BILL ANALYSIS
SB 375
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
SB 375 (Steinberg) - As Amended: August 18, 2008
SENATE VOTE : 21-15
SUBJECT : Transportation planning: travel demand models:
sustainable communities strategy: environmental review.
SUMMARY : Requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to
include sustainable communities strategies (SCS), as defined, in
their regional transportation plans (RTPs) for the purpose of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, aligns planning for
transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for
the implementation of the strategies. 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 (Nunez & Pavley), Chapter 444, Statutes of 2006.
2)Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB), no later
than January 31, 2009, to appoint a Regional Targets Advisory
Committee (committee) to recommend factors to be considered
and methodologies to be used for setting greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets for the affected regions, and
specifies the composition of the committee, including, but not
limited to, local transportation agencies.
3)Requires the committee to transmit a report with its
recommendations to CARB no later than December 31, 2009, and
requires CARB to consider the report prior to setting targets.
4)Provides that, in recommending factors to be considered and
methodologies to be used, the committee may consider any
relevant issues, including, but not limited to, data needs,
modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the impacts of regional
jobs-housing balance on interregional travel and greenhouse
gas emissions, economic and demographic trends, the magnitude
of greenhouse gas reduction benefits from a variety of land
use and transportation strategies, and appropriate methods to
describe regional targets and to monitor performance in
attaining those targets.
SB 375
Page 2
5)Requires that, prior to setting the targets for a region, CARB
exchange technical information with the MPO and the affected
air district, which may include a recommendation for a target
for the region.
6)Requires the MPO to hold at least one public workshop within
the region after receipt of the report from the committee.
7)Requires CARB to update the regional greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets every eight years consistent with each MPO's
timeframe for updating its RTP under federal law until 2050.
8)Authorizes CARB to revise the targets every four years based
on changes in specified factors, and requires CARB to exchange
technical information with the MPOs, local governments, and
affected air districts and engage in a consultative process
with public and private stakeholders prior to updating these
targets.
9)Requires the RTP for specified regions to include an SCS, as
specified, designed to achieve certain goals for the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks
in a region.
10)Specifies how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are
to collaborate in the preparation of the SCS.
11)Specifies how the sub-regional councils of governments within
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will
be involved in the preparation of an SCS.
12)Requires each MPO to conduct at least two informational
meetings in each county within the region for members of the
board of supervisors and city councils on the SCS and
alternative planning strategy (APS), if any, subject to
specified conditions and exceptions.
13)Requires each MPO to adopt a public participation plan for
development of the SCS and an APS, as specified.
14)Requires an MPO to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions projected to be achieved by the SCS and set forth
the difference, if any, between the amount of that reduction
SB 375
Page 3
and the target for the region established by CARB.
15)Requires that, if an SCS is unable to reach the CARB target,
the MPO prepare an APS to the SCS, as a separate document from
the RTP, showing how those greenhouse gas emission targets
would be achieved through alternative development patterns,
infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or
policies, as specified.
16)Requires that, prior to starting the public participation
process, the MPO submit a description to CARB of the technical
methodology it intends to use to estimate the greenhouse gas
emissions from its SCS and, if appropriate, its APS, and
requires CARB to respond to the MPO in a timely manner with
written comments about the technical methodology, including
specifically describing any aspects of the methodology that
will not yield accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions,
and suggested remedies.
17)Requires that, after adoption, an MPO submit an SCS or an
APS, if one has been adopted, to CARB for review, including
the quantification of the greenhouse gas emission reductions
the plan would achieve and a description of the technical
methodology used to obtain that result.
18)Limits CARB review to acceptance or rejection of the MPO's
determination that the strategy submitted would, if
implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets, and require CARB to complete its review within 60
days.
19)Requires that, if CARB determines that the strategy submitted
would not, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets, the MPO revise its strategy or adopt an
APS, if not previously adopted, and submit the strategy for
review.
20)Requires, at a minimum, that the MPO must obtain CARB
acceptance that an APS would, if implemented, achieve the
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established for that
region.
