Currently, many of California's urban areas are characterized by sprawl development patterns that locate amenities far away from one another forcing people to use cars and contribute to crippling traffic. Alternatively, smart growth patterns emphasize compact and infill urban development to facilitate mixed-use neighborhoods and non-motorized transportation options. This type of development can significantly help California meet its 2030 climate target, while also offering an enormous pay-off to the state and it's residents.

1. 1
MOVING
CALIFORNIA
FORWARD
C H R I S B U S C H A N D E R I K A L E W

2. 2
ABOUT ENERGY INNOVATION
GREEN AND SMART URBAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
http://energyinnovation.org/greensmart/

3. 3
ABOUT CALTHORPE ANALYTICS
NEXT GENERATION SCENARIO MODELS

4. 4
ABOUT CALTHORPE ANALYTICS
VISION CALIFORNIA

5. 5
OUTLINE
1. Overview of study and findings
2. Policy motivation
3. Methodology
4. Results. Why is it important for California?
5. Policy revisited: recommendations

6. 6
OVERVIEW:
OUR RECENT STUDY

7. 7
OVERVIEW: DEFINING SMART GROWTH
SPRAWL SMART GROWTH

8. 8
OVERVIEW: HOW
Location inefficiency
Forces people to drive almost everywhere
Location efficiency
Compact and mixed-use development means
more walkable and bike accessible

9. 9
OVERVIEW: HOW
Location inefficiency
Forces people to drive almost everywhere
Location efficiency
More cost-effective to serve with transit

10. 10
POLICY MOTIVATION
SB 375 signing in 2008
Sustainable Communities Act
AB 32 signing in 2006
Global Warming Solutions Act

11. 11
POLICY MOTIVATION
AB 32 AND 2030 EXECUTIVE ORDER
1. AB 32
Reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
2. Executive Order B-30-15
Reduce emissions 40 Percent Below 1990 Levels by 2030

12. 12
POLICY MOTIVATION
2030 SCOPING PLAN UNDER DEVELOPMENT
2020 goal
2030 goal
40% reduction

13. 13
POLICY MOTIVATION
INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR CAP-AND-TRADE REVENUE
 Largest share of revenue (35%)
goes to transportation and
sustainable communities
 $1.24 billion invested so far 
 $2.8 billion appropriated,
- $800 million for disadvantaged
communities under SB 535
www.climatebenefitsca.org

14. 14
POLICY MOTIVATION
SB 375 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
Metropolitan Planning Organizations submit Sustainable Community Plans
*Vehicle miles travelled
Targets VMT* per capita % Below 2005
2020 7,630 miles 7%
2035 7,130 miles 13%
Historical data
2005 8,200 miles Not applicable
2014 7,200 miles 12%

15. 15
POLICY MOTIVATION
TRANSPORT EMISSIONS
California Air Resources Board
Passenger vehicles were
the largest source of
emissions in 2013

16. 16
POLICY MOTIVATION
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR URBAN REDESIGN
+5.7 million people
+1.6 million households
+3.8 million jobs
CALIFORNIA GROWTH TO 2030:

17. 17
POLICY MOTIVATION
MEETING CHANGING HOUSING DEMAND
Household demographics
 More single households
 Fewer couples with
children

18. 18
POLICY MOTIVATION
MEETING CHANGING HOUSING DEMAND
Market preferences
4 million
unit
deficit
Arthur Nelson. 2011. The New California Dream. Urban Land Institute.
Reduced
demand

19. 19
METHODOLOGY: THE RAPIDFIRE MODEL
 Spreadsheet-based model developed to quickly
evaluate alternatives across a range of metrics
 Scenarios defined by spatial allocation of new
population, jobs, and housing types.
 Energy technology assumptions from recent E3
study (California PATHWAYS)

20. 20
METHODOLOGY: RAPIDFIRE MODEL FLOW
Population
Households
Jobs
BASE + GROWTH
PROJECTIONS
Land
Development
Categories
(LDCs):
Urban
Compact
Standard
Development
condition:
Greenfield
Infill/Redev
LAND USE OPTIONS
Housing unit
mix
Commercial
space
allocation
Per-capita by
LDC
Per-unit by
housing type
Energy and
emissions
assumptions
POLICY &
PERFORMANCE
ASSUMPTIONS OUTPUT METRICS
Land consumption
Transportation
Health impacts
Building energy use
Water use
Household costs
GHG emissions
Local fiscal impacts
Per-square foot
by building type

21. 21
METHODOLOGY: RAPIDFIRE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES (LDCs)
Urban
Moderate- to high-intensity urban centers
Compact
Walkable and transit-accessible, with mixed uses and
moderate densities
Standard
Auto-oriented suburban development

