Senate Bill 375 Barbara J. Higgins, Esq. Rebecca S. Harrington, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Senate Bill 375

Barbara J. Higgins, Esq. Rebecca S. Harrington, Esq.

Prepared for Christopher A. Joseph & Associates February 23, 2009

VOCABULARY

• California Air Resources Board = CARB

(New) Regional Targets Advisory Committee = RTAC

• Metropolitan Planning Organization = MPO

18 MPOs (includes Tahoe) South Coast Area Governments = SCAG

Six County Region: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, Ventura 187 Cities

• (MPO’s) Regional Transportation Plan = RTP
• (New/ADDED to RTP) Sustainable Communities Strategy = SCS
• (New/NOT in RTP) Alternative Planning Scenario = APS
• (MPO’s) Regional Housing Needs Assessment = RHNA

FOUNDATIONS

• What Does SB 375 Do?

Reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) Coordinate Regional Housing and Transportation Policies with Local Land Use Planning

• How Would SB 375 Work?
• CARB/RTAC Set Regional GHG Reduction Targets for 2020 &

2035

• MPOs Align RTP & RHNA; Adopt SCS/APS to Meet Regional

Target

• Local Agencies Rezone to Meet Regional RTP & RHNA Goals

BUILDING BLOCKS

• CARB/RTAC – Now to September 30, 2010
• Set Regional GHG Emission Reduction Targets
• CARB Approves or Rejects MPOs SCS/APS
• MPOs – October 1, 2010 begin 8-year planning cycle for RTPs
• Adopt SCS in RTP (SCAG = 2012; SCAG wants 2016)
• Formulate APS
• Align Timing of RTP (Transportation) & RHNA (Housing Allocation)
• Local Agencies – 18 mos. Post-RHNA Allocation
• Revise Housing Elements (18 months post-RHNA allocation to deliver to HCD)
• Rezone to Meet RHNA Allocations (3 years to comply; judicially enforceable)
• Discretion to Adopt Plans Consistent with Regional SCS/APS

GHG TARGET TIMELINE (CARB-RTAC)

2009 2010

1/31/2009 RTAC Appointed 9/30/2009 Targets to CARB 6/30/2010 Draft Targets Issued by CARB Opportunity to Comment (MPO Workshop) 9/30/2010 CARB Adopts Targets 6/1/2009 Opt Out of 8-year Cycle

SCS/APS TIMELINE (MPOs)

.

10/1/2010 RTP Updates & SCS- APS Using Targets 3/2012 SCAG Issues Draft RTP/SCS/APS for Public Review & Comment* 5/2012 SCAG Adopts Final RTP Updates & SCS- APS* 7/2012 CARB Approves

• r Rejects SCAG

Docs Public “Scoping” Workshops 55 Day Minimum 3 Public Hearings 60 Days * Dates differ depending on when MPOs’ RTP Update is due.

2010 2012

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

.

2014 2017

3/2014 Submittal of Updated Housing Element to HCD 12/2014 Annual Report to HCD Public Meeting 3/2017 Rezoning Consistent with Housing Element/RHNA

CEQA “INCENTIVES”

• Transit Priority Projects (TPPs) & Non-TPPs In APS/SCS
• Transit Priority Projects – PRC §§ 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2

 50% or more residential (based on total square footage)  If mixed-use, FAR must be 0.75 or more  Density must be 20 du/acre or more  Project is within ½ mile of major transit stop or high quality transit corridor per RTP  Consistent with SCS/APS

• If TPP AND Consistent with SCS/APS, May Qualify For:
• Full Exemption – New PRC § 21155.1
• “Streamlined” Review – New PRC § 21155.2
• Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (MND)
• Shorter EIR

TPP FULL EXEMPTION – PRC 21155.1

• TPP Must Be A “Sustainable Communities Project”

 TPP meets 8 Environmental Criteria, and  TPP meets 7 Land Use Criteria, and  TPP meets one of the following:

 20% for-sale moderate (30 years), or 10% low-income rental (55 years),

• r 5% very low income rental (55 years); OR

 Developer pays equivalent in-lieu fees per local ordinance; OR  TPP provides public open space equal to 5 ac/1,000 residents

• Notes:
• Public Hearing and Findings Required
• Similar to Current Infill Exemption (PRC § 21159.24)

TPP “STREAMLINED” REVIEWS – PRC § 21155.2

• Sustainable Communities Envt’l Assessment (New)

1) Use when TPP is not a SCP, but includes all feasible mitigation (from prior EIRs) and impacts mitigated to LTS 2) Essentially a Mitigated Negative Declaration, except:

• Cumulative effects not treated as “cumulative considerable” if

addressed and mitigated in prior EIR;

• Growth inducing impacts need not be discussed
• Project specific and cumulative impacts from cars/light trucks need

not be discussed

3) Judicial Review: “Substantial Evidence” not “Fair Argument”

TPP “STREAMLINED” REVIEW CONT’D

• Traditional EIR, But Omit Off-Site Alternatives:

1)Use When TPP Has Significant Or Potentially Significant Impacts As Identified In Initial Study 2)Discuss Only Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Areas As Identified in The IS 3)No Need to Study Off-Site Alternatives

NON-TPP STREAMLINED REVIEW (PRC § 21159.28)

• Non-TPP Projects Consistent with SCS/APS:

1) Project is at least 75% residential (based on square footage) 2) Project must incorporate mitigation under prior applicable environmental document 3) Environmental document need not include

1) Growth Inducing Impacts; 2) Project specific or cumulative impacts from cars/light trucks on global warming or the regional transportation network; 3) Reduced Density Alternative to address car/light truck impacts

TPP TRAFFIC MITIGATION (PRC § 21155.3)

• Local Jurisdiction Can Adopt Standard Traffic

Mitigation for TPPs:

1)Requires Public Hearing 2)Agency Can Institute Both Physical Improvements and/or Transit Funds 3)If Adopted, TPP not required to perform additional mitigation

SB 375 RESOURCES

• SB 375: www.leginfo.ca.gov
• California League of Cities: www.cacities.org
• CARB: www.arb.ca.gov
• So. California Assoc. of Governments: www.scag.ca.gov
• CalTrans: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/index.html

THANK YOU!

Barbara J. Higgins, Esq. Rebecca S. Harrington, Esq.