21)States that:
SB 375
Page 4
a) An SCS or APS does not regulate the use of land, nor
shall it be subject to any state approval other than the
CARB action referred to above;
b) Nothing in an SCS or APS shall be interpreted as
superseding or interfering with the exercise of the land
use authority of cities and counties within the region;
c) Nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to authorize
the abrogation of any vested right whether created by
statute or by common law;
d) Nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to limit
CARB'a authority under any other provision of law;
e) Nothing in this bill requires a city or county's land
use policies and regulations, including its general plan,
to be consistent with the RTP or an APS;
f) Nothing in this bill requires an MPO to approve an SCS
or APS that would be inconsistent with specified federal
regulations;
g) Nothing in this bill relieves a public or private entity
or any person from compliance with any other local, state,
or federal law; and,
h) Nothing in this bill requires a transportation sales tax
authority, as defined, to change the funding allocations
approved by the voters for categories of transportation
projects in a sales tax measure adopted prior to December
31, 2010.
22)Requires certain transportation planning and programming
activities to be consistent with the SCS in order to obtain
funding, but states that certain transportation projects
programmed for funding on or before December 31, 2011, are not
required to be consistent with the SCS.
23)Creates a mechanism by which an MPO, or regional
transportation agency not within an MPO, that is currently on
a five-year RTP cycle may elect to adopt an RTP on a four-year
cycle in order to conform with the other provisions of this
bill.
SB 375
Page 5
24)Authorizes MPOs in specified Central Valley counties to work
together to develop and adopt multi-regional goals and prepare
multi-regional SCS.
25)Adds areas designated for agricultural uses and agricultural
elements of general plans to the definition of "resource
areas."
26)Defines "consistent" as having the same meaning as in a
specified provision of federal law, and define "internally
consistent" as meaning that the elements of the RTP must be
consistent with one another.
27)Requires that, prior to and after the adoption of specified
forms, the housing element portion of the annual progress
report of a planning agency on implementation of its general
plans must include a section that describes the actions taken
by the local government towards completion of the programs and
status of the local government's compliance with the deadlines
in its housing element.
28)Changes the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) cycle
from five years to eight years.
29)Requires that rezoning of sites needed to meet RHNA
requirements, including adoption of minimum density and
development standards, shall be completed no later than three
years after either the date the housing element is adopted or
the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD),
whichever is earlier, unless this deadline is extended, as
specified.
30)Requires a local government that has failed to adopt a
housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline for
doing so to complete the rezoning of sufficient RHNA sites no
later than three years and 120 days from the deadline to adopt
its housing element.
31)Allows the deadline for completing required rezoning to be
extended by one year if the local government has completed
rezoning at densities sufficient to accommodate at least 75%
of the sites for each income group and if the legislative body
at the conclusion of a public hearing determines, based upon
SB 375
Page 6
substantial evidence, makes specified findings.
32)Prohibits a local government that fails to complete the
rezoning by the deadline, as it may be extended, from
disapproving a housing development project, or requiring a
conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or
other locally imposed discretionary permit or condition that
would render the project infeasible, if the housing
development project is proposed to be located on a site
required to be rezoned pursuant to the program required by
that subparagraph and complies with applicable, objective
general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including
design review standards, described in the program required by
that subparagraph.
33)Provides that any such subdivision of sites shall be subject
to the Subdivision Map Act but shall not constitute a
"project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
34)Provides that a local government that fails to complete its
rezoning may disapprove a housing development described in
paragraph only if it makes written findings supported by
substantial evidence on the record that the housing
development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved
or approved upon the condition that the project be developed
at a lower density, and that there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than
the disapproval of the housing development project or the
approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density.
35)Permits the applicant or any interested person to bring an
action to enforce these provisions, and specifies that if a
court finds that the local agency disapproved a project or
conditioned its approval in violation of these provisions, the
court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance
within 60 days, retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order
or judgment is carried out, and, if it determines that its
order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the
court may issue further orders to ensure that the purposes and
policies of this paragraph are fulfilled.
36)Provides that, in an action brought against a local
SB 375
Page 7
government for failing to complete rezoning, the burden of
proof shall be borne by the local government.
