BILL ANALYSIS
SB 375
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 3, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
SB 375 (Steinberg) - As Amended: June 27, 2007
SENATE VOTE : 21-15
SUBJECT : Transportation planning: travel demand models:
preferred growth scenarios: environmental review.
SUMMARY : Requires regional transportation planning agencies to
include preferred growth scenarios in their regional
transportation plans for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and create specified incentives and penalties for the
implementation of the scenarios. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations concerning the need to make
significant changes in land use and transportation policy in
order to meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals established
by AB 32 (Nu?ez & Pavley), Chapter 444, Statutes of 2006.
2)Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in
consultation with California Air Resources Board (CARB), to
prepare guidelines, by April 1, 2008, for the "use of travel
demand models used in regional transportation plans" after
consulting with stakeholders, including local governments, and
holding two hearings.
3)Specifies that use of these guidelines is mandatory for all
federally designated metropolitan planning organizations,
county transportation agencies in non-attainment areas, and
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and
encourages but does not require other transportation planning
agencies to use the guidelines.
4)Requires all federally designated metropolitan planning
organizations, county transportation agencies in
non-attainment areas, and SCAG to report to CTC at the time
the regional transportation plan is submitted to CTC and the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) how the regional
travel demand model supports corridor planning and small area
planning.
5)Requires regional transportation agencies (TRPAs) to include
SB 375
Page 2
in their regional transportation plans a preferred growth
scenario that is required to:
a) Identify areas within the region that are sufficient to
house all the population of the region for all income
categories over the course of the planning period;
b) Identify a transportation network to service the
transportation needs of the region;
c) Identify significant resource areas and significant
farmland;
d) Exclude from development all publicly owned parks and
open space, open space or habitat areas protected by a
habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other adopted natural resource protection plans,
lands subject to conservation
easements or Williamson Act contracts, and, except in
specified conditions, open space lands, endangered plant or
animal species habitat, habitat blocks, linkages, or
watershed units, floodplains, and "significant farmland,"
defined as farmland classified as prime or unique farmland,
or farmland that is of statewide importance and located
outside all existing spheres of influence;
e) Allow the regional transportation plan to comply with
specified provisions of the federal Clean Air Act.
6)Requires CARB, by an unspecified date, to set greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets from the automobile and light truck
sector for each region, to be achieved by 2020 and 2035.
7)Requires a preferred growth scenario to be consistent with the
state planning priorities established by AB 857 (Wiggins),
Chapter 1016, Statutes of 2002.
8)Requires an RTPA to prepare a supplement to a preferred growth
scenario showing how those greenhouse gas emission targets
could be achieved through additional transportation
investments, land use incentives, or other programs and
incentives if the preferred growth scenario, prepared in
compliance with the above requirements, is unable to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the targets established by
SB 375
Page 3
CARB.
9)States that a preferred growth scenario does not regulate the
use of land, nor shall it be subject to any state review or
approval, and that nothing in a preferred growth scenario
shall be interpreted as superseding or interfering with the
exercise of the land use authority of cities and counties
within the region.
10)Requires that, on and after January 1, 2009, projects and
improvements to be funded shall be consistent with regional
transportation plans, but exempts projects programmed for
funding on or before December 31, 2011, which are not required
to be consistent with the preferred growth scenario if they
are contained in the 2006 or 2008 Federal Transportation
Improvement Program or are funded pursuant to Proposition 1B.
11)Defines the term "consistent with the preferred growth
scenario" to mean that the capacity
of transportation projects and improvements does not exceed that
which is necessary to provide reasonable service levels to the
preferred growth scenario.
12)Requires that, before an RTPA can identify a significant
resource area or significant farmland as a development area,
it must make findings that the area is adjacent to urbanized
areas or located on infill sites; the area is served by
necessary utilities; there is no feasible alternative; the
loss of resource area is fully mitigated; and the land is
efficiently used with a minimum
of 10 units per acre.
