BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: sb 375
          SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN               AUTHOR:  steinberg
                                                         VERSION: 4/17/07
          Analysis by: Mark Stivers                      FISCAL:  yes
          Hearing date: April 26, 2007










          SUBJECT:

          Transportation, land use, and the California Environmental  
          Quality Act (CEQA)

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill has three separate provisions: 1) it requires regional  
          transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) to adopt preferred  
          growth scenarios that reduce vehicle miles traveled per  
          household; 2) it requires the California Transportation  
          Commission (CTC) to adopt guidelines for the use of travel  
          demand models by RTPAs that meet specified standards; and 3) it  
          provides for various forms of CEQA relief in communities that  
          conform their general plans to the preferred growth scenario.

          ANALYSIS:

          Regional transportation plans

          Current law requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans)  
          to prepare various transportation plans, including the  
          California Transportation Plan and the Federal Transportation  
          Improvement Plan.

          Current law also requires CTC to adopt the State Transportation  
          Improvement Plan (STIP), which lists all capital improvement  
          projects that are expected to receive an allocation of state  
          transportation funds from CTC during the following five fiscal  
          years.  The STIP includes both the Interregional Transportation  
          Improvement Program (ITIP) and the Regional Transportation  




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 2

                                                                       


          Improvement Programs (RTIPs) developed by regional  
          transportation planning agencies (RTPAs).  Seventy-five percent  
          of STIP funding is programmed by the regions through the RTIPs.   
          Twenty-five percent of STIP funding is programmed by Caltrans  
          through the ITIP.  

          Current law also requires the RTPAs to adopt regional  
          transportation plans (RTPs) directed at achieving a coordinated  
          and balanced regional transportation system, including, but not  
          limited to, mass transportation, highway, railroad, maritime,  
          bicycle, pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities and  
          services.  The RTP must contain a policy element, an action  
          element, and a financial element and is the source for projects  
          programmed in the RTIP.

           This bill  :  

            Requires that regional transportation plans include a  
            preferred growth scenario that:  

              ?    Identifies areas sufficient to house all the population  
               of the region, including all economic segments, over the  
               course of the planning period.  
              ?    Identifies significant resource land and significant  
               farmland and excludes these lands from the scenario to the  
               greatest extent feasible.  
              ?    Allows the RTP to comply with the federal Clean Air Act.  

            Requires that the preferred growth scenario in regions with a  
            population of more than 200,000 identify locations for  
            development and transit projects that will achieve a 10%  
            reduction in vehicle miles traveled per household by 2020 and  
            a ___ reduction by 2050.  
            Requires that the preferred growth scenario in regions with a  
            population of less than 200,000 identify locations for  
            development and transit projects that will prevent any  
            increase in vehicle miles traveled over the life of the RTP.  
            Requires Caltrans, when preparing RTPs for smaller regions, to  
            prepare the plan in a manner consistent with the preferred  
            growth scenario for the region.  
            Limits RTPAs, when designating corridors of statewide or  
            regional priority for long-term right-of-way preservation, to  
            designating corridors that are consistent with the regional  
            preferred growth scenario.  
            Requires that projects and improvements programmed for funding  
            in the RTIP be consistent with the preferred growth scenario.  




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 3

                                                                       


           Prohibits Caltrans from preparing project studies reports for  
            capacity-increasing state highway projects unless those  
            projects are consistent with a preferred growth scenario.  
            Requires Caltrans to include within its guidelines for project  
            studies reports a requirement that all projects studied be  
            consistent with a preferred growth scenario.  
            Requires that an infill opportunity zone designated by a city  
            or county under the Congestion Management Law be consistent  
            with the region's preferred growth scenario.
           Requires that the strategies element of the California  
            Transportation Plan be consistent with the preferred growth  
            scenarios adopted in regional transportation plans.  
            Requires that projects included in the federal transportation  
            improvement program be consistent with the preferred growth  
            scenarios adopted in RTPs.  
            Declares the intent of the Legislature that the preparation of  
            state and regional transportation plans involve members of the  
            public.  
           
          Travel demand models

          Travel demand models are statistical and algorithmic attempts to  
          model human travel behavior. They endeavor to forecast potential  
          outcomes of various transportation and land use policy options.  
          The factors that are included in the models are a region's  
          demographic profile, land uses, personal income data, existing  
          travel, and other similar characteristics.  The models are used  
          to evaluate alternative development patterns and their travel  
          implications before a regional plan is adopted.  The models are  
          used to conduct special studies, such as corridor studies that  
          would assess the potential impacts of a new freeway or transit  
          line.  Depending on the policy direction, the impacts may  
          include, for example, the implication for land use changes at  
          transit stations or at freeway interchanges. In the larger  
          regions, the federal government periodically reviews the  
          policies and practices of the regional agencies, including an  
          assessment of the travel demand models used in the development  
          of the regional transportation plans.

