JTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: MPO SCS Self-Assessmentmeetings.sbcag.org/Meetings/Joint TTAC TPAC JTAC... · JTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: MPO SCS Self-Assessment MEETING DATE: September

JTAC STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: MPO SCS Self-Assessment

MEETING DATE: September 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: 4

STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof

RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss MPO SCS Self-Assessment being sponsored by the Strategic Growth Council and provide additional thoughts and comments.

DISCUSSION:

The State of California’s Strategic Growth Council1 is sponsoring a self-assessment by

California MPOs of their RTP-SCS processes to gather input on how the process has worked to

date and to seek recommendations for how future RTP-SCS rounds can be improved. The self-

assessment process will result in a report to the Strategic Growth Council documenting RTP-

SCS successes and making recommendations. SBCAG staff is seeking input and comments

from the JTAC, as the committee that guided development of the 2040 RTP-SCS, to

communicate to the Strategic Growth Council for inclusion in its report.

On August 19, SBCAG staff attended a consultant-lead workshop in Marina, California for

Central Coast MPOs (AMBAG, SBCAG, and SLOCOG) on this topic. The workshop was

attended by MPO staff from the three MPOs involved. The SGC also plans to host three other

workshops for other MPOs throughout the state.

Attached are a list of questions and discussion topics circulated in advance of the August 19

1 The Strategic Growth Council is a cabinet-level committee created in September 2008 by SB 732

composed of the Director of State Planning and Research, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the

Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, the

Secretary of California Health and Human Services, and one public member appointed by the Governor.

It is tasked with coordinating the activities of State agencies to improve air and water quality, protect

natural resources and agriculture lands, increase the availability of affordable housing, promote public

health, improve transportation, encourage greater infill and compact development, revitalize community

and urban centers, and assist state and local entities in planning sustainable communities and meeting

AB 32 GHG reduction goals. SB 732 gives the SGC authority to a distribute Proposition 84 funds,

including the grant funds that supported much of SBCAG’s work on the RTP-SCS.

workshop as well as draft minutes of the workshop discussion, incorporating SBCAG’s revisions. Although the workshop timeframe did not allow us to seek JTAC input prior to the workshop, SBCAG may amend or supplement the comments shared at the meeting with input from JTAC. SBCAG and JTAC will have another opportunity to review the finalized minutes of the workshop as well as the draft report incorporating comments before it is finalized. ATTACHMENTS: 1. MPO SCS Self-Assessment Preliminary Discussion Topics 2. Draft Minutes of August 19 MPO Self-Assessment Workshop

1415 20th Street Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 446-0522 FAX (916) 446-7520

[email protected] www.mintierharnish.com

1

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: California MPO Staff FROM: Ted Holzem, Senior Project Manager, Mintier Harnish DATE: July 24, 2013 SUBJECT: MPO SCS Self-Assessment Preliminary Discussion Topics and Workshop Preparation CC: Bill Higgins, Executive Director, CalCOG Nancy McKeever, Senior Program Manager, Strategic Growth Council Larry Mintier, Principal, Mintier Harnish Chelsey Norton, Project Manager, Mintier Harnish Jim Damkowitch, Principal, Kittelson Associates Richard Daulton, Principal, Rincon Consulting

As discussed at the June 18th MPO State Agency Working Group meeting, the Strategic Growth

Council is funding an MPO SCS Self-Assessment and has contracted a consultant team led by Mintier

Harnish to manage the project. The Self-Assessment is designed to gather MPOs’ thoughts about

how the RTP/SCS process is working, and take recommendations for ways to make the second and

later rounds of RTP/SCSs even stronger.

A basic, overarching objective the Self-Assessment is to identify ways State agencies can provide

better direction and improved assistance in future rounds of RTP/SCSs. A secondary objective is to

document successful examples and case studies from first round RTP/SCS processes to support

future MPO RTP/SCS efforts. The Self-Assessment process will result in a report to the Strategic

Growth Council documenting MPO’s RTP/SCS successes and making recommendations to the State

on providing better support for future RTP/SCSs.

