The Draft General Plan includes policies that promote sustainable development in the Dunnigan Specific Plan area, including matching jobs to housing, ensuring that jobs are created concurrently with housing, providing needed services in the community, and promoting walking, biking, and transit. The focus of the policies is to reduce the need for vehicle travel but it is not intended to reduce personal mobility. To further insure that the Dunnigan Specific Plan area achieves lower levels of travel, Fehr & Peers worked closely with the County to develop a daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) generated per household threshold. The threshold was developed based on the new regional travel demand model for the Sacramento region, called SACSIM, which is a state of the art activity-based travel demand model. This new type of model simulates people and their activity patterns (i.e., why they travel) to estimate regional travel performance measures, such as VMT.

The regional SACSIM model estimates that the incorporated cities of Davis and Woodland, which are mature full service cities, are anticipated to generate 44 miles per household by 2035, while the unincorporated area of the County is estimated to generate 77 miles per household by 2035. The Dunnigan Specific Plan area is envisioned to include a land use pattern and transportation system representative of a mature and sustainable community similar to the Cities of Davis and Woodland. As a result, the following new policy was developed as part to the VMT analysis in the Yolo County General Plan Draft EIR:

• The Dunnigan Specific Plan shall incorporate a maximum of 44 vehicle miles of travel (VMT) generated per household per weekday through implementation of all feasible actions including but not limited to specifications contained in Policies CC-3.3 through CC-3.6. As part of the specific plan implementation, the VMT performance shall be monitored at each phase.

The specific approach may be applicable elsewhere but it would need to be tailored to the local conditions. Yolo County has unique land use conditions (i.e., Williamson Act properties, strong commitment to agricultural protection, focused growth in cities that no longer want to grow in significant amounts, etc.) that were important considerations in establishing the threshold. Other key factors related to this approach include the following benefits that go beyond just greenhouse gas reductions:

• Reduces the urban footprint of planned development through higher densities and a mix of land uses with a focus on encouraging transit, bicycling, and walking.
• Reduces energy use from buildings due to higher densities and from traveling.
• Reduces air pollutant emissions.

The full VMT discussion is available for public review in the Transportation and Circulation section of the Draft Yolo County General Plan EIR at the Yolo County Web site.

Speakers will include top staff from Senator Steinberg’s office, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the California Air Resources Board (ARB).  Regional and local experts will showcase some of the best and most innovative steps being taken by local governments throughout the state, and provide specific examples as models for others to follow.  SB 375 and AB 32 create a framework to help California meet the challenges of climate change, and local governments are crucial in helping the state implement these new laws and preserving the high quality of life in California.

Fehr & Peers is a proud sponsor of the series, offering support and commitment to helping the Local Government Commission host a successful workshop series.  

Workshops will be offered in the following locations:

April 16 – Riverside
May 7 – Fresno
June 4 – San Diego
June 25 – Los Angeles
July 15 – Oakland
July 30 – Sacramento 

More info: http://www.lgc.org/events/sb375.html

Click here to visit CoolCalifornia.org.
                                                    

Local greenhouse gas ordinances or resolutions can be one way of targeting transportation and other local GHG sources effectively. These local ordinances, typically termed “climate action plans” or “energy master plans,” are becoming increasingly common in California and other states.

One example is the San Francisco Climate Change Goals and Action Plan Ordinance, adopted in May 2008.  This ordinance follows on the City’s 2004 Climate Action Plan and establishes greenhouse gas reduction targets of 20% below 1990 levels by 2012, increasing incrementally over time to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

In San Francisco, 49% of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions currently come from buildings, and 51% come from transportation. Of transportation’s share, almost 95%, or 48% of the total, comes from automobile sources.

San Francisco’s strategy consists of each City department preparing its own climate action plan to reduce emissions from its own activities and private sector activities that it regulates. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is also tasked with preparing an Energy Master Plan to make the City’s electric power supply fossil fuel free by 2030.

The City of Seattle also has a Climate Action Plan in place which targets a reduction of CO2 emissions of 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. Transportation solutions include strategies for reduced automobile dependence by improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities, creating a 10% parking tax, the use of more fuel efficient and hybrid-electric vehicles, and focused efforts on creating compact urban neighborhoods. To gauge progress, the City is also preparing annual monitoring reports.

These aren’t the only examples. Many other cities are currently developing or have recently adopted climate and energy action plans. But, climate chance cannot be addressed only at the local level – local plans will need to be supported by appropriate regional, state, and federal strategies to have a better chance of achieving measurable GHG reductions.