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) 1/31/2009 6/30/2010 9/30/2010 RTAC Appointed Draft Targets CARB Adopts Issued by CARB Targets 2009 2010 6/1/2009 9/30/2009 Opportunity to Comment Opt Out of 8-year Targets to CARB (MPO Workshop) Cycle
SCS/APS TIMELINE (MPOs) . 3/2012 5/2012 7/2012 SCAG Issues Draft SCAG Adopts Final 10/1/2010 CARB Approves RTP/SCS/APS for Public RTP Updates & SCS- or Rejects SCAG RTP Updates & SCS- Review & Comment* APS* Docs APS Using Targets 2010 2012 Public “Scoping” Workshop s 55 Day Minimum 60 Days 3 Public Hearings * Dates differ depending on when MPOs’ RTP Update is due.
LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 3/2017 . 3/2014 Rezoning Consistent with Submittal of Updated Housing Element/RHNA Housing Element to HCD 2014 2017 12/2014 Annual Report to HCD Public Meeting
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), or 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.
Recommend
More recommend