In June a draft version of preliminary topics was circulated among MPO staff and comments were

received by Mintier Harnish. This memo includes the revised list of preliminary discussion topics and

questions that will be used to facilitate four Self-Assessment workshops around California in August

and September. We are still not asking you to answer these questions. Rather, we are providing

you with the revised list to circulate among your staff, and partners involved in your RTP/SCS process

that you feel will have useful input to the self-assessment, to stimulate internal discussion in advance

of your workshop.

Meeting dates and the general location of the four workshops are listed on the following page, as

well as a list of MPO representatives who received this memo. As we get closer to the workshop

dates, we will provide additional information on the workshop agenda, location, time and related

details.

Memorandum to California MPO staff MPO Self Assessment Preliminary Discussion Topics July 23, 2013

2

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call or email me at 916.446.0522 or

[email protected]. You may also contact Nancy McKeever, Senior Program Manager with the

Strategic Growth Council at [email protected] or 916.324.6662.

MPO Self Assessment Workshop Dates/Locations/Agency Contacts

Central Coast (AMBAG, SLOCOG, SBCAG)

Monday, August 19th in Marina

San Joaquin Valley

(SJCOG, StanCOG, MCAG, MCTC, FCOG, TCAG, KCAG, KCOG)

Thursday, September 5th in Fresno

Northern California (SACOG, MTC, SRTA, BCAG, TMPO/TRPA)

Thursday, September 19th in Sacramento

Southern California (SCAG, SANDAG)

Tuesday, September 26th in Los Angeles

MPO Distribution List

Central Coast MPOs

Maura Twomey [email protected]

Heather Adamson [email protected]

Peter Imhof [email protected]

Steve Devencenzi [email protected]

San Joaquin Valley MPOs

Jim Schoeffling [email protected]

Rosa De Leon Park [email protected]

Kim Anderson [email protected]

Kristine Cai [email protected]

Matt Fell [email protected]

Rob Ball [email protected]

Roberto Brady [email protected]

Sheila Kingsley [email protected]

Terri King [email protected]

Northern California MPOs

Brian Lasagna [email protected]

Ivan Garcia [email protected]

Dan Wayne [email protected]

Gordon Garry [email protected]

Kacey Lizon [email protected]

Matt Carpenter [email protected]

Ken Kirkey [email protected]

Nick Haven [email protected]

Karen Fink [email protected]

Keith Norberg [email protected]

Southern California MPOs

Charles 'Muggs' Stoll [email protected]

Huasha Liu [email protected]

Johnathon Nadler [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



























3

MPO SCS Self Assessment Preliminary Discussion Topics

Resources for Effective SB 375 Implementation

How much longer did it take to develop the RTP which included the SCS than the ‘typical’

RTP process?

What funding sources were used to develop the SCS? Were they adequate? Are they

available for future rounds?

What funding sources were identified to implement the RTP-SCS (i.e., incentives, operations,

capital improvements)?

What percentage of implementation funds come from local, State, and Federal sources?

Effects and Relationship to Federal and State Transportation Responsibilities

The RTP balances several priorities – how did the requirements of SB 375 make these

obligations and responsibilities easier, harder, or different?

What operational or policy changes (if they could be made in statute) would help?

What recommendations do you have for best practices or ideas for improvement?

Did you benefit from Federal or State partnerships, and if so, what actions to improve these

partnerships would you recommend for the State and other MPOs in the future?

What is the relationship to the RTIP (STIP) and other documents?

Local Government Collaboration

How did you work with local governments to incorporate their general plans? How was

market demand/reality incorporated into these conversations?

Did you develop practices-communication protocols related to plans that were more dated?

How was the future of transit and active transportation discussed and/or incorporated? Was

there local support for multimodal options and/or infill development? Were there challenges

in the process/ideas for multimodal improvements and infill?