           This bill  :  

           Requires CTC to adopt guidelines for the use of travel demand  
            models used in development or regional transportation plans by  
            RTPAs that require, to the extent practicable, that the models  
            account for all of the following:





          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 4

                                                                       


             ?    Travel demands during at least four time intervals  
               during the day.
             ?    Induced travel and land development resulting from  
               highway or passenger rail expansion.
             ?    Mode split models that allocate trips among automobile,  
               transit, carpool, bicycle, and pedestrian trips.
             ?    Residential land use densification.
             ?    The proximity of residential areas to centers of  
               employment.
             ?    The relationship between land use density and household  
               vehicle ownership and use.
             ?    The Impact of enhanced transit service levels on vehicle  
               ownership and use.
             ?    Mixed land uses.
             ?    Parking charges and parking cashout.
             ?    Peak-period freeway tolls.
             ?    24-hour freeway tolls.

           Applies the guidelines to RTPAs in regions with a population  
            of 800,000 or more and makes them permissive for RTPAs with a  
            lower population.
           Requires Caltrans to develop standards for disseminating the  
            methodology, results, and key assumptions of travel demand  
            models such that the models are useable and understandable to  
            the public.
           Requires Caltrans to meet at least annually with CTC and the  
            larger RTPAs to determine whether the models meet the  
            requirements of the guidelines or need additional revisions.
           Requires a RTPA to demonstrate in its regional transportation  
            plan the extent to which its regional travel demand models  
            assist other public agencies to evaluate large development  
            projects, including impacts of density and mixed land uses on  
            travel.  The RTPA must report to CTC on how the regional  
            travel demand model supports certain types of planning.

          California Environmental Quality Act
          
          CEQA requires that local government conduct an analysis of the  
          environmental impacts associated with projects, including  
          private housing developments subject to a discretionary review.   
          In cases where a full analysis is required, the local government  
          must certify an environmental impact report (EIR).

          CEQA provides, among others, for a limited statutory exemption  
          for qualified infill housing or mixed-use housing developments.   
          To qualify for the exemption, a project must meet all of the  




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 5

                                                                       


          following criteria:

           Be on an infill site in an urbanized area within  mile of a  
            major transit stop, 
           Be consistent with any applicable general plan, specific plan,  
            and local coastal program.  
           Be on a site for which a community-level EIR has been  
            certified within the previous five years.
           Meet various criteria intended to ensure that the project has  
            no apparent significant environmental impacts.
           Include specified percentages of affordable housing.
           Be on sites of no more than 4 acres or include no more than  
            100 units.  
           Attain a density of at least 20 units per acre, or 10 units  
            per acre if that is greater than the average density of other  
            housing within 1500 feet.  

          CEQA regulations also provide for a categorical exemption for  
          infill housing unless the project creates a reasonable  
          possibility of a project-specific impact or leads to a  
          significant cumulative impact.  To qualify for the exemption,  
          the project must be located within city limits, be substantially  
          surrounded by urban uses, and meet the following criteria:

           Be consistent with the general plan and zoning.
           Can be adequately served by all utilities and services, has no  
            value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species,  
            is not a brownfield, would not result in any significant  
            effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water  
            quality, and does not affect historical resources.
           Be no more than five acres.

          Current law allows local governments to adopt specific plans,  
          which identify the distribution, location, and extent of the  
          uses of land within the area covered by the plan and to  
          establish standards and criteria by which development will  
          proceed.  Within a specific plan area, any residential  
          development project that is consistent with a specific plan for  
          which an EIR has been certified is exempt from further review  
          under CEQA unless substantial changes have occurred or new  
          information has become available since the EIR was certified.  

           This bill  creates the Implementation of the Preferred Growth  
          Scenario (PGS) Law that:

           Applies within a local jurisdiction that has amended its  




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 6

                                                                       


            general plan so that the land use, circulation, housing, and  
            open space elements are consistent with the PGS.
           Authorizes an environmental document to only examine the  
            significant or potentially significant project specific  
            impacts (or certify a so-called "short-form EIR") of a  
            residential or mixed-use residential project on an infill site  
            located in an eligible jurisdiction in an urbanized area, if  
            an EIR has been certified on the PGS and on general plan  
            amendments to conform to the PGS.
           Authorizes an eligible jurisdiction to adopt a neighborhood  
            plan if the plan meets certain requirements, such as access to  
            a major transit stop and mitigates displacement of low-income  
            and very low-income persons, and uses a planning process that  
            complies with certain requirements.
           Provides that if a legislative body of an eligible local  
            jurisdiction finds that a residential or mixed-use residential  
            project meets the following requirements, then the project is  
            declared to be a sustainable communities project and no  
            additional review is required:

