).
There is a direct, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian access to the Light Rail Station and to the residential portion of the Precise Plan.
Industrial areas include rideshare waiting and drop-off areas, preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, bicycle parking, showers, and other features designed to encourage the use of alternatives to the automobile.
The precise plan also encourages mixed-use projects and the placement of the highest density residential projects along major transit lines and around stations, a policy found in the city's general plan.73
The Whisman Station Precise Plan identifies a mix of four types of units that should be developed. These are medium-small lot single family, small lot single family, low-density townhouses, and high-density townhouses.74 A new transit oriented neighborhood with 580 residential units, a light rail station, and two one-acre neighborhood parks will be constructed within the boundaries of the precise plan and developed in accordance with its objectives. To date, a total of 213 small-lot single-family homes and 98 townhouses have been constructed.75
The City of Mountain View has also established a zoning ordinance known as the transit district or T-zone (SEC. 32.22B). This is a floating district that is intended to permit future growth and redevelopment in industrial and office areas that are served by transit and are in need of rejuvenation. The T-zone is also utilized to implement land use, circulation, and urban design policies that encourage rail, bicycle, and pedestrian travel.76 The T-zone can only be applied to properties that are zoned for industrial and commercial uses and are within two thousand feet of a rail transit station. Other criteria that are examined prior to granting the T-zone designation include the degree to which the site will contribute uses or facilities that reduce users' dependence on automobiles, and whether the site's physical barriers or traffic and pedestrian features make access undesirable or infeasible.77
Properties that receive the T-zone designation may apply for a higher floor area ratio (FAR). However, to receive the increased FAR the project must seek a TOD permit, incorporate transit-related facilities, and comply with development standards intended to increase transit ridership. If granted the TOD permit, the number of parking spaces typically required for a commercial development may be reduced and utilized for aesthetic amenities or landscaping. Depending on the size of the project, the developer may be required to accomplish all of the following:
Incorporate ground level design elements that attract pedestrians and bicyclists and reinforce pedestrian activity.
Build rideshare waiting and drop-off areas and preferential parking for carpools and vanpools
Institute commuter programs (shuttles to transit and transit pass programs).
Construct on-site food service or special on-site employee services and facilities such as exercise rooms and automated teller machines.
Contribute fees or create an assessment district to offset improvements planned as part of the Tasman Light Rail line.
The TOD policies were established to facilitate access to alternate sources of transit and to counter the imbalance of housing and employment that by 2005 is projected to be 1.68 jobs per employed Mountain View resident.78 Funding from the City of Mountain View for the development of TODs is not needed given the high demand for housing in the San Francisco Bay Area. Instead, developers of TODs benefit from the increased densities and FARs permitted through the policies previously described.
Mountain View utilizes density bonuses as perhaps the most powerful tool in attracting TODs. The city's residential developments have three times the average density of Santa Clara County.
In January of 1999, the City of Mountain View adopted a Below Market Rate program (BMR). The program became effective in March of 1999 and applies to new residential developments of three or more units for sale and five or more units for rental purposes.79 The program requires that 10 percent of all units meet affordability requirements established by the city and that the sale or rental of these units must first be made available to teachers and public safety employees. Units constructed within precise plan study areas are not exempt from this program's requirements.
CASE STUDY: The Crossings Development
Precise planning led to the development of The Crossings, an 18-acre transit-oriented mixed-use development adjacent to a new Caltrain commuter rail station.80 The development occurred on the site of the Old Mill, a failed 1970s shopping center. The site now includes three parks and 358 housing units that include everything from detached homes to small apartments.
The development was enabled by the San Antonio Station Precise Plan, which divided the area into five sub-areas. The Crossings was developed in "Area D," an area bounded by California Street, Central Expressway, Showers Drive, Pachetti Way, and the Old Mill Office Building Site. The city conceived "Area D" as an opportunity to combine housing, transit, and proximity to shopping services, making it ideal for higher-density residential development.