How did you work with the cities and counties (elected officials and staff) in your region in

terms of outreach? Do you have any transferrable ideas for meaningfully involving city and

county staff, elected officials, or residents and stakeholders in the SCS process and its

implementation?

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

What was the value of having a regional specific, per capita target? Was there difficulty in

getting the public to understand or explain it?

Was it difficult to educate the public about the relationship among GHG related laws and

regulations (i.e. SB 375, AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05)?

Models and Data

Do you have any ideas for sharing data, models, and staff to save time and money or

improve outcomes?


4

What type of GIS analyses or modeling tools did you develop or employ for your SCS

process?

What could the State provide to support analyses contributing to SCSs? What data would be

useful that is insufficient or not currently available for effective analysis?

What issues exist related to regionally-specific and statewide assumptions used in models?

What practices or protocols did you develop relating to the development of forecasts?

Did you use tools that address air quality, health impacts and social equity on a consistent

basis.

Should region’s collaborate more on model assumptions? Would these be helpful?

What can be done to improve inter-regional trip GHG emission accounting?

State Administration

What thoughts can you offer to improve ARB’s process and timeframes for target setting?

For reviewing the SCS methodology?

How can HCD oversight in future housing determination and Regional Housing Needs Plan

review be improved for future RTP/SCS/RHNA processes?

Do you have any ideas for making the following more helpful in SCS implementation: the

State Transportation Plan and Inter-regional Blueprint, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Climate

Adaptation Plan, High Speed Rail Program and Station Area Planning?

What other ideas do you have for state support of MPOs in future rounds of SCSs?

Public Involvement/Education

How did the requirements of SB 375 make public education and involvement tasks

easier/harder, more effective/less effective?

How did you use public input to form SCS scenarios and the final plan?

What did you learn that may help other MPOs effectively involve the public and educate

residents, stakeholders and/or decision makers?

Do you have any transferrable ideas for meaningfully involving cities and counties (citizens,

planners, elected officials, etc.) in the SCS process and its implementation?

Justice and Health

Did you do anything new to incorporate environmental or social justice or public health into

the RTP/SCS?

Did you find any method especially successful for gathering input from underserved

communities and non-English speaking citizens?

Do you have ideas for how the State may be able to strengthen your ability to address justice

and health issues?

Planning

What can be done to improve the local government implementation of the SCS (general plan

update assistance, infill planning and financing options, data and analysis tools, etc.)?

Did you address climate adaptation in your SCS, and if so, how?

How did you assess the effects of the components of your SCS that were assumed to be

implemented over the course of the plan? What metrics did you use to measure the

performance of your SCS?


5

Environmental Review

Did you do anything specific in your SCS EIR to promote successful SB 375 CEQA

streamlining?

What about promoting implementation of mitigation measures?

How can the State help with establishing standards (thresholds) to be used in the

development of an SCS EIR?

What has worked or not worked so far in the SB 375 CEQA streamlining process? What

could be improved?

Monitoring

How will you track progress, implementation of mitigation, performance?

Do you have ideas for how the state may be able to help track implementation and overall

progress?

Other

What issues are unique to your region that requires special consideration (sub-regional

entities, geography, regulation, staffing, resources, etc)?

What should be considered as high priorities for Sate legislative efforts to facilitate SCS

planning and implementation?

How can State help MPOs to ensure adequate “tools” (e.g., revenue generating mechanisms,

technical tools, policy orientation) for SCS planning and implementation?

SGC MPO SCS Self Assessment Central Coast Workshop

Summary Notes

DRAFT September 9, 2013 “” Success I “R” Recommendation I “P” Priority Recommendation Page 1 of 8

GHG Reduction Target Setting

Issues and Challenges Recommendations and Successes

The Prop 84 modeling improvements were not completed soon enough to be helpful in the target setting process for the smaller MPOs (i.e., MPO target setting assessments were forced to rely on models that were not sensitive to GHG reduction strategies such as alternative land use distribution and expansion of regional transit service).

