BILL ANALYSIS
SB 303
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 18, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
SB 303 (Ducheny) - As Amended: June 9, 2008
SENATE VOTE : Vote not relevant
SUBJECT : Local government: land use planning.
SUMMARY : Requires transportation agencies to develop different
planning scenarios, requires submittal of the scenarios to the
California Air Resources Board to determine compliance with the
goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and makes
other changes to the way local governments and transportation
agencies plan for transportation, housing, and land use.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a county transportation commission or the multicounty
designated transportation planning agency to prepare an
initial planning scenario (IPS) in the regional transportation
plan (RTP) to project a land use and development pattern,
provide for sufficient housing, and establish a regional
greenhouse gas emission (GHG) target by projecting the Land
Use-Transportation Carbon Footprint (LUTCF).
2)Makes preparation of an alternate planning scenario (APS)
mandatory for transportation agencies with a population that
exceeds 200,000 persons and requires the APS to project a
LUTCF that is less than that associated with the IPS.
3)Defines LUTCF as the region's per capita or per household
carbon emissions calculated using a methodology that measures
the carbon equivalent of GHG emissions from personal and
freight transportation and residential energy use and direct
fuel consumption.
4)Requires the APS to project a land use and development
pattern, provide for sufficient housing, and rely on the same
planning projections and assumptions as used to develop the
IPS.
5)Requires the APS to consider a range of growth patterns with
different emphases, including accommodating growth in master
planned communities, accommodating growth in exurban areas
SB 303
Page 2
outside existing urban centers, accommodating growth in
suburban areas near urban areas, and growth in urban areas.
6)Requires the transportation agency, during the stakeholder
process, to consider the general plans of the cities and
counties within the region, spheres of influence for each
city, and the most recent municipal service reviews completed
by the local agency formation commissions within the planning
area.
7)Requires the APS to be included in a report that also
evaluates (in addition to requirements in current law):
a) The capacity of existing infrastructure for water
supply, wastewater transport and treatment, solid waste
disposal, and other utilities to accommodate any increase
in densities envisioned under the APS, and increases,
upgrades, or retrofit actions necessary to establish
sufficient capacity for the envisioned uses; and,
b) Quantification of the reduction in the LUTCF forecasted
to be achieved by the APS as compared to the IPS;
8)Expands public participation requirements for the development
of the IPS and APS including outreach for a broad range of
stakeholder groups and public workshops using urban simulation
computer modeling.
9)Expands procedural requirements for the development of the IPS
and APS including timelines for preparation and circulation of
the draft RTP and public commenting periods.
10)Allows both the APS and the IPS to designate the approximate
boundaries of potential Transportation Infill Areas (TIAs)
within the region that could be developed at significantly
higher densities to increase the efficiency of the
transportation network.
11)Allows a city or county to create TIAs in areas designated as
potential transportation infill areas in the RTP and requires
the TIA to include the following:
a) A reasonable description of the specific boundaries of
the TIA within the jurisdiction;
SB 303
Page 3
b) Zoning that plans for the construction of at least 500
new dwelling units in addition to commercial, retail,
office, or other uses that are compatible with residential
development located within a transit corridor; and,
c) Minimum zoning and density standards that establish
average residential densities of at least 30 units per acre
in residential areas and an average floor area ratio of 2.0
in commercial areas.
12)Specifies that provisions of density bonus law do not apply
to TIAs.