Numerous policies helped shape the resulting development of the project site, including the following transit-specific policies:
The redevelopment of Area D shall facilitate and be coordinated with improvement of transit facilities, including a train platform and station for CalTrain, and bus stop facilities for county buses. Strong visual and physical connections between the transit zone and the core of Area D will be established.
Retail/service uses in the plan area should be primarily oriented to transit and limited to neighborhood-serving retail and service uses that complement rather than compete with the regional retailing and service activities in the adjacent San Antonio Shopping Center and other nearby shopping areas. Neighborhood-serving uses of this type would include restaurants, personal service uses, entertainment facilities, and specialty retail stores.
In addition to its broader policies, the City of Mountain View provides density incentives to make the development more attractive to developers. The project site has an average density of 21 to 35 units per acre, but different phases of the development have densities ranging from 21 units per acre to 60 units per acre.
San Francisco, named for St. Francis of Assisi, is California's fourth largest city with a population of 801,377 people.81 Situated on the northern most point of the San Francisco Peninsula, the "City by the Bay" covers 46.7 square miles and is considered the cultural focal point of Northern California. In 1990, the city's population totaled 723,959; by 2010 the total is expected to reach 819,000.82
While considered a city for walkers, most residents rely on personal automobiles and mass transit to access employment, shopping, recreation, and other needs. The city is accessible by automobile from Interstate (I) 280 from the south, U.S. Highway 101 from both north and south, and I-80 from the East Bay area. Thousands of automobiles cross the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge daily. The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) operates trolley, light rail, and bus service throughout the city. Caltrain runs hourly trains between San Francisco and the South Bay. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) offers people an alternative to the automobile for travel to and from the East Bay. Also, thousands of people use ferries to travel across the bay to various destinations every day.
With overly-crowded streets and limited parking in San Francisco, mass transit has become the focal point in local government's efforts to improve circulation and livability within its neighborhoods. In a city with little undeveloped land, San Francisco's planners have been forced to look at new and innovative ways to provide housing and services to its residents, and to address transportation needs. They are trying to reduce reliance on the automobile with plans and policies that develop more transit services between neighborhoods.83
The following agencies have been working together to form and implement transit oriented policies within San Francisco.
City and County of San Francisco
In 1998, the City and County of San Francisco established a Transit-Oriented Development branch in its Planning Department to address the need for more compact development interlinked with transit service.84 In 1999, the Planning Department applied for and received a Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Community, and System Preservation Program (TCSP) grant to prepare a transit-oriented land use plan for the Balboa Park Station in the Mission Street Transit Corridor, which is to be used as a model for transit-oriented development throughout San Francisco.85 The Department also requested and received funds from the city's budget to support the program to fund two additional transit-oriented community use plans.
The Mission Street Transit Corridor extends along Mission Street, one of San Francisco's main north-south streets and a major commercial thoroughfare. Located in the Mission District within the southeastern part of the City, this high-density corridor is home to mainly low- and medium-income residents. It is a primary regional transit link between San Francisco, the Peninsula to the south, and the East Bay and is served by BART, bus, and rail.86
The other two transit-oriented community use plans are the Market and Octavia Neighborhood, and the Central Waterfront Neighborhood.
The TCSP Program is based on a number of objectives that include improving the efficiency of the existing transportation system and reducing the impacts of transportation on the environment.87 Another key objective is to identify strategies that will encourage private sector development patterns to achieve the program's goals.88
San Francisco's planners are focused on establishing strong links between transit activities and land uses to ensure that neighborhoods have a combination of residential, commercial, service, and employment activities supported by transit. By increasing transit efficiency and opportunities, the city hopes to encourage less use of automobiles, resulting in less negative environmental impact and "safer, more pedestrian-friendly" neighborhoods.89 Further, the resulting transit oriented, urban community plan will identify opportunities for private sector infill development and improvements and neighborhood initiatives. Neighborhood initiatives will consist of smaller land use improvements that can be implemented by the local residents.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco voters created the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFTA) in 1990 to implement the one-half percent sales tax passed the year before. Designated as the Congestion Management Agency for the City and County of San Francisco, SFTA is responsible for developing the Congestion Management Program, and the 20-year transportation plan.90
The Authority works with the planning department and other city agencies to develop and implement the long-range transportation plan. The plan includes a prioritized list of transportation investments that are chosen based on funding opportunities and local government and citizen input. A draft transportation plan is being developed, but specific projects are not yet defined.