There is concern that more aggressive targets will be developed and it will be harder for each region to achieve its target in future rounds. More sophisticated models that take other variables, such as land values, into account may produce lower estimated GHG reductions than the previous, less sophisticated models for the same strategies, making it difficult to reach the higher targets. In considering GHG targets for the next SCS round, ARB should take this consideration into account.

For single-county MPOs and AMBAG, the self-GHG target setting process created an intense, local political debate among those who wanted a lower target and those that wanted a higher target.

Starting the RTP/SCS process with target setting made it difficult to build consensus for necessary GHG reductions at the outset of the SCS process.

The smaller MPOs did not have the data or tools necessary to assess what level of GHG reductions would result from various types of GHG reduction strategies.. As a result, the targets were set based more on political considerations than on technical analysis.

Some stakeholders feel that the “self-set” GHG targets for the smaller MPOs were too low in the first round. Some MPOs cited concerns that the targets will be revisited and arbitrarily made more stringent in the next round.

For smaller MPOs, it is difficult to quantify the benefits of

P In considering GHG targets for the next SCS round, the State needs to recognize and take into account what GHG reductions each region or MPO could actually achieve, based on anticipated model improvements that will allow more sophisticated analysis based on more variables (e.g., land values). In setting GHG targets, the State should also employ a cost-benefit analysis by region (focusing on those regions where the greatest possible reductions can be achieved at the lowest cost). These steps would both provide a logical basis for targets and help address ideological and political issues.

R If the State sets GHG targets for the Coastal MPOs in the next round, the target setting process could work like the RHNA process: 1) the MPO would propose a target based on regionally-specific data and circumstances and realistic capacity to achieve the target; 2) the ARB would review the proposed target and assumptions used to set the target; 3) MPOs and ARB would negotiate and refine the target and agree on an acceptable GHG target. The GHG targets could also be set-up to be presented as a range of targets that vary depending on a community.

P Future target setting should not be based on GHG reductions achieved by adopted RTP/SCSs. Available and likely funding to implement the SCS should be a major consideration in developing the target. The objective should be to reduce GHG emissions as much as possible with available resources, rather than a trying to achieve an arbitrary target that may not be financially feasible. The State should establish new scale-sensitive parameters to gauge best efforts by MPOs to reduce GHG emissions.

R The focus of SB 375 and the SCS should be redirected from exclusively achieving GHG reductions to placing more emphasis on the co-benefits of Sustainable Communities Strategies (e.g., reducing VMT or congestion). This would help the RTP/SCS process move from ideological and political disagreements focused on GHG emissions to


Summary Notes


GHG Reduction Target Setting


certain GHG reduction strategies. Current travel demand models are not sensitive enough to capture these benefits in a meaningful way.

The public doesn’t have a clear understanding of what sources of GHGs SB 375 addresses.

There isn’t a clear understanding of how SB 375 relates to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. There is a disconnect between AB32 and SB-375.

The CEQA Streamlining benefits of SB 375 are insufficient to provide meaningful incentives to most local governments in the smaller MPOs.. The State has not clearly defined or explained other benefits and incentives for compliance with SB 375.

State policies are inconsistent (e.g., RHNA process and SB-375). There is a disconnect between the technical staff at ARB and higher level management and decision-makers and between staff at different state agencies. For example, HCD staff does not allow the RHNA process to count housing that is planned by jurisdictions exempt from the RHNA process, whereas the RTP-SCSs must count such planned housing as a requirement of SB 375. In some instances, this difference of interpretation can lead to significant discrepancies between RHNA planning and the RTP-SCS.

The smaller MPOs are tested and held to the same GHG reduction standards as the larger, multi-county MPOs (i.e., the Big Four), regardless of anticipated GHG reduction benefits. GHG targets should be set in a way that achieves the greatest possible reductions at the lowest cost. In general, because of their vastly larger population, scale, and forecast growth, larger MPOs can achieve greater GHG reductions more easily than smaller MPOs.

making communities better places to live and work.