13)Specifies that if a project located in a TIA is consistent
with the designation, density, and building intensity
specified under the planning scenario, then the project is not
required to describe or discuss potential project specific or
cumulative growth inducing effects, alternatives, or effects
related to GHG emissions or climate change, pursuant to
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
14)Requires the submittal of the IPS and the APS to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) for its review and
assessment of whether the scenarios will inhibit the state
from achieving its goals under the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
15)Requires CARB to hold a public hearing and issue a written
report on the IPS and APS and requires CARB to make one of the
following determinations regarding the IPS and APS:
a) Both the IPS and APS comply with the AB 32 goals, and
therefore the transportation agency may adopt either one as
the planning scenario for the RTP.
b) The IPS inhibits the AB 32 goals, but the APS does not;
therefore the transportation agency must adopt the APS as
the planning scenario for the RTP.
c) Both the IPS and the APS inhibit the goals of AB 32. If
CARB makes this determination, CARB's report must include
proposed modifications to the APS that will make the APS
comply with AB 32 goals. The transportation agency must
adopt the APS with the modifications unless the
SB 303
Page 4
transportation agency determines that the proposed
modifications would:
i) Prevent the region from meeting its medium- or
long-term housing need; or
ii) Cause the planning scenario to be inconsistent with
applicable federal requirements.
16)Allows, if the transportation agency makes either of the
determinations listed in i) or ii), the APS to be adopted
without modifications.
17)Provides that CARB's review of the IPS and APS constitutes
exclusive compliance for the land use sector as defined in AB
32.
18)Prohibits CARB from making land use, zoning, or building
intensity determinations.
19)Protects specified transportation projects and voter approved
measures from compliance with the new procedures in the bill.
20)Defines "medium-term housing need" as the region's existing
and projected housing need determined through the regional
housing need allocation (RHNA) process.
21)Requires cities and counties, through the housing element in
the general plan, to quantify objectives for housing over an
eight-year period.
22)Requires zoning for RHNA to be completed and in effect no
later than three years after the due date for adopting the
final housing element.
23)Requires the Department of Housing & Community Development
(HCD), for the fourth and subsequent revisions of the housing
element, to determine the existing and projected need for
housing for an eight-year period for each region.
24)Requires HCD, in consultation with each council of
governments to determine each region's existing and projected
housing need at least three years prior to the scheduled
revision.
SB 303
Page 5
25)Requires HCD to meet with the council of governments at least
38 months prior to the scheduled revision.
26)Specifies that no reimbursement is required by this act
because local agencies have the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments which are sufficient to pay for
the levels of services mandated by this act.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires transportation planning agencies to prepare and adopt
an RTP that contains specified information including a policy
element, a financial element and an action element.
2)Requires transportation planning agencies to adopt and submit
an updated RTP to the California Transportation Commission and
the Department of Transportation every four years.
3)Requires, prior to the adoption of the RTP, a public hearing
to be held after giving notice to the public.
4)Allows each transportation planning agency with a population
of over 200,000 persons to prepare an alternative planning
scenario for presentation to local officials, agency board
members and the public during the development of the RTP.
5)Provides that the APS be developed in collaboration with a
broad range of public and private stakeholders and requires
the APS to consider increasing housing and commercial
development around transit facilities, encouraging public
transit usage, promoting a more efficient use of current and
future job sites, and encouraging brownfield development.
6)Establishes the Global Warming Act of 2006 which creates a
statewide GHG emission limit that would reduce emissions by
25% by 2020, directs CARB to develop a regulatory framework of
emission reduction measures, which may include multi-sector
market-based compliance options, and authorizes CARB to design
the rules for a cap-and-trade program.
7)Requires cities and counties, as part of the general plan, to
adopt a housing element consisting of an identification and
analysis of existing and projected housing needs.
SB 303
Page 6
8)Requires HCD, for the fourth and subsequent revisions of the
housing element, to determine the existing and projected need
for housing for a five-year period for each region.
9)Requires HCD, in consultation with each council of governments
to determine each region's existing and projected housing need
at least two years prior to the scheduled revision.
10)Requires HCD to meet with the council of governments at least
26 months prior to the scheduled revision.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)The co-sponsor, the California Major Builders Council, writes
that SB 303 aims to ensure that housing is built in the
locations that promote the goals of the regional plan. The
bill seeks to accomplish this by:
a) Allowing individual projects that are consistent with
the RTP to rely on the environmental impact report (EIR)
prepared during the RTP process, rather than requiring the
project to go through its own EIR process;
b) Requiring cities and counties to zone land to
accommodate their RHNA obligations within three years of
the deadline for updating the housing element;
c) Increasing the housing element period to eight years so
that the assumption for transportation planning and housing
needs work together.
