BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1886
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1886 (McCarty)
As Amended May 11, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Natural |8-1 |Williams, Jones, |Mark Stone |
|Resources | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Hadley, | |
| | |Harper, McCarty, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Revises the definition of a "transit priority project"
for purposes of qualifying for abbreviated review under the
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to permit up to 50%
of the parcels within the project to be farther than one-half
mile from a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor,
as defined.
AB 1886
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1)CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA. (CEQA includes various statutory
exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA
guidelines.)
2)Requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to include
a SCS, in their regional transportation plans, or an
alternative planning strategy (APS), for the purpose of
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; aligns planning for
transportation and housing; and creates specified incentives
for the implementation of the strategies, including CEQA
exemption or abbreviated review for residential or mixed-use
residential "transit priority projects," if the project is
consistent with the use designation, density, building
intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project
area in either an approved SCS or APS. [SB 375 (Steinberg),
Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008]
a) Requires a "transit priority project" to meet the
following conditions:
i) Contain at least 50% residential use;
ii) Provide at least 20 dwellings per acre; and
iii) Be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or
high-quality transit corridor. To qualify, all parcels
within the project must have no more than 25% of their
area farther than one-half mile from transit and not more
than 10% of the residential units or 100 units, whichever
is less, may be farther than one-half mile from transit.
b) Defines "major transit stop" as a site containing an
AB 1886
Page 3
existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by
either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection
of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods.
c) Defines "high-quality transit corridor" as a corridor
with fixed route bus service with service intervals no
longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
3)Establishes abbreviated CEQA review procedures for specified
infill projects, where only specific or more significant
effects on the environment which were not addressed in a prior
planning-level EIR need be addressed. An EIR for such a
project need not consider alternative locations, densities,
and building intensities or growth-inducing impacts. Infill
projects may include residential, retail, commercial, transit
station, school, or public office building projects located
within an urban area. [SB 226 (Simitian), Chapter 469,
Statutes of 2011] SB 226 requires the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines to implement its
infill provisions, including statewide standards to promote
smart growth, reduction of GHG emissions, reduction in water
use, energy efficiency improvements, and protection of public
health.
4)Exempts from CEQA residential, mixed-use, and "employment
center" projects, as defined, located in "transit priority
areas" within one-half mile of an existing or planned major
transit stop, if the project is consistent with an adopted
specific plan and specified elements of a SCS or APS adopted
pursuant to SB 375. [SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386,
Statutes of 2013]
5)Exempts from CEQA specified residential housing projects which
meet detailed criteria established to ensure the project does
not have a significant effect on the environment, including
AB 1886
Page 4
urban infill housing projects not more than 100 units on a
site and not more than 4 acres in size which is within
one-half mile of a major transit stop. [SB 1925 (Sher),
Chapter 1039, Statutes of 2002]
6)The CEQA Guidelines further exempt infill projects meeting the
following conditions:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general
plan designation and all applicable general plan policies,
as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered,
rare, or threatened species.
d) Approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects
AB 1886
Page 5
of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public
agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial
study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a
significant effect on the environment. If the initial study
shows that the project would not have a significant effect on
the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative
declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may
have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project,
identify and analyze each significant environmental impact
expected to result from the proposed project, identify
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent
feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has
received environmental review, an agency must make certain
findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated
into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring
program to ensure compliance with those measures.
CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as
categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. Since 1985, any
residential development project can be exempt from CEQA if the
project is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has
been certified. In 2002, SB 1925 established CEQA exemptions
for certain residential projects providing affordable urban or
agricultural housing, or located on an infill site within an
urbanized area and meeting specified unit and acreage criteria.
For purposes of qualifying for the CEQA exemption for urban
infill housing, projects must be within one-half mile of a major
transit stop.
More recently, the Legislature has enacted CEQA exemptions and
streamlining for residential and certain other projects in
infill areas. SB 375 (2008) provided a CEQA exemption for a
narrow set of eligible residential projects in infill areas
AB 1886
Page 6
adjacent to transit, as well as alternatives of abbreviated EIR
and mitigated negative declaration review. SB 226 (2011)
provided abbreviated CEQA review procedures for a broader set of
urban infill projects, including retail, commercial, and public
buildings, with no requirement regarding proximity to transit.
SB 743 (2013) established a new exemption for residential,
mixed-use, and "employment center" projects located within
one-half mile of a major transit stop, if the project is
consistent with an adopted specific plan and specified elements
of a SB 375 strategy. SB 743 also required OPR to propose
revisions to the CEQA Guidelines for transportation impacts to
better support infill development.
SB 375 provide three alternative forms of relief for CEQA review
of transit priority projects: exemption, sustainable
communities environmental assessment, and abbreviated EIR. The
amendments made by this bill apply to the latter two, but not to
the exemption.
According to the author:
Past legislative efforts, such as SB 226, SB 375 and SB 743,
have sought to update CEQA by creating exemptions and
streamlining provisions for projects which meet specific
criteria. The goals of those efforts were to maintain the
integrity of CEQA, while recognizing that certain projects
do not require as thorough review as others. These are
projects which must be close to mass transit, promote smart
growth strategies and are environmentally friendly.
These types of development pose significant challenges for
both the developer/builder and for the city looking to
approve them. Infill projects are complicated and face
significant threats of litigation and other hurdles. This
is because the nature of infill means that projects are
AB 1886
Page 7
surrounded by current residents, business or outside groups
who may oppose the project despite its benefits to both the
environment and the community. After many discussions with
OPR, Infill Builders, the City of Sacramento, environmental
and labor groups, we found that the use of a streamlined EIR
is an effective way to reduce some of the CEQA burden on
projects, while still maintaining an avenue for objections
to be raised concerning individual projects.
A streamlined EIR, as allowed for transit priority projects,
is a valuable tool for infill development. It carries the
litigation protection as a full EIR, but is less expensive
and less time consuming. It must still consider
environmental impacts of a proposed project and must go
through the public process for comments or revisions. By
changing the requirements which have access to streamlined
EIRs, cities may have the ability to attract more infill
development.
This bill seeks to encourage more environmentally friendly
infill development by making a slight change to [Public
Resources Code] PRC 21155 to allow for more flexibility in
project design, while still remaining within walking
distance to high quality transit. It changes the current
requirement of how much of an entire mixed use or
residential infill project of no more than 200 residential
units is within one-half mile from mass transit from 75% to
50%. This change only affects the non-residential pieces of
a project. Current law would remain the same under this
bill, that 90% of residential units be within one-half mile
distance to mass transit.
Environmental groups opposed to the bill contend that the
one-half-mile limit is not just about proximity of transit to
housing, but also to jobs and retail:
AB 1886
Page 8
AB 1886 maintains that no more than 10% of the residential
units in the development, or 100 units, whichever is less,
can be located more than one-half mile away from the transit
station. We are pleased to see an effort to honor the
original intent of SB 375, to locate the majority of
residential units in walking distance from the transit stop.
However, we are concerned about the impacts?on the
commercial and retail portions of a project. A report on
Transit Oriented Development published by the Public Policy
Institute of California recommended a greater emphasis on
locating commercial development and jobs near transit to
reduce vehicle miles traveled and promote transit ridership.
If the bulk of the jobs are located too far from a station
for the transit to be a viable commuting option, this
commercial development, while near transit, may not reduce
vehicle miles traveled. Moreover, AB 1886 might result in
more, larger projects that choose to locate the full 100
residential units more than one-half mile from transit,
rendering transit a less viable option for these residents.
Analysis Prepared by:
Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN:
0002980
AB 1886
Page 9