R Additional direction and information is needed from State agencies to describe better to both the MPOs and the general public exactly how GHG reduction targets are developed and to which GHG emissions the targets apply (e.g., the relationship of reductions achieved by the SCS to reductions achieved by Pavley and LCFS must be explained better).

P The State should develop a scale-sensitive toolbox of the most cost-effective measures and actions for achieving GHG emission reductions. This should be organized by region to reflect the unique circumstances of each MPO.

R The State should not punish regions that have made a good faith effort to address the objectives of SB 375 by adopting SCSs that go beyond their first-round targetswith higher GHG reduction targets in subsequent SCS rounds. Target setting should instead create the right set of incentives for MPOs to achieve the greatest emission reductions possible, without feeling the need to hold anything back to meet higher targets in future rounds.

R More funding is needed to implement SB 375, both for the process of preparing the RTP/SCS as well as for implementation of projects that reduce GHG emissions. MPOs need a greater range of more flexible funding sources. More funding could be generated through local measures if the voter threshold were lowered for the local sales tax referendums.

R


Summary Notes


Models, Performance Measures, and CIP Lists


Prop 84 funding for model improvements was not enough and the timing of the funding was not in sync with establishing the GHG targets and preparing the RTP/SCS. Household travel survey data arrived too late in the process to be useful for target setting.

Getting good input data for modeling purposes was difficult. Selecting performance measures depends on modeling capability and what data is available. For example, many land use models could not use existing GIS data and it was expensive and time-consuming to re-create local land uses for whole regions in the model environment from scratch. As another example, with rudimentary land use models, it is not possible to measure housing affordability of scenarios except by reference to unit density as a proxy.

The smaller MPOs don’t have sufficient resources to monitor actual results in relation to their performance measures.

Scale is an issue. Regional models don’t provide detailed information for small-scale analysis, although there is often an expectation that MPO models should be able to evaluate individual projects.

There are limitations to what MPOs can meaningfully measure. .

It is difficult to find useful performance measures that can be calculated, monitored, and tracked with current modeling tools. It is also hard to create performance measures that show meaningful differences among SCS scenarios.

There is concern that the State may use performance measures to tie future funding to progress based on monitoring performance measures. Standardized performance measures do not account for regions that have more land, lower-income communities or less forecast growth compared to other regions. What performance measures are appropriate for a region depend on that region’s existing land

P MPOs need better modeling tools and more funding to develop, use, and maintain such tools. The different resources and technical capacities of the MPOs and variation among regions has led to a recognition of the need for modeling tools that can be scaled down or tailored to different MPOs’ unique regional circumstances. Also, tools should be designed to be transferable from the regional scale to the local scale to support RTP/SCS implementation.

R The MPOs need State leadership to create mechanisms to share models, processes, and experiences.

P MPOs need direction and information from the State on which models and tools are easy to use and cost effective. There needs to be more consistency among the land use models that are used by the MPOs. Smaller MPOs need a package of modeling tools that are scale-sensitive, easy to use and provide a way to model land use, transportation, and performance measures. It needs to include ongoing technical support to assist staff with setting up, running, and maintaining the models.

P MPOs need the State to provide and maintain certain data and information that can be used in the modeling process, updated regularly, and monitored over time (e.g., economic data, environmental data, demographic data, parcel data, and land use data). The data should be provided in a timely manner for use in SCS development.

P The State should provide a toolbox of performance measures, and provide the resources to quantify and track them. The State should offer MPOs a choice of performance measures that can be tailored by region based on local circumstances. There could be a core set of measures that all MPOs use, and a secondary set based on specific regional circumstances. The performance measures that are selected for this purpose should be useful in showing the differences among scenarios.


Summary Notes


use patterns, transportation network and population characteristics.