37)Defines "housing development project" as a project to
construct residential units if the project developer provides
sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate local agency
to ensure the continued availability and use of at least 49%
of the housing units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households at monthly housing costs with an affordable housing
cost or affordable rent, as defined, for the period required
by the applicable financing.
38)Specifies 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.
39)Requires that a council of governments (COG) provide HCD with
data assumptions about the relationship between jobs and
housing in the region, if available, to assist HCD in
determining the region's RHNA.
40)States legislative intent that:
a) Housing planning be coordinated and integrated with the
RTP;
b) To achieve this goal, the allocation plan shall allocate
housing units within the region consistent with the
development pattern included in the SCS;
c) The final allocation plan shall ensure that the total
regional housing need, by income category, is maintained,
and that each jurisdiction in the region receive an
allocation of units for low- and very low-income
households; and,
d) The resolution approving the final housing need
allocation plan shall demonstrate that the plan is
consistent with the SCS in the RTP.
41)Directs a court that finds that a city, county, or city and
county has failed to complete the required rezoning, as that
deadline may be extended, to issue an order or judgment
compelling the local government to complete the rezoning
SB 375
Page 8
within 60 days or the earliest time consistent with public
hearing notice requirements in place at the time the action
was filed and the overall equities of the circumstances as
presented by all parties, to retain jurisdiction to ensure
that its order or judgment is carried out, and, if the court
determines that its order or judgment is not carried out, to
issue further orders, including ordering that any required
rezoning be completed within 60 days or the earliest time
consistent with public hearing notice requirements, and may
impose sanctions on the city, county, or city and county,
taking into account the overall equities of the circumstances
presented by all parties.
42)Permits any interested person to bring an action to compel
compliance with the specified deadlines and requirements, and
specify that in any such action, the city, county, or city and
county shall bear the burden of proof.
43)Requires a local government that does not adopt a housing
element within 90 days after receipt of comments from HCD on
its draft housing element, or the date the legislative body
takes action subsequent to HCD determining that the draft
housing element does not substantially comply, whichever is
earlier, to revise its housing element as appropriate, but not
less than every four years, rather than eight years.
44)Requires all local governments within an MPO in a
non-attainment region, other than those within the
jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG), to adopt the fifth revision of their housing
elements no later than 18 months after the adoption of the
first RTP to be adopted after September 30, 2010.
45)Requires local governments within SANDAG to adopt their fifth
revision no later than five years from the fourth revision,
and their sixth revision no later than 18 months after the
adoption of the first RTP to be adopted after the fifth
revision due date.
46)Requires local governments within an MPO that has elected to
move from a five-year to a four-year RTP cycle to adopt an
eight-year RHNA cycle and to adopt their next housing elements
18 months after the adoption of the first RTP after the
election.
SB 375
Page 9
47)Defines "planning period" as the time period for periodic
revision of a jurisdiction's housing element.
48)Specifies that, with one exception, the Implementation of the
Sustainable Communities Strategy chapter of CEQA applies only
to a transit priority project that is consistent with the
general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies specified for the project area in either
an SCS or an APS, for which CARB has accepted an MPO's
determination that the SCS or APS would, if implemented,
achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
49)Requires a transit priority project to:
a) Contain at least 50% residential use, based on total
building square footage and, if the project contains
between 26% and 50% nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio
of not less than 0.75;
b) Provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling
units per acre; and,
c) Be within one-half mile of an existing or planned major
transit stop, as defined, or high-quality transit corridor,
as defined, as set forth in the applicable regional
transportation plan.
50)Specifies that, for purposes of defining a transit priority
project, all parcels within the project have no more than 25%
of their area farther than mile from a transit stop or
corridor and
that no more than 10% or 100 residential units, whichever is
less are less than mile from a transit stop or corridor.
51)Provides that no additional review is required pursuant to
CEQA for a transit priority project if the legislative body of
a local jurisdiction finds, after conducting a public hearing,
that the project meets specified criteria and is declared to
be a sustainable communities project.