The SFTA is not actively involved in the initial planning stage for the transit-oriented development plans. Once the community workshops are completed and plans have been finalized, the planning department will work closely with SFTA to determine priority projects and establish funding.91
San Francisco Municipal Railway
San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), the seventh-largest public transit system in the U.S., with an average daily weekday passenger boarding of 700,00092 has been in operation since 1912. MUNI has a fleet of approximately 1,000 vehicles, consisting of Metro streetcars, electric trolley buses, diesel buses, and cable cars.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the San Francisco region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). It is responsible for the Regional Transportation Plan, and "screens local agencies requests for state and federal funding for transportation projects to determine their compatibility with the plan."93 After the U.S. Congress enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, MTC created the Bay Area Partnership, which advises the commission on the administration of federal funds for reducing congestion and air pollution in the Bay Area. The partnership includes local, state, and federal agencies.
MTC also provides planning and capital grants through its Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program. Planning grants are awarded for plan developments, and capital grants are given for the construction of plans already completed. San Francisco has applied for grants under this program to implement its policies but has not been selected. The planning department has submitted a request again this year, 2000.
Association of Bay Area Governments
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Bay Area's regional planning agency, responsible for investigating and solving local land use, housing, environmental quality, and economic development issues. Sponsored and operated by 100 cities and nine counties in the Bay Area, ABAG relies on the cooperation of all local governments to address current and future planning needs in its 7,000 square mile sphere of influence, with more than 6 million inhabitants.94 Specific services include demographic information and data analysis, conference services, and training programs. ABAG also provides capital financing.
ABAG supports and encourages regional efforts in developing livable communities that rely less on the automobile and more on pedestrian and transit networks. Its "Making Better Communities by Linking Land Use and Transportation" program supports changing local plans (general plans) and programs to promote community-oriented developments that integrate land uses and development patterns that can utilize transit systems.95
Bay Area Rapid Transit
The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) concept was born in 1957 as a solution to increasing congestion across Bay Area bridges. BART was opened in September 1972, with the 28-mile span between Fremont and MacArthur Station in Oakland. Today, BART covers 95-miles and has 39 stations along five lines of double track.96
In the spring of 2000, BART co-hosted community workshops for the renovation of the 16th Street and Balboa Park Stations.The 16th Street workshop was co-hosted by the Mission Housing Development Corporation, Mission Economic Development Association, San Francisco Department of Public Works and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The second workshop was co-hosted by the San Francisco Planning Department and MUNI. Several hundred local residents participated in the meetings. Supervisor Amos Brown was present for the Balboa Park workshop.
Transit-Oriented Community Use Plan
Through an established work plan, the city's goal is to prepare specific area plans that draw on the strengths of the community to establish strong pedestrian and transit networks, and minimize dependency on the automobile.97 Through these specific plans, the city will recommend "public improvements, public and private partnerships for preservation and infill, neighborhood initiatives, and incentives for private-sector actions."98 Currently the city is working on three plans: The Balboa Park Station Area Plan, the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, and the Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan. The project schedule requires the plans to be finalized by the Planning Department in early 2001 for adoption by the Planning Commission in January 2002. The Board of Supervisors will receive the plans after the Planning Commission adoption. Other agencies involved in the planning process will also review the plans.
Zoning
While the city's general plan does not have a land-use element (although it does have an urban design element adopted in 1974), and does not discuss transit-oriented development, the zoning code does make allowances for them. Recent changes to zoning policy have made planning for transit-oriented districts easier for the planning department.
RC-4 Districts (Residential-Commercial-Combined, high-density)
RC-4 Districts encourage compatible commercial ground floor uses in high-density residential dwellings in mixed-use neighborhoods. This zone will be helpful in encouraging transit-oriented development because it does not allow for auto-oriented uses.