MPOs have limited discretionary funding for transportation projects that result in changes in performance measures. For example, there is limited funding that can be flexibly applied to public transit and alternative transportation investments that can improve system performance.

There are a lot of cost effective complete streets projects (e.g., sidewalk expansion, striping bike lanes, removal of on-street parking, lane diets, etc.) that contribute to GHG reductions, but are not captured using current models. Currently, MPOs must use post-processing to capture the benefits of these types of projects.

MPOs that have a disproportionately large share of disadvantaged communities need performance measures that are sensitive to socioeconomic equity concerns. This varies significantly among MPOs that are seemingly similar in size/scale. Makes standardization of performance measures and performance comparison between MPOs problematic.

Performance measure research is ongoing and changing. Traditional access-mobility measures are likely to give way to travel time reliability measures. Given ongoing testing and development, setting standard performance measures is premature.

Some MPO CIP lists varied by SCS scenario while others didn’t. Self-help counties are limited in this respect, since their CIP list of regional improvements are voter-approved and can’t be changed across scenarios.

UPLAN has been unpopular with the Central Coast MPOs because (1) its highly generalized land use depictions do not achieve high fidelity with adopted General Plans, (2) it considers only land use availability, not important econometric factors like salaries and land valued, and (3) its interface is less than intuitive or user-friendly and does not easily allow for sketch planning.

R Performance monitoring is distinct from application of performance measures in planning and should be conducted at most every four years instead of annually. Annual tracking shows little change. Longer timeframes provide more meaningful information.

R MPOs need guidance and tools to apply and assess performance measures from the regional scale to the local level in order to analyze specific projects.

P Performance measures should be used to measure progress of each MPO individually (i.e., against itself) instead of for comparing MPOs against each other. They should not be prescriptive or tied to future funding.

P MPOs need resources and money to establish and maintain performance measure monitoring efforts over time.

SLOCOG uses an independent Performances Measures report, separate from the RTP.

SBCAG used three criteria to select its performance measures:1) available data; 2) modeling capability and 3) the goals and measures identified in Caltrans smart mobility framework.

R MPOs need standardized methods and models to quantify the GHG benefits of complete streets projects.

R MPOs need to assess the cost-benefit of each performance measure and how they will be ultimately used.

AMBAG: Conducting a needs assessment for complete streets that was helpful in creating the CIP list. MPOs should conduct complete streets assessments as part of the RTP/SCS process. It provides for a qualitative assessment of the projects. MPOs should emphasize low-cost, non-auto improvements to achieve the goals for sustainability to help get local support.

SLOCOG uses a point system tied to complete streets for funding.


Summary Notes


SCS Development


Developing, modeling, and conducting outreach for the SCS is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. MPOs do not know where they will get the funding to conduct this process every four years.

It took AMBAG hundreds of meetings over more than a year with local jurisdictions and stakeholders to gather input on SCS scenarios and a preferred scenario. MPOs are concerned that conducting this process every four years will result in local burn-out and less interest in the process.

MPOs question the benefit of conducting a long-range visioning and growth/land use process every four years. How will progress or change be shown in such a short time-frame? Typically long-range plans are prepared with longer periods of time between updates.

Some MPOs lost momentum between the Board selection of the preferred scenario and the issuance of the draft RTP/SCS plan and EIR. There were several instances where a decision-maker or stakeholder changed his/her mind between selecting a preferred scenario and reviewing the draft plan.

SB 375 defines the concept of sustainability too narrowly in focusing on GHG, but not explicitly jobs or quality of life. This made the SCS scenario development process more difficult for the public to understand.

Full compliance with SB 375 is less beneficial and more costly in slower growth areas like Central Coast. In order to build projects that reduce GHGs, regions need growth to provide funding (e.g., taxes and federal funds) and direct growth and new development in ways that reduce emissions.

Some want to slow growth in order to reduce GHGs; however, slow growth is not a cost-effective way to cut GHGs because of the lack of necessary investment.