52)Requires that in the initial study for a sustainable
communities environmental assessment or environmental impact
report (EIR) for a transit priority project that has met
SB 375
Page 10
specified criteria, the lead agency shall determine whether
cumulative impacts have been both adequately addressed and
adequately mitigated in prior certified EIRs.
53)Authorizes the legislative body of a local jurisdiction to
adopt traffic mitigation measures for future residential
projects that meet specified criteria, and exempts such a
residential project seeking a land use approval from
compliance with additional measures for traffic impacts, if
the local jurisdiction has adopted those traffic mitigation
measures.
54)Specifies that, if a residential or mixed-use residential
project is consistent with the use designation, density,
building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the
project area in either an SCS or an APS, for which CARB has
accepted the MPO's determination that the SCS or the APS
would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets and if the project incorporates the
mitigation measures required by an applicable prior
environmental document, any findings or other determinations
for an exemption, a negative declaration, a mitigated negative
declaration, an EIR, or addenda prepared or adopted for the
project pursuant to CEQA shall not be required to reference,
describe, or discuss growth inducing impacts or any project
specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck
trips generated by the project on global warming or the
regional transportation network.
55)Specifies that any EIR prepared for a project described above
shall not be required to reference, describe, or discuss a
reduced residential density alternative to address the effects
of car and light-duty truck trips generated by the project.
56)Defines "regional transportation network" as all existing and
proposed transportation improvements that were included in the
transportation and air quality conformity modeling, including
congestion modeling, for the final RTP adopted by the MPO, but
shall not include local streets and roads.
57)Specifies that nothing in the foregoing relieves any project
from a requirement to comply with any conditions, exactions,
or fees for the mitigation of the project's impacts on the
regional transportation network or local streets and roads.
SB 375
Page 11
58)Defines a "residential or mixed-use residential project" as a
project where at least 75% of the total building square
footage of the project consists of residential use or a
project that is a transit priority project.
59)States that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant applicable sections of the
Government Code.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires certain transportation planning activities by the
California Department of Transportation and by designated
regional transportation planning agencies, including
development of an RTP.
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 Assembly Appropriations
Committee's July 17, 2007, analysis:
1)CTC would incur one-time costs of up to $200,000 in 2007-08
for the adoption of modeling guidelines. Potential minor
ongoing costs associated with updated guidelines and reviews
of regional models.
2)CARB would require one-half of an additional personnel year
(PY) in 2007-08 and 2008-09 (annual costs of $72,500), and a
SB 375
Page 12
full additional PY thereafter (annual cost of $145,000) for
the workload associated with this bill.
3)The requirement that regional transportation planning agencies
develop enhanced travel demand models and preferred growth
scenarios may result in a reimbursable state mandate,
potentially resulting in state costs exceeding several
millions of dollars.
COMMENTS :
1)According to the author, this bill 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
MPOs to develop RTPs must assess the effects of land use
decisions, transit service, and economic incentives.
According to the author, this bill will help implement AB 32
by amending programs that are beyond the current authority of
ARB. SB 375 integrates and aligns planning for housing, land
use, transportation and greenhouse gas emissions for the 17
MPOs in the state through amendments to provisions in existing
law in three major areas.
2)Regional Transportation Plans . SB 375 requires CARB, after
considering the recommendations from a broadly based advisory
committee, to provide targets to the MPOs for greenhouse gas
emission reductions for cars and light duty truck trips from
the regional land use and transportation system by July 1,
2010. Each MPO, through significant involvement with the
public and its member cities and counties, will then prepare
an SCS as a component of its RTP that meets the target, if
feasible. It must use transportation and air emission
modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by CTC
to document the greenhouse gas emissions. If the SCS does not
meet the target, the MPO must adopt an APS, as a separate
document from the RTP that does. However, the MPO is not
required to implement the APS because it may include amounts
of transportation funding and changes to land use patterns
that go beyond what federal law allows. CARB may accept or
SB 375
Page 13
reject the MPO's determination that the SCS or APS meets the
target, but it does not approve the SCS or APS and it may not
suggest or require that the MPO make changes to either
document. The adopted RTP must be an "internally consistent"
document, and current requirements that transportation funds
may only be spent on projects consistent with the RTP are
unchanged. Projects already programmed in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) through 2011, and
projects, programs, and categories of projects in any county
sales tax measure approved by the voters prior to December,
2010 are expressly exempted from the provisions of the bill.