             ?    The project is on an infill site in an urbanized area.
             ?    The project is on a site of no more than 8 acres and  
               includes no more than 200 units.  
             ?    The project attains a density greater than the Mullin  
               densities established in housing element law (30 units per  
               acre for jurisdictions in metropolitan counties, 20 units  
               per acre in "suburban" jurisdictions, 15 units per acre in  
               cities in non-metropolitan counties, and 10 units per acre  
               in unincorporated areas in non-metropolitan counties).  
             ?    The project meets various criteria, similar but not  
               identical to those required for the statutory infill  
               exemption described above, intended to ensure that the  
               project has no apparent significant environmental impacts.
             ?    The project does not result in any loss in the number of  
               affordable housing units.
             ?    The project meets one of the following four conditions:  
               1) includes 5% very-low income housing, 10% low-income  
               housing; or 20% moderate-income housing; 2) has paid  
               in-lieu fees that would result in the same number of units  
               specified in paragraph 1; 3) is located with  mile of a  
               major transit stop; or 4) provides five acres of public  
               open space per 1000 residents.

           Authorizes an eligible local legislative body within an  
            urbanized area to adopt traffic mitigation policies that would  
            apply to future residential projects of at least 10 units per  




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 7

                                                                       


            acre.  A project seeking a land use approval that complies  
            with these traffic mitigation policies is not required to  
            mitigate impacts on intersections, streets, highways,  
            freeways, or mass transit that might otherwise be required  
            under CEQA.  

          AB 32 and greenhouse gas emission reductions

          Last year the Legislature enacted AB 32 (Nu?ez), Chapter 488,  
          Statutes of 2006, the Global Warming Act of 2006, which requires  
          the Air Resources Board (ARB) to establish a statewide  
          greenhouse gas emissions limit such that by 2020 California  
          reduces its greenhouse gas emissions to the level they were in  
          1990.  Thereafter, ARB must adopt the maximum feasible and  
          cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for  
          sources subject to the Act.  One of the potential strategies for  
          reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to promote more compact  
          land use that reduces the number and length of vehicle trips.  
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose of the bill  .  According to the author, "Current  
            planning models used for transportation decisions and air  
            quality planning must be improved to assess policy choices.   
            This includes encouraging more compact development patterns,  
            expanding transit service, creating walkable communities, and  
            providing incentives.  It is also necessary to achieve  
            significant greenhouse gas reductions from changed land use  
            patterns and improved transportation to meet AB 32 standards."  
             The author notes that "transportation and CEQA incentives are  
            needed for greater housing choices, shorter commutes, reduced  
            climate emissions, less air pollution, less fossil fuel  
            consumption, and greater conservation of farmlands and  
            habitat."

           2.Seeking a comprehensive transportation, land use, and CEQA  
            link  .  This bill seeks to establish a comprehensive link  
            between transportation, land use, and CEQA by requiring RTPAs  
            to develop a preferred growth scenario, by linking funding of  
            transportation projects to the growth scenario, by requiring  
            that transportation modeling account for land use impacts on  
            transportation, and by revising CEQA for local governments  
            that conform their general plans to the preferred growth  
            scenario.

           3.Should a strict VMT standard by imposed  ?  The bill requires  




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 8

                                                                       


            that in larger regions the preferred growth scenarios,  
            together with transit improvement, achieve a 10% reduction in  
            vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household by 2020.  Smaller  
            regions would be required to prevent any increase in VMT over  
            the life of the plan.  These requirements are intended to help  
            meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets required by  
            AB 32.  These VMT requirements, however, may not be achievable  
            in some or many regions.  In addition, by applying the  
            requirement to the preferred growth scenario, it precludes  
            RTPAs from achieving greenhouse gas reductions through other  
            means.  The committee may wish to consider an alternative  
            approach that requires the ARB to assign greenhouse gas  
            emission reduction targets to each RTPA and then require the  
            RTPAs to adopt measures, including land use strategies, to  
            reduce emissions by an amount consistent with the targets.   
            Under the provisions of AB 32, the targets adopted by the ARB  
            must be "feasible and cost-effective."
          
           4.Prescriptive model guidelines  .  This bill requires CTC to  
            adopt guidelines for the use of travel demand models by RTPAs  
            that require the models, to the extent practicable, to be  
            capable of evaluating numerous specific policy choices.  Some  
            of these policy choices concern big-picture issues, such as  
            how changes in regional land use density or investments in  
            mass transit affect vehicle ownership and use.  Others are  
            quite specific, including the impacts of parking charges and  
            freeway tolls.  The committee may wish to consider whether it  
            is more appropriate to allow CTC, in conjunction with the  
            regions and other stakeholders, to determine the necessary  
            elements of a travel demand model.
          