22. 22
LAND DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES
URBAN

23. 23
LAND DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES
COMPACT

24. 24
LAND DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES
STANDARD

25. 25
Retail
Retail
Office
Residential
Residential
STANDARD LDC

26. 26
Residential Energy Use
Residential Water Use
Land Development Category
Comparison (Typical per capita,
2012)
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)
4,300 mi/yr 6,000 mi/yr 10,000 mi/yr
17 mil btu/yr 19 mil btu/yr 26 mil btu/yr
Carbon Emissions
Household Costs
25,000 gal/yr 29,000 gal/yr 44,000 gal/yr
3.1 MT/year 4.0 MT/year 6.2 MT/year
$3,000 $/year $4,000 $/year $6,500 $/year
From driving,
residential
energy, water-
related energy.
Excludes
commercial
energy use
Transport,
Bldg. Energy,
Bldg. Water
Urban Compact Standard

27. 27
FOUR STATEWIDE SCENARIOS
Past Trends
A continuation of the expansive development patterns of decades past
Current Plans
A possible trajectory given current planning and policy in line with SB 375
More Compact
A future with stronger smart growth policy that prioritizes focused development in
coordination with transit investments, and meets demand for housing in walkable,
accessible communities
Infill Focus
A smart growth future with a greater focus on infill within existing urban boundaries

28. 28
70%
50%
20%
10%
25%
35%
60%
58%
5%
15% 20% 32%
Past Trends Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
LAND USE MIX
STANDARD
Lower density
auto-oriented
suburban
COMPACT
Mid-density,
walkable, and/or
transit-oriented
URBAN
Higher-density,
downtown and
infill
*Percentages account for new growth only

29. 29
70%
50%
20%
10%
25% 35% 60% 58%
Past Trends Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
GREENFIELD
Growth on
previously
undeveloped land
REFILL
Infill and
redevelopment in
existing urbanized
areas
*Percentages account for new growth only

30. 30
STANDARD

31. 31
Public investment catalyzes development...

32. 32
COMPACT

33. 33
STANDARD

34. 34
COMPACT

35. 35
Visual example #1: Modesto
Current boundary

36. 36
Visual example #1: Modesto
2030 stylized result illustrated under Infill Focus scenario
Sprawling development: low

37. 37
Visual example #1: Modesto
2030 stylized result illustrated under Past Trends scenario
Sprawling development: high

38. 38
Visual example #1: Modesto
Difference in 2030 between Infill Focus and Past Trends scenarios

39. 39
Visual example #2: Past Trends
Illustrative only

40. 40
Visual example #2: Current Plans
Illustrative only

41. 41
Visual example #2: More Compact
Illustrative only

42. 42
Visual example #2: Infill Focus
Illustrative only

43. 43
850
590
360
150
Past Trends Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
squaremiles
Land saved in Infill Focus is equivalent to 14 times that of San Francisco
Compared to Past Trends:
RESULTS: LAND CONSUMPTION
New (greenfield) land consumed to accommodate growth to 2030
-260 sq mi Reduction from
Past Trends:
-490 sq mi
-700 sq mi

44. 44
275 bil
334 bil
317 bil
289 bil 279 bil
2014 Past Trends Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
VMTBillionsRESULTS: HOUSEHOLD DRIVING
Annual Passenger Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), 2030
VMT reduction in Infill Focus is like taking 4.6 million cars off California roads.
Compared to Past Trends:
-17 bil miles
Reduction from Past Trends:
-45 bil miles
-55 bil miles

45. 45
142 bil
125 bil
102 bil 92 bil
Past Trends Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
gallons(billions)
Infill Focus saves enough water to supply 470,000 homes in 2030.
Compared to Past Trends:
RESULTS: WATER USE
Residential water use for new homes in 2030
9,000 gal
Reduction in average new home
water use vs. Past Trends:
22,000 gal 27,000 gal

46. 46
$11,600 $11,000 $10,100 $9,700
$2,500
$2,450
$2,400 $2,400
Past Trends Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
2015dollars
Infill Focus saves California households a cumulative total of $250 billion to 2030.
Compared to Past Trends:
RESULTS: HOUSEHOLD AUTO & UTILITY COSTS
Household costs for auto fuel, ownership, and maintenance + energy and water use in 2030
$650
Annual savings:
$1,600 $2,000
Auto
Utilities

47. 47
COST SAVINGS: CUMULATIVE TO 2030
$0 bil
$50 bil
$100 bil
$150 bil
$200 bil
$250 bil
$300 bil
Current Plans More Compact Infill Focus
2015dollars
Health care
Avoided climate damages
Local infrastructure
Commercial building utilities
Household building utilities
Household transportation
$96 bil
$227 bil
$298 bil
Total $ savings compared to Past Trends

48. 48
POLICY REVISITED
Top three targets for statewide policy:
1. SB 375 target re-evaluation
2. 2030 Scoping Plan
3. GHG Reduction Fund spending

49. 49
THANK YOU
Chris Busch
chrisb@energyinnovation.com
Erika Lew
erika@calthorpeanalytics.com