2)The California Building Industry Association, co-sponsor of SB
303, notes that "new residential construction in California
unequivocally has a role to play in assisting the state in the
achievement of its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals
pursuant to AB 32." However, CARB is currently preparing a
plan and regulations for the implementation of
AB 32 in a wide range of sectors of the state's society. These
regulations are to be in place by 2012. The committee may
wish to consider whether this bill is premature in light of
the current regulatory process and whether some sort of
phased-in implementation plan for regions to address GHG
SB 303
Page 7
emissions over the next few years makes more sense.
3)SB 303 requires submittal of two reports to CARB - an initial
planning scenario and an alternative planning scenario, of
which the APS is tasked with being the smart growth
alternative. Both scenarios are required to establish a per
capita or per household LUTCF emissions number, which is the
methodology consistent with the emerging consensus in recent
reports done by the Brookings Institute and Harvard. However,
the bill only specifies that the LUTCF number in the APS needs
to be less than the LUTCF number in the IPS and does not
mention a specific percentage of reduction between the two
planning scenarios. An alternative approach would be to ask
the CARB, in consultation with local agencies, to come up with
a GHG emissions target for each major region, with the
transportation agency providing an annual report on the
progress of the region. This, in conjunction with a phased-in
implementation period, may provide local agencies the
flexibility needed to implement major land use planning
changes to deal with climate change, but additionally aid the
state in reaching its goal of carbon emissions reduction
sooner than under an AB 32-only world.
4)An RTP is a required document and is used to ensure compliance
with federal air quality standards. RTPs must demonstrate
compliance in order to receive federal transportation funding
for the region. RTPs have three elements: a) a policy
element, b) an action element, and c) a fiscal element. SB
303 adds a section into the RTP statute to require
transportation agencies to do an initial planning scenario.
Adding the IPS to this section of law is problematic and could
effectively tie up the approval of a metropolitan planning
organization's (MPO) plan, since the IPS would have to go
through review and approval through CARB. The end result is
that funding proposed to be received pursuant to the RTP may
be compromised or lost altogether. The committee may want to
address this by moving the IPS section currently in SB 303 to
Government Code 65080.3 where the alternative planning
scenario language exists in current law.
5)An RTP is primarily a transportation-planning document with no
authority over land use. The RTP historically uses the
general plan as the "reasonably likely" scenario for land use.
SB 303 gives transportation planners responsibility for land
use even though they have no legal authority over land use
SB 303
Page 8
decisions.
6)SB 303 attempts to sync the RHNA and RTP process by aligning
an eight-year RHNA cycle with two RTP cycles of four years
each. However, the language currently in the bill is very
subtle and doesn't go far enough to link the two cycles
together in a meaningful way. The committee may wish to ask
the author to insert clarifying language that does not change
the intent of this section, rather it would just make the
bill's intent more explicit.
7)The bill requires both of the planning scenarios to provide
for sufficient housing with the region to accommodate both the
medium- and long-term housing need. "Medium-term housing
need" is defined in the bill, but "long-term housing need" is
not defined, leaving an ambiguity as to whether long-term
housing would be the housing projected over the life of the
RTP or the region's blueprint. The committee may wish to ask
the author to clarify the definition of "long-term housing
need."