Several safeguards in the bill are included to preserve local
government land use authority.
3)Regional Housing Needs Assessments . Each MPO would be
required to update RHNA every eight years instead of every
five years as required by current law. This will allow the
RHNA process to align with updates to the RTPs, which federal
law requires to be done every four years. SB 375 amends the
HCD process for setting the regional housing allocations for
MPOs to encourage planning for sufficient housing for the
projected employment growth in a region. The MPO's allocation
of RHNA shares to each of the cities and counties in its
jurisdiction will be required to be consistent with the SCS.
Local governments would be required to rezone sites to be
consistent with their updated housing elements within three
years (four years if the local government has completed 75% of
its rezoning by the third year and meets one of three
conditions: circumstances out of its control, lack of
infrastructure to serve the sites, or need for a major update
to its general plan to meet its RHNA allocation). If a local
government does not update its housing element within 120 days
of the statutory deadline, it will be required to update its
RHNA every four years.
4)California Environmental Quality Act . Residential and
mixed-use projects that are consistent with an SCS or APS that
CARB accepts as meeting its greenhouse gas target will not
have to be analyzed under CEQA for growth-inducing impacts or
impacts on global warming or on the regional transportation
network. A lead agency would not be required to consider a
reduced density alternative because of car and light duty
truck trips. A limited set of projects that meet a very
stringent series of environmental and other criteria would be
exempt from any CEQA analysis. Limited CEQA review would be
SB 375
Page 14
available to projects with a density of 20 dwelling units/acre
that are within 1/2 mile of current or planned high quality
transit service for any impacts that are sufficiently analyzed
and mitigated in the RTP's EIR. Finally, qualifying local
governments would be able to establish their own mitigation
standards for local traffic impacts.
5)Recent amendments . After long and intense negotiations
between the author and stakeholders, the current August 13,
2008 version of SB 375 incorporates numerous amendments that
address concerns raised by this Committee and various
stakeholder groups. The application of the bill has been
limited to federally-designated metropolitan planning areas,
thus eliminating some small counties. The Regional Targets
Advisory Committee has been created to consider various
technical issues and to recommend greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets for the regions. A new provision makes
consideration of local general plans explicit in the
development of a sustainable communities strategy. The
planning priority provisions found in earlier iterations of
the bill, which have been criticized as creating "concentric
circles," have been eliminated. The regions will "gather and
consider" information about, rather than identify, important
resources and farmlands. The document formerly referred to as
the "supplement" is now the APS. This is intended to clarify
further that this document is not a part of the sustainable
communities strategy nor the RTP. New provisions require an
APS to include the most practicable policies for actually
achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. An
MPO will be required to submit its SCS/APS to CARB for its
certification that the strategy, if implemented, would
actually achieve the emission targets. A new rural
sustainability element is added to the RTP authorizing regions
to consider financial incentives for jurisdictions that have
resource areas or farmlands and contribute to GHG reductions
by encouraging growth within the urban footprint. The
definitions of resource areas and farmlands have been
modified. An important change eliminates certain descriptions
of habitat areas and substitutes the phrase "biological
resources" as defined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Changes have been made to the modeling provisions reflecting
the adoption of the new guidelines by the CTC.
6)Concerning CEQA, the requirement that a local government would
SB 375
Page 15
have to amend its general plan to be consistent with an SCS
before being eligible for CEQA-related benefits has been
deleted. The CEQA provisions of the bill are now all
project-specific. New provisions are added to CEQA that would
apply to residential or residential mixed use projects that
were consistent with a CARB certified SCS/APS. These
projects would not have to analyze their growth inducing
impacts or their impacts on global warming or on the regional
transportation network. A lead agency would not be required
to address a reduced density alternative because of car and
light duty truck trips. These provisions address concerns
raised by this Committee last year that the CEQA provisions of
SB 375 were insufficiently "user-friendly." The provisions of
CEQA in the March 24 version of this bill would now apply only
to projects that were consistent with a CARB certified SCS/APS
and that were "transit priority projects." The sponsors of
this bill refer to the criteria a project would have to meet
in order to obtain full exemption as a sustainable communities
project as the "platinum standard" that is intentionally hard
to achieve. However, with the addition of the new provisions,
less onerous alternatives now exist by which projects may
obtain significant, if only partial, relief from CEQA
obligations.
