 |
| Having trouble understanding what SB 375 means to you? |
The following is an article from our fellow Citizen Marin affliate in Tam Valley and Almonte:
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE BILL SB-375 SUMMARY (May 16, 2011)
by Sharon Rushton, Ann Spake, Ann Burke, and Clayton Smith
Please
note that this summary focuses on how SB-375 encourages development in Tam
Valley and Almonte. [Ed. Note: San Rafael and Novato also have Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) that encompass SMART train station stops. Marinwood has a PDA that involves a bus stop]
Background
Information about RHNA
“Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) is a state-mandated process for determining how many
housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to
accommodate. The California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) determines the total housing need for a region, and it is the
Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG's) responsibility to distribute this need
to local governments. Working with local governments, ABAG developed an
allocation methodology for assigning units, by income category, to each city and county
in the nine-county Bay Area. This allocation of need shows local governments the
total number of housing units, by affordability, for which they must plan in
their Housing Elements for each planning period.
Allocations for each jurisdiction
are published in the annual housing report.”
Senate
Bill (SB) 375 Overview
California State
Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed into law in 2008. “SB 375 requires that our
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) that integrates land-use planning and transportation planning. For the
25-year period covered by the Regional Transportation Plan, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy must identify areas within the nine-county Bay Area sufficient
to house all of the region’s population, including all economic segments of the
population. It must also attempt to coordinate the resulting landuse pattern
with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita greenhouse-gas
emissions from personal-use vehicles (automobiles and light trucks).” (Bay Area
Plan – Initial Vision Plan 2011 by ABAG & MTC: Page 1)
SB 375 does not
supersede local laws and local governments are explicitly not required to update
their general plans in accordance with the law’s centerpiece, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS). However, SB 375 uses incentives (I.e. transportation
funding, etc.) and penalties (I.e. court sanctions; accelerated Housing Element
update cycles, etc.) to entice local jurisdictions to follow the law.
Moreover, under the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) state law, a local government is
still required to amend its Housing Element and rezone its land in order to
accommodate the quantity of housing it was assigned under the RHNA — and SB 375
requires that the RHNA be consistent with the Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS). In that sense, local governments will still be called
upon to implement
major aspects of the SCS (via the RHNA), whether or not they want to.
As a result, when
local governments select Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites, the
sites should be close to mass transit. Furthermore, when local governments update
their Housing Elements and zoning, these updates should allow for compact,
high-density, mixed-use commercial and affordable residential development at the
selected RHNA sites.
ABAG’s MTC’s Implementation of the Sustainable Communities
Strategy
Two major regional
planning agencies – the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are leading the
Sustainable Communities Strategy process. In March 2011, they released the Plan
Bay Area - Initial Vision Scenario that represents a starting point for
implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and making the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
This Initial Vision Scenario will eventually develop into the final Plan Bay
Area - Sustainable Communities Strategy. In Marin County, the Initial Vision
Scenario focuses RHNA sites near transit hubs in City Centers and along the US Route
101 highway corridor.
The Plan Bay Area -
Initial Vision Scenario incorporates Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and
Growth Opportunity Areas (areas in close proximity to public transit). When
selecting sites for RHNA residential units, local jurisdictions are encouraged to select
sites that are located within PDAs or Growth Opportunity Areas.
“Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) are locally-identified, infill development opportunity areas
within existing communities. They are generally areas of at least 100 acres where
there is local commitment to developing more housing along with amenities
and services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly
environment served by transit. To be eligible to become a
PDA, an area had to
be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or
served by comparable bus service, and planned for more .”
(http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/prioritydevelopmentareas.html)
The Plan Bay Area -
Initial Vision Scenario indicates that Unincorporated Marin County should plan
for 2738 more RHNA housing units between YEARS 2010-2035 in Priority
Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas.
Based on the Initial Vision Scenario map, the Almonte & Tam Valley
lowlands that are within ½ mile from the freeway, are targeted for growth and
have been designated part of the Hwy 101 Corridor Priority Development Area
(PDA).
**Please note that
this is not yet a permanent designation but will become permanent in March
2013 unless the community convinces the Board of Supervisors to remove
Tam Valley and Almonte from the PDA. The
blue outline & shaded area in the below area map shows the parcels of Tam Valley
and Almonte that are included in the Hwy 101 Corridor Priority Development Area
(PDA).
SB-375 Incentives for Developers to Build the “Right” Type of
Housing:
SB 375 includes
specific incentives, including State and Federal funding, ford developers that
build the “right” type of housing: Streamlined
CEQA Review and Total Exemption from CEQA for Projects Consistent with the
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) usually requires that the potentially
significant impacts of a new development project be evaluated in an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), along with mitigation measures and potential alternatives
that reduce the impact of the project. However, SB-375 streamlines and exempts
from California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) categories of development that
meet specific criteria.