8)This bill allows for the creation of TIAs in the RTP. The
benefit of creating a TIA comes two-fold for cities and
counties: first, density bonus law will not apply to projects
located in a TIA, and second, it allows projects within a TIA
to forego some of the environmental review process by not
requiring a discussion of potential growth inducing effects,
alternatives, or effects related to GHG emissions. The bill
specifies that a TIA must meet certain requirements to get
density bonus and CEQA relief which include minimum zoning and
density standards of at least 30 units per acre in residential
areas and an average floor area ratio of 2.0 in commercial
areas. The 30 units per acre threshold is a reference to the
"Mullin densities" for metropolitan jurisdictions (Mullin
densities were established to recognize certain densities in
various jurisdictions that would be sufficient to accommodate
affordable housing). There is a valid question as to whether
the one-size-fits-all density of 30 units per acre is high
enough to justify the benefits received by cities and counties
from creation of a TIA. Higher densities are possible and may
be desirable in denser urban areas like San Francisco. The
committee may wish to ask the author to define density
requirements based on the size and type of jurisdiction.
9)Transportation agencies throughout California have boards that
SB 303
Page 9
are constituted differently. For example, the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) is governed by a Board of
Directors composed of mayors, councilmembers, and county
supervisors from each of the region's 19 local governments,
which ensures that each member agency has voting rights.
However, there are other agencies like the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) that do not have this
representative form of voting with each member agency
represented. For agencies that do not have representation
from all local governments, this means that additional
requirements for public participation should be included in
this process to ensure that all localities are given the
opportunity to participate in the public process if they do
not have a seat at the table. The committee may wish to amend
the bill to clarify this point for agencies that are not
included on the Board of Directors and would have no say in
the planning process as required under this bill.
10)SB 303 is portrayed as the alternative to SB 375 (Steinberg)
which passed out of this committee last year. Both SB 303 and
SB 375, which is currently located in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee, propose sweeping changes to the way
land use planning is done because of the incorporation of
climate change and the goals of AB 32. The committee's
analysis of SB 375 points out several problems with the bill,
which still apply to the most recently amended version of SB
375:
a) SB 375 uses transportation funding as an "incentive" and
would only be available to those jurisdictions that
conformed to SB 375's land use requirements.
b) SB 375 is premature because of the creation of new
requirements when the development of baseline data for AB
32 implementation is in such an early state.
c) The CEQA provisions in SB 375 really don't provide much
relief and can't be considered an incentive.
SB 303 bumps up against the same issues raised in (a) and (b)
above. However, with respect to the CEQA provisions, SB 303
provides a simpler approach. Projects and plans that are
consistent with the blueprint to reduce GHG do not have to do
cumulative, alternative or growth inducing analysis for GHG.
SB 303
Page 10
It takes the uncertainty associated with GHG off the table,
and yet all the other environmental review must be done.
11)In light of the ongoing implementation of AB 32 and other
issues raised in this analysis, the Committee may wish to
consider, and ask the author, the following questions:
a) Is the bill premature in light of the current regulatory
process? Would a phased-in implementation plan to address
GHG emissions make more sense?
b) Does this bill take control of local planning away from
local agencies and give too much power to CARB? Does this
bill impede the flexibility of local agencies to deal with
climate change in their own unique and creative ways and
instead mandate a one-size-fits-all approach?
c) Does the density requirement of 30 units per acre for
creation of a TIA make sense for all regions of California?
Should the density requirements for TIAs take into
consideration the size and type of jurisdiction?
d) Should the bill be amended to ensure that agencies like
SCAG and ABAG are required to have greater buy-in from all
local agencies that they represent when approving the
planning scenarios?
e) How does SB 303 fit with SB 375 (Steinberg)?
12)PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS . The proposed amendments, to
be taken in the Assembly Transportation Committee, do the
following:
a) Shift the IPS language out of Government Code 65080 and
into 65080.3.
b) More explicitly "sync" the RHNA and RTP timelines.
c) Provide technical clean-up to incorrect wording and code
sections.
13)The bill is double-referred to the Committee on
Transportation.
SB 303
Page 11
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CA Building Industry Association [CO-SPONSOR]
CA Major Builders Council [CO-SPONSOR]
Opposition
American Lung Association of California
City of Costa Mesa
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Defenders of Wildlife
League of CA Cities (unless amended)
National Parks Conservation Association
Planning and Conservation League
Residents of Pico Rivera for Environmental Justice
Sierra Club
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958