13)Requires the following projects to be consistent with the
preferred growth strategy for the region:
a) Projects to implement a regional transportation plan;
b) Establishing corridors of statewide or regional
priority;
c) As of January 1, 2009, projects and improvements funded
in the five-year STP; and
d) Congestion Management Plans.
SB 375
Page 4
14)Provides, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), that if an environmental impact report (EIR) has
been certified on a preferred growth scenario and a local
government has amended its general plan to conform to that
preferred growth scenario, then CEQA analysis is required only
for project specific impacts of a residential or mixed use
project with no more than 25% total floor area in retail,
located on an infill site in an urbanized area, and which
incorporates the mitigation measures of the final EIR of the
preferred growth scenario or the general plan amendment.
15)Authorizes a local government, after a public hearing, to
declare a project to be a "sustainable communities' project"
for which no additional CEQA compliance is necessary if it
finds that:
a) The project and other projects approved prior to the
approval of the project but not yet built can be adequately
served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has
paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-lieu or
development fees;
b) The site of the project does not contain wetlands or
riparian areas, does not have any significant value as a
wildlife habitat, and the project does not harm any species
protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, the Native
Plant Protection Act, or the California Endangered Species
Act, and the project does not cause the destruction or
removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in
effect at the time the application for the project was
deemed complete;
c) The site of the project is not included on any list of
hazardous waste facilities and sites;
d) The site of the project is subject to a preliminary
endangerment assessment prepared by a registered
environmental assessor to determine the existence of any
release of a hazardous substance on the site and to
determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to
significant health hazards from any nearby property or
activity;
e) The project does not have a significant effect on
historical resources;
SB 375
Page 5
f) The project site is not subject to a wildland fire
hazard, an unusually high risk of fire or explosion from
materials stored or used on nearby properties, risk of a
public health exposure at a level that would exceed the
standards established by any state or federal agency,
seismic risk, landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or
restriction zone;
g) The project site is not located on developed open
space;
h) The buildings in the project will comply with all green
building standards required by the eligible local
jurisdiction;
i) Any applicable mitigation measures approved in the final
EIRs on the regional transportation plan or the local
general plan amendment have been or will be incorporated
into the project;
j) The project is located on an infill site;
aa) The project is a residential project or a residential or
mixed use project consisting of residential uses and
primarily neighborhood-serving goods, services, or retail
uses that do not exceed 25% of the total floor area of the
project;
bb) The site of the project is not more than eight acres in
total area;
cc) The project does not contain more than 200 residential
units;
dd) The project density is at least equal to the "Mullin"
density level;
ee) The project does not result in any loss in the number of
affordable housing units within the project area;
ff) The project does not include any single level building
that exceeds 75,000 square feet;
gg) The project is consistent with the general plan; and
SB 375
Page 6
hh) The project meets one of the following criteria:
i) At least 20% of the housing will be sold to families
of moderate income, or not less than 10% of the housing
will be rented to families of low-income, or not less
than 5% of the housing is rented to families of very
low-income, and the project developer provides sufficient
legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to
ensure the continued availability and use of the housing
units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households, that rental units shall be affordable for at
least 55 years, and that ownership units shall be subject
to resale restrictions or equity sharing requirements for
at least 30 years;
ii) The project developer has paid or will pay in-lieu
fees pursuant to a local ordinance in an amount
sufficient to result in the development of an equivalent
number of units that would otherwise be required pursuant
to the preceding paragraph;
iii) The project is located within one-quarter mile of a
major transit stop; or
iv) The project provides public open space equal to or
greater than five acres per 1,000 residents of the
project.
16)Authorizes a local jurisdiction with a general plan that has
been amended to conform with a preferred growth scenario to
adopt traffic mitigation measures that would apply to all
future residential projects, and provides that no further
CEQA-related traffic mitigation would be required for a
residential project in that jurisdiction.
17)Impose a state-mandated local program, and provides that, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
pursuant to statute.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires certain transportation planning activities by
SB 375
Page 7
Caltrans and by designated regional transportation planning
agencies, including development of a regional transportation
plan.