7)Perhaps the biggest change to SB 375 made by the August 13
amendments is the incorporation of RHNA into the framework of
the bill. The amendments align the RHNA and RTP processes by
requiring that the housing element be updated every eight
years rather than its current five-year cycle. A new
statutory deadline for completing rezoning would be added to
the RHNA process. If a local government failed to rezone
within the new deadline, remedies would be created for
affordable housing development projects and for a writ of
mandate to compel rezoning. The proponents believe that, in
addition to the land use and
greenhouse gas reduction benefits, the net benefits of the bill
to the planning and construction of affordable housing are
significant.
8)Proposed Amendments . The Committee and author may wish to
consider two other amendments to SB 375 to address subjects of
continued concern:
SB 375
Page 16
a) Government Code Sec. 65400(a)(2)(B). As proposed to be
amended, the bill will require that "[p]rior to and after
adoption of the forms, the housing element portion of the
annual report shall include a section that describes the
actions taken by the local government towards completion of
the programs and status of the local government's
compliance with the deadlines in its housing element." The
first sentence of this paragraph states that, "[t]he
housing element portion of the annual report, as required
by this paragraph, shall be prepared through the use of
forms and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing
and Community Development pursuant to the rulemaking
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act." These
forms have never been adopted in the 13 years since this
provision became law. The statute seems to be clear that
the existence of the forms is a necessary precondition to
the existence of the report, at least as far as the housing
element portion is concerned. Consequently, no report can
exist prior to the existence of the forms, so the provision
in SB 375 positing that there could be a housing element
portion of the annual report in which the desired
information can be reported prior to the adoption of the
forms is absurd. The Committee may wish to request that
the author delete the words "prior to and after adoption of
the forms" from SB 375.
b) Government Code Sec. 65583(c)(1)(A). As proposed to be
amended, SB 375 requires a local government that has failed
to adopt a housing element within 120 days of the statutory
deadline for doing so to complete the rezoning of
sufficient RHNA sites no later than three years and 120
days from the deadline to adopt its housing element. The
question arises as to why a delinquent jurisdiction is
being given an additional two months to complete its
rezoning. The Committee may wish to ask the author to
delete the 120-day addendum and require the jurisdiction to
complete its rezoning within three years.
9)Further Questions . The Committee may wish to ask the author
and proponents of SB 375 to address the following questions:
a) While the language of SB 375 has changed to no longer
explicitly state that transportation funding will be
withheld from MPOs that fail to adopt an SCS/APS, the
effect still seems to be the same. In the past, the author
SB 375
Page 17
and sponsors of SB 375 have referred to this provision of
the bill as an "incentive," which appears to do violence to
the commonly accepted meaning of that word. Does SB 375 in
fact create a penalty for jurisdictions that choose not to
follow its provisions? Does this penalty consist of the
withholding of funds for which the jurisdiction is
currently eligible? If an MPO creates an SCS/APS but fails
to meet its target, are there consequences in terms of
transportation funding?
b) This leads to a second area of concern. SB 375 states
that an SCS or APS does not regulate the use of land, nor
shall it be subject to any state approval other than the
CARB action referred to above; that nothing in an SCS or
APS shall be interpreted as
superseding or interfering with the exercise of the land use
authority of cities and counties within the region; and
that nothing in the bill requires a city's or county's land
use policies and regulations, including its general plan,
to be consistent with the RTP or an APS. However, while
fulfilling the provisions of SB 375 is technically
voluntary in many cases, it appears that the reality may be
different. How can an MPO create a CARB-acceptable SCS/APS
without involving local general plans and other land use
policies? How is an SCS going to work at the ground level?