P The SCS part of the RTP should only be required to be updated every eight years in conjunction with the RHNA, instead of every four years. The transportation improvement part of the RTP would continue to occur every four years and use the existing SCS and RHNA as the basis for planning transportation investments. This could be tailored to the type of MPO (e.g., smaller or slower growth MPOs every eight years, larger or faster growth MPOs every four years).

AMBAG conducted meetings with planning directors and decision-makers (City Councils and Boards of Supervisors) of its cities and counties to establish the region’s growth forecasts, establish regional priorities, understand local land use planning goals, develop and present the scenarios and gather input on preferences. By including land use in the discussion, the SCS development process resulted in better interagency engagement, communication between local agency departments and consensus among decision-makers when compared to previous RTPs.

SLOCOG established an ad-hoc policy committee for the development if its preliminary SCS, which engendered more support from SLOCOG Board.

ALL - engage your Board prior to presenting scenarios or performance measures.

ALL – best practice – the more involvement the better, e.g. presentations to local City Councils and Planning Commissions – more likely to get buy-in.

AMBAG had success using a telephone survey to gain input on future growth patterns.


Summary Notes


RHNA Determination/Methodology


Historically, the RHNA determination and methodology process has been difficult to work through with HCD and local agencies. This cycle was easier because DOF projections were lower and closer to regional expectations.

There is a disconnect between the objectives of SB 375, which results in more growth being directed to communities with greater transit service and transit-supportive land uses, and the RHNA, which directs more housing to all communities within a region regardless of transit availability.

There is a disconnect between the objectives of SB 375, which encourages mixed-use development, and how HCD allows local governments to use mixed-use zoning to accommodate future affordable housing in their housing elements. HCD does not readily accept mixed-use as a viable source for future affordable housing unless past performance shows otherwise.

The timing for HCD to confirm the RHNA determination does not correspond to the timeframe for preparing the RTP/SCS, which resulted in concerns that the RHNA determination may not fit within the RTP/SCS growth forecasts or SB 375 target years. Some MPOs requested RHNA determination early to address this issue and HCD accommodated the request.

The timing of DOF forecasts is an issue.

Some regions have an issue with the RHNA and how it addresses exempt entities that provide housing (e.g., universities, tribes). They don’t participate in RHNA and HCD doesn’t allow their planned housing to be used to meet future needs unless they meet certain requirements that may be difficult to meet, but SB 375 requires growth at such institutions to be addressed in the RTP/SCS and the MPOs include them in modeling.

P The RHNA determination should be confirmed by HCD at least one year before the expected adoption date of the RTP/SCS. This would provide sufficient time to incorporate the RHNA determination in the SCS development process and help ensure the SCS and RHNA are consistent.

P There needs to be better coordination between HCD and ARB and consistent direction regarding implementation of SB 375. MPOs would like to be able to focus more of the RHNA allocation of housing units to priority areas (e.g., those that have transit). HCD needs to do a better job of acknowledging the mandates and objectives of SB 375, beyond providing affordable housing.

R HCD needs to issue clear guidance and direction on how MPOs should deal with exempt agencies that plan for and provide housing and how these fit within the RHNA and RTP/SCS demographic forecasts and modeling. To be consistent with SB 375 and RTP/SCS growth allocations (and to allow implementation that achieves RTP/SCS goals), the RHNA process must take into account housing planned by exempt agencies, not just local agencies subject to the RHNA process


Summary Notes


Environmental Review


The existing CEQA streamlining benefits afforded by SB 375 have not been useful so far as an incentive. It is unclear how they are supposed to be used. Some groups don’t want them to be used. Many see it as a target for litigation. Developers don’t see the benefit because they may be sued anyway, so they still prefer to conduct a full environmental review of projects. It is unclear who should make a determination of consistency with the RTP/SCS to provide coverage for the streamlining and no one wants to take on the responsibility for fear of being held liable.

Tiering environmental review documents (i.e., Program EIR to Project EIR) can lead to litigation that ties up good projects longer.