2)Authorizes CTC, in cooperation with the regional agencies, to
prescribe study areas for analysis and evaluation.
3)Requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be
prepared, and certify the completion of, an EIR on a project
that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a
significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative
declaration if it finds that the project will not have that
effect.
4)Requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative
declaration for a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or
mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that
the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on
the environment.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations:
1)CTC costs associated with the adoption of guidelines would be
in the range of $200,000.
2)Caltrans costs for participating in the process for adopting
guidelines for travel demand models would be absorbable.
3)CARB would require three positions at a cost of $330,000 and
approximately $300,000 in contracted work to develop regional
targets and complete site-specific modeling work in order to
implement the provisions of this bill.
4)By requiring larger regional planning entities to apply the
specified travel demand models to their regional
transportation plans, and requiring all RTPAs to include a
preferred growth scenario in regional transportation plans,
this bill would result in a reimbursable state mandate of
unknown significant costs, potential in the range of several
million dollars.
COMMENTS :
SB 375
Page 8
1)According to the author, SB 375 provides a mechanism for
reducing greenhouse gases from the single largest sector of
emissions, cars and light trucks. The environmental
organizations sponsoring this legislation maintain that
changes in land use and transportation policy must be made to
achieve the goals of AB 32. Although greenhouse gas emissions
can be reduced by producing more fuel efficient cars and using
low carbon fuel, reductions in vehicle miles traveled will
also be necessary. Thus, the travel demand models used by
metropolitan planning organizations to develop regional
transportation plans must assess the effects of land use
decisions, transit service, and economic incentives.
According to the author, SB 375 will help implement AB 32 by
amending programs that are beyond the current authority of
CARB. It creates new provisions for the preparation of
regional transportation plans and it creates a new subchapter
in CEQA to encourage the implementation of plans for
greenhouse gas reductions at the local level.
2)SB 375 contains three principal provisions:
a) The regional transportation plans for each region that
will include a preferred growth scenario in which growth is
located where it will achieve greenhouse gas reduction
targets set for the region by CARB. The author and
sponsors have been at pains to state that the regional
transportation plans have no regulatory power over land
use.
b) Local governments would have fiscal "incentives" to
implement SB 375. The bill provides that future
transportation projects would have to be consistent with
the preferred growth scenario. When local governments make
land use decisions that implement the preferred growth
scenario, they will be rewarded with transportation
funding. Existing transportation projects in the funding
pipeline through 2011 will not be affected.
c) Local governments would have regulatory incentives to
implement SB 375. Those local governments who choose to
amend their land use plans to conform to the preferred
growth scenario, will be authorized to utilize new
provisions of CEQA which are designed to assist in
implementing the preferred growth scenario, while
preserving public participation and transparency.
SB 375
Page 9
3)According to the author, the preferred growth scenario will be
adopted by existing transportation planning agencies using the
procedures now utilized for the adoption of regional
transportation plans. These procedures include local
government participation and extensive public outreach. Each
region will have the flexibility to design the preferred
growth scenario that best meets its needs within four general
parameters set by the state. First, each preferred growth
scenario must identify housing sites for the region's
population, including all economic segments of the population
and including all the population growth. Second, the housing
sites must be located to achieve that region's share of the
greenhouse gas reduction targets. Third, the housing sites
must avoid significant natural resource areas unless certain
orderly growth findings are made. Fourth, the housing sites
must avoid significant farmland unless certain findings are
made. Each region must attempt to achieve the greenhouse gas
reduction targets established by the CARB to the greatest
extent feasible. If, however, a region cannot design a
preferred growth scenario that will accomplish the necessary
reductions, the region must prepare a supplement that will
identify how that region could achieve the targets if it had
additional resources or programs.