“The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has sometimes created a legal barrier to infill
development. SB 375 adjusts CEQA and streamlines or exempts Environment Impact
Reports (EIRs) for projects that are consistent with either an approved Sustainable
Community Strategy (SCS) or, if the SCS does not meet its targets, an approved
Alternative Planning Strategy (APS).” (SB 375 Fact Sheet by Stuart Cohen,
Executive Director of Transform (a Bay Area transportation advocacy group) - http://transformca.org/files/TRANSFORM-SB375-factsheet.pdf) Thus, SB 375 mandates
local governments to plan for concentrated housing near transit hubs and
then gives incentives to developers to construct the housing units in those
areas.
How this affects
Tam Valley and Almonte as Plan Bay Area
implements SB 375ʼs Sustainable Communities Strategy, it mandates Marin
County to plan for concentrated housing in the PDAs and then gives incentives to
developers to construct affordable housing in those PDAs.
Therefore, as long
as Tam Valley & Almonte remain in the Hwy 101 Corridor PDA, these
districts will be targeted for accelerated development and growth.
Questions
Regarding SB – 375 That Were Answered by Stacy Laumann, a Marin
County Planner on 8/1/11:
QUESTION: In order
to comply with SB-375, when local governments select RHNA sites, must all the
sites be close to mass transit?(OR) Does the law simply encourage RHNA sites to
be close to mass transit and a local jurisdiction can choose to ignore this preference? (OR)
Does SB 375 require that a certain percentage be close to mass transit? [Background:
SB 375 requires that the RHNA be consistent with the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS).]
ANSWER: Housing
element law (not SB 375 or RHNA statutes) specifies how a jurisdiction
may satisfy its housing need (as identified by the RHNA). Housing element law
does not specifically require proximity to any amenity, such as transit.
However, it does
require (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)) “...an analysis of the
relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” Energy conservation
and efficient
land use are considered in the certification of the housing element. SB375
is intended to produce a regional plan (SCS) to reduce greenhouse gasses, and align
transportation and land use planning. RHNA consistency with the SCS has to do with
how the regionʼs projected growth is distributed to jurisdictions in the
region.
Although
the SCS has no direct control over local land use decisions, SB375 and the SCS
are intended to locate housing in proximity to transit and employment growth opportunities,
retail centers and other amenities.
QUESTION: Must all
selected RHNA sites be zoned for compact, high-density, mixed use commercial and
affordable residential development?
ANSWER: No. The
housing elementʼs site inventory must demonstrate opportunity for a
range
of housing types and income levels. A jurisdiction must also demonstrate that
land
use
conditions exist to promote and facilitate lower income housing, including
zoning for
multi-family
housing.
QUESTION: If a
local jurisdiction does not accept the incentives offered by SB 375, how
much of the law may a local jurisdiction avoid? (E.g. If a local jurisdiction does
not accept SB 375 incentives, may the local jurisdiction keep
CEQA intact and require that all developments be evaluated by a full EIR?)
ANSWER: Many
incentives offered through SB375 are related to transportation infrastructure
improvements. But it sounds like you are referring to CEQA incentives for new
structures. If a development project is consistent with SCS and certain other
criteria, then
it could qualify for streamlined CEQA incentives. Please see the following
website for
information on SB375 CEQA incentives. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/SB375-Intro-Charts.pdf
QUESTION: Could the
local jurisdiction ignore the law entirely, provided it did NOT accept any
incentives? If not, what parts of the law must a jurisdiction adhere to and what may it ignore? –
ANSWER (Given by
Brian Crawford): The incentives of
SB375 are basically access to regional transportation funding and
the CEQA streamlining measures referred to above.
We expect there to be a correlation
between the amount of regional transportation funding a local jurisdiction
receives and the amount of regional growth that is planned for the jurisdiction
through the SCS. Based on the Initial Vision Scenario, Marin County has a very
low percentage of the Bay Areaʼs projected growth over the next 30 years (I believe its somewhere around 1%). In
that regard, Marin doesnʼt appear to have much of the incentive as compared to other
places in the Bay Area that have thus far been assigned much higher projected
growth numbers in the vision scenario process and presumably will receive a larger
share of the Bay Areaʼs regional transportation funds.
Although the SCS process is still in
the planning stages, every county and city in the BayArea should be assigned some portion
of the total projected future growth and the portions will vary, in some cases
dramatically, based on the number of future households and jobs are assigned to
specific jurisdictional areas through the final SCS. The growth projections will, in
turn, affect the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) each jurisdiction is
responsible for in the next Housing Element update cycle (2014-2022), to what extent remains
to be seen. A Housing Methodology Committee
omposed of officials from around
the Bay Area is currently working on that issue. So while you may hear that local
jurisdictions are not required to comply with SB 375, how the legislation is implemented
through the SCS (i.e., how regional growth projections are allocated at the local level) will
most likely affect their Housing Element update requirements for identifying housing
opportunity sites (both market rate and affordable). I donʼt see that
connection being avoidable. Also, I donʼt think the CEQA streamlining procedures are contingent upon the
extent to which a local jurisdiction takes part in the SCS process. Itʼs more likely a
matter of whether a project is proposed that is consistent with the SCS and meets all of the other required criteria
for streamlining.
Has ABAG become Irrelevant?