           5.Changes to CEQA  .  Within cities and counties that conform  
            their general plans to the region's preferred growth strategy,  
            this bill provides for various forms of CEQA relief.  First,  
            the bill authorizes the use of a short-form EIR for  
            residential or mixed-use residential project on infill sites  
            within such jurisdictions.  Second, the bill allows local  
            governments to adopt traffic mitigation policies that allow  
            infill housing developments to address local impacts without  
            having to address regional transportation impacts.  Third, the  
            bill effectively expands the existing statutory exemption for  
            infill housing developments by defining "sustainable  
            communities projects" for which no further environmental  
            review is required.  Fourth, the bill allows local governments  
            to adopt a new "neighborhood plan."  





          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 9

                                                                       


            It is worth noting that while the sustainable communities  
            project provisions of the bill do expand slightly on the  
            existing statutory exemption for infill housing, many local  
            governments reviewing infill housing developments already use  
            the categorical exemption in CEQA regulations that is much  
            broader in scope and provides similar benefits.  In addition,  
            the conditions for using the neighborhood plan proposed in  
            this bill are more restrictive than those that currently exist  
            for using specific plans, while the neighborhood plan provides  
            no specific CEQA benefit to project applicants.  The committee  
            may wish to consider deleting the neighborhood plan provisions  
            of the bill.  
                    
           6.Correcting references to the PGS  .  The bill requires that  
            various transportation plans and projects lists developed by  
            Caltrans and the RTPAs be consistent with the preferred growth  
            scenarios adopted by the RTPAs.  To the extent that that the  
            PGS is just one element of the regional transportation plan  
            and that the action element of the RTP, which includes future  
            projects, must be consistent with the PGS, it may be more  
            appropriate to change the references in the bill to require  
            that the various plans and projects lists be consistent with  
            the relevant RTPs.  

           7.Amendments taken in the Environmental Quality Committee  .  When  
            this bill was heard in the Senate Environmental Committee  
            earlier this week, the author committed to take three  
            amendments in the Transportation and Housing Committee as  
            follows:

                 On page 10, line 38, strike out "and (iii)" and insert  
               "(iii) is consistent with the state planning priorities  
               pursuant to Section 65041.1; and (iv)"
                 On page 15, line 27, strike "Projects" and insert "On  
               and after January 1, 2009, projects"
                 On page 24, line 12, strike out "no"

           1.Support and concerns  .  Supporters note that SB 375 provides a  
            new vision for growth in California and "would establish  
            needed policies to implement AB 32 and to reduce greenhouse  
            gasses from light vehicles."  They argue that the bill would  
            also integrate transportation and land use planning and help  
            "achieve greater housing choices, shorter commutes, reduced  
            climate emissions, less air pollution and fossil fuel  
            consumption, and greater conservation of farmlands and  
            habitat."




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 10

                                                                       



            The Planning and Conservation League and Sierra Club  
            California believe that the bill will not work because the  
            processes involved are lengthy, because results of such local  
            transportation planning efforts usually achieve the "lowest  
            common denominator" in regional land use, and a more  
            standards-based approach is needed.  These organizations  
            outline several concerns with  SB 375, such as:  a) the lack   
            of needed policy statements; b) the absence of any entity to  
            determine if general plans or amendments are consistent with  
            the preferred growth scenario; c) the possible weakening of  
            current CEQA exemptions; d) the fact that local governments  
            are not required to implement the land use strategies of the  
            preferred growth scenario; e) the lack of a requirement for  
            the preferred growth scenario to direct growth to existing  
            areas; f) the lack of specific protection for resource lands  
                                                   or farmlands; g) the lack of an enforceable standard to  
            counteract sprawl; h) the lack of clarity about how SB 375  
            will accomplish reductions in vehicle miles traveled; and i)  
            the "opportunity cost" associated with spending money and time  
            on a very indirect approach.
          
          PREVIOUS ACTIONS:

          Senate Environmental Quality Committee:   5-2
          
          RELATED LEGISLATION

          AB 842 (Jones) restricts access to certain Proposition 1B and 1C  
          programs to projects that are consistent with a regional land  
          use and transportation planning document that will reduce the   
          growth increment of vehicles miles traveled for the region by a  
          specified amount.  This bill is in the Assembly Housing and  
          Community Development Committee.

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the Committee before 5 PM on  
          Tuesday, April 24, 2007)

               SUPPORT:  California League of Conservation Voters  
          (co-sponsor)
                         Natural Resources Defense Council (co-sponsor)
                         Sacramento Area Council of Governments (in  
          concept)
                         Southern California Association of Governments

               CONCERN:  Planning and Conservation League




          SB 375 (STEINBERG)                                        Page 11

                                                                       


                         Sierra Club California
          
               OPPOSED:  None received.