Will the targets created by CARB carry the legal force of
regulations? Will the prospect of the loss of funds for
locally significant transportation projects create a de
facto coercive pressure on local governments? While one
hopes that the admirable example of the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments (SACOG) bringing jurisdictions
together to create a regional blueprint on a voluntary
basis can be replicated, what happens in areas where
inter-governmental relationships are not so relatively
benign?
c) Another issue that the Committee may also wish the
author and proponents of SB 375 to address is the impact
and benefit of the bill on rural jurisdictions. While SB
375 has been amended to include agriculture in the
definition of resource areas and require MPOs to consider
so-called "rural sustainability" incentives, it is unclear
whether the bill adequately recognizes that the types of
actions that agricultural regions may be asked to take in
SB 375
Page 18
order to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets are very
different from those undertaken in more urbanized areas.
Will communities with farmers and ranchers who have been
engaged in carbon emission-reducing, environmentally
beneficial practices for years receive adequate credit for
these achievements? Regarding SB 375's CEQA provisions, it
appears that it will be nearly impossible for many smaller
cities in agricultural counties to meet the definition of
"transit priority projects" or otherwise avail themselves
of the relief from CEQA obligations offered by this bill.
d) Finally, some even larger questions have arisen during
the evolution of SB 375. Does the bill create significant
new levels of government, so that its efforts at
streamlining the planning process may have the unintended
effect of making it more unwieldy? Is the timeline for
achievement of the bill's goals too compressed for many
local governments? Should the means of achieving the goals
of the bill be more of an iterative, ongoing process with
extensive give-and-take between the policy makers in
Sacramento and the local jurisdictions doing the work of
implementing the policies on the ground on what works and
what doesn't?
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CA League of Conservation Voters [CO-SPONSOR]
Natural Resources Defense Council [CO-SPONSOR]
Alpine Meadows
American Farmland Trust
American Lung Association of CA
American Planning Association, CA Chapter
Association of Bay Area Governments
Support (continued)
Audubon CA
Bay Area Council (in concept)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Breathe CA
CA Association of Environmental Professionals (if amended)
CA Association of Local Area Formation Commissions
SB 375
Page 19
CA Building Industry Association
CA Council of Land Trusts
CA Interfaith Power and Light
CA League of Conservation Voters
CA Major Builders Council
CA Nurses Association
CA Professional Firefighters
CA State Association of Counties
Cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom, Huntington Beach, Roseville,
and Sacramento
Coalition for Clean Air
Congress for a New Urbanism
County of Los Angeles
County of Napa (with amendments)
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environment CA
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Entrepreneurs
Ford Motor Company
Fulcrum Properties
Health Officers Association of CA
Homewood Mountain Resort
JMA Ventures
League of CA Cities
League of Women Voters
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Merced/Mariposa County Asthma Coalition
Metropolitan Transportation Commission of San Francisco Bay Area
Moller International
Natural Resources Defense Council
New Voice of Business
Non Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Planning and Conservation League
Sacramento Area Fire Fighters, Local 522
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Transit District
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
Support (continued)
Sempra Energy
SB 375
Page 20
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
South Coast Air Quality Management District
State Association of Electrical Workers
State Building and Construction Trades Council
State Pipe Trades Council
Toyota (in concept)
Transportation and Land Use Coalition
Trust for Public Land
Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Opposition
Associated General Contractors of CA
Automobile Club of Southern CA
CA Association of Realtors
CA Business Properties Association
CA Chamber of Commerce
CA Contract Cities Association
CA Hotel & Lodging Association
CA Manufacturers & Technology Association
CA Retailers Association
CA Association of Councils of Governments (unless amended)
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of CA
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
County of Orange
Department of Finance
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Inland Empire Transportation Coalition
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Merced County Association of Governments
Orange County Transportation Authority
Orange County Business Council
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
Resource Landowners Coalition
San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission
San Diego Association of Governments
San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council
Self-Help Counties Coalition
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
Southwest CA Legislative Council
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Transportation CA
Ventura Council of Governments
Western Riverside Council of Governments
SB 375
Page 21
Analysis Prepared by : J. Stacey Sullivan / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958