4)The author maintains that the preferred growth scenario is an
evolutionary step beyond the regional blueprints or visions
that have been adopted in some regions. Regional blueprints
in Los Angeles and Sacramento suggest that future growth could
meet these criteria of the preferred growth scenario with
about 50% of new housing being constructed on infill sites and
about 50% being constructed in greenfield subdivisions. These
new subdivisions tend to be closer to the urban core and
slightly more dense. These designs will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by resulting in shorter vehicle trips and increased
transit use.
5)SB 375 enacts a new subchapter to CEQA, "Implementation of the
Preferred Growth Scenario." The provisions of this subchapter
apply to land use decisions within local jurisdictions who
have amended their general plans to conform to the preferred
growth scenario. There are three new provisions. First, if a
residential or mixed use project can
satisfy the environmental and land use criteria on a sustainable
communities checklist, it does
SB 375
Page 10
not have to engage in any further compliance with CEQA. Second,
for projects that do not qualify as sustainable communities
projects, those projects will only have to analyze their
project specific impacts under CEQA. Third, local governments
will be authorized to establish traffic mitigation polices for
residential projects in advance.
6)As each day passes, the feeling of urgency about addressing
global climate change grows. SB 375 is one of the first
attempts in the post-AB 32 world to attempt to implement
programs to achieve that landmark bill's goals. It chooses to
do so through the regulation of land use. While the sense of
urgency underlying the rapid development of this bill is
understandable, the Committee may wish to consider some of the
serious policy implications of its provisions, and whether
rushing forward without taking at least a little more time to
work through some of these implications is a prudent course,
given the potentially profound impacts SB 375 would have.
Specifically, the Committee may wish to consider, and ask the
author, the following questions:
a) Does SB 375 adequately recognize and attempt to balance
its demands with the multiple demands already placed on
local governments by state law? For example, how would
local governments conform their existing regional housing
needs assessment (RHNA) duties under state housing element
law with the land use restrictions of a preferred growth
scenario? SB 303, also being heard by this Committee on
July 3, 2007, has been referred to by some of its opponents
as a case of "housing trumps everything." Is SB 375 a case
of "vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction trumps
everything"? How are local governments supposed to respond
to such absolute, and often conflicting, demands? Does SB
375 make it easier or harder for local governments to "do
the right thing"?
b) Is it accurate to describe a situation in which
transportation funding of any sort would only be available
to jurisdictions that conformed to SB 375's land use
requirements as an "incentive"? If this is a proverbial
"carrot," it is an extremely hard one.
c) How does SB 375's timeline for CARB establishing
regional greenhouse gas emission reductions for cars and
SB 375
Page 11
small trucks correspond to the intentions of the authors of
AB 32? Is it premature to create such requirements when
the development of baseline data for
AB 32 implementation is in such an early state?
d) Are SB 375's CEQA provisions really an incentive? The
bar for being found to be a "sustainable communities'
project" is set very, very high. Many local governments
have already found CEQA litigation to be a serious
impediment to approving increased infill development. The
additional pressure on land use decisions created by SB 375
could lead to an avalanche of such suits and place local
governments in untenable situations. Are its CEQA
provisions enough to counteract that threat?
7)This bill is double-referred to the Committee on
Transportation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alpine Meadows
American Lung Association of CA
Audubon CA
CA Association of Environmental Professionals (if amended)
CA League of Conservation Voters
Coalition for Clean Air
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environment CA
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2)
Homewood Mountain Resort
JMA Ventures, LLC
Moller International
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Southern CA Association of Governments
State Association of Electrical Workers
SB 375
Page 12
State Building and Construction Trades Council of CA
State Pipe Trades Council
Trust for Public Land
Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Opposition
Associated General Contractors of CA
CA Association of Realtors
CA Building Industry Association
CA Business Properties Association
CA Chamber of Commerce
CA Hotel & Lodging Association
CA Major Builders Council
CA Manufacturers & Technology Association
CA Retailers Association
City of Pleasanton
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of CA
County of San Diego
Department of Finance
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Inland Empire Transportation Coalition
Orange County Business Council
Resource Landowners Coalition
Southwest CA Legislative Council
Transportation CA
Analysis Prepared by : J. Stacey Sullivan / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958