14 - Laserfiche WebLink

FOCUS and Potential Infll Incentives 4 The fourth column is a hypothetical estimate of the Bay Area's possible share based on a combination of existing population and projected growth. What we actually get could be much less or much more depending on legislation and the allocation methods actually used by the state. All but the $300 million transit-oriented development account are fully or paztially subject to trailer bills to come before the Legislature this session: At this point it is not assured that the region will have any say at all in how these monies are allocated or spent. Transit-oriented development monies are subject to an existing leg- islatedprogram administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Legislative advocacy will be required to ensure that the Bay Area's interests are represented in the trailer bills, To guide that advocacy, the Joint Policy Committee has endorsed a set of principles at- tached to this memo. The second source of potential incentives is the next Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The region has begun the process of preparing the Plan. Proposition 1C and Proposition $4 infill incentives are enumerated in millions of dollars; expenditures in the RTP are enumerated in billions. Over the last couple of RTPs, the region has initiated the idea of using transportation funds to provide incentives for smart, transportation-efficient development: first with the TLC and HIP programs and more recently with the Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy. The impend- ing RTP and the infusion of some new funds from federal, state and regional sources provide an op- porhmity to assess whether additional monies can be directed to encourage and support focused growth in Priority Areas identified jointly by local governments and regional agencies. The TOD policy has established the precedent of employing transportation expansion capital to en- courage complementary and supportive development. Maintenance capital has implicitly assisted infill by stemming the deterioration of existing infrastructure in presently developed areas. Recognizing that there is always more need than there is money, two key policy issues require the consideration as the present RTP moves forward: (1) to what extent can the region's transportation expansion plans be even more closely linked to its focused.development objectives; (2) is it appropri- ate to begin more explicitly and directly linking a portion of the plan's maintenance expenditures (approximately SO percent of plan dollars) to the achievement of growth priorities as well. Perhaps those areas that accept a higher proportion of the region's infill development should have a higher priority for maintenance dollars than those areas for which growth is less of an issue. An open con- sideration of these questions will help define and solidify the transportation/land-use connection. Pa cE 11