The cost to conduct environmental review and prepare an EIR for an RTP/SCS is significant. The cost is compounded in situations involving litigation.

Some MPOs question the usefulness or value of an EIR for an RTP/SCS. Why conduct environmental review on a long-range plan that does not result in any direct effects on the environment (i.e., it does not result directly in any land use changes or physical construction)? Why prepare an EIR for the RTP/SCS when all subsequent projects must undergo project-level environmental analysis anyway? It is relevant that no states other than California require an EIR-type document for an RTP.

R CEQA could be reformed to provide for two levels of environmental analysis: 1) for RTP/SCS, and 2) for other plans and projects. Since the RTP/SCS provides environmental benefits, plan level environmental review should be a less complicated process and require less rigorous analysis and be provided with legal protections to limit liability.

R MPOs need better guidance from the State on conducting CEQA review for the RTP/SCS and what level of analysis is appropriate or necessary.

R A CEQA exemption for RTP/SCS would be the most beneficial approach.

R In addition to modifying CEQA streamlining to make them a more powerful incentive to implement SB375, the State could offer funding for good projects as a further incentive.

R The statutes should provide legal protection for those that wish to pursue the existing CEQA streamlining incentives.


Summary Notes


Outreach and Marketing


The public outreach requirements of SB 375 are too specific and prescriptive (e.g., in specifying the number of meetings). It forces MPOs to spend resources on meetings, rather than on more creative, effective approaches to outreach that engage more people (e.g., online tools, surveys).

The outreach necessary to engage the various stakeholder groups and communities in a region requires substantial time and resources. It takes a lot of time and effort to coordinate with local governments effectively. While this outreach is important, many MPOs lack the resources to do it effectively.

Locally elected officials need to be brought along during the process in order to generate support and resolve ideological and political controversy. This requires significant time and resources.

MPOs do not know where they will get the funding to conduct necessary outreach every four years.

MPOs are concerned that the amount of outreach to local governments, community groups, and the general public every four years will result in “meeting burnout,” which will decrease interest in the process and lower participation rates.

State grant funding that has gone directly to local and state-wide non-governmental organizations to assist with outreach has been problematic. The MPOs need some say in where this funding goes to support the RTP/SCS process.

It is difficult to identify and engage “silent communities” or those that include minorities and low-income groups.

Traditional workshops are often poorly attended and not useful.

MPOs had success by creating a regional advisory committee that includes stakeholders appointed by the Policy Board and acts as a conduit to local and regional organizations and groups. MPOs should meet with community groups at their meetings and on their terms. MPOs had success using a multi-pronged approach to outreach: technical advisory committees consisting of local planning and public works staff; stakeholder and advisory groups consisting of representatives from government agencies, business groups, development interests, environmental groups, environmental justice groups, and low-income and minority groups; focused study sessions and meetings with locally-elected officials (i.e., city councils and boards of supervisors); outreach to the general public.

AMBAG used a successful approach to engage “silent communities.”

SLOCOG maintains an ad-hoc Policy Committee and a Citizens Advisory Committee to inform their regional planning.

MPOs have had success by contracting with local non-profits to conduct outreach efforts.

P SB 375 should be revised to provide for more flexibility and creative approaches in conducting outreach. The law should be more general and allow flexibility to best meet the needs of each region. Also, MPOs need additional funding to conduct the required outreach.

P SB 375 should be revised to only require comprehensive outreach through the RTP/SCS every eight years, instead of every four, in conjunction with the RHNA process in order to save time and money and to limit community “meeting burnout.”

P State grant funding to local non-profits for outreach should be provided through the MPOs to help ensure the money goes to organizations that will provide the greatest benefit to the RTP/SCS process.

Documents

JTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: MPO SCS Self-Assessmentmeetings.sbcag.org/Meetings/Joint TTAC TPAC JTAC... · JTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: MPO SCS Self-Assessment MEETING DATE: September