The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-10-07 - AGENDA REPORTS - AB 32 SB 375 (2)Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kellar and Members of the City Council Chairperson Kennedy and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Kenneth R. Pulskamp, City Manageroll�ox DATE: October 7, 2008 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 32 AND SENATE BILL NO. 375 RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council and Planning Commission receive report regarding Assembly Bill No. 32 and Senate Bill No. 375 and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. BACKGROUND Assembly Bill No. 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is legislation passed by the State that commits California to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing AB 32. In June, CARB issued a draft Scoping Plan (Plan) outlining how it intends to meet the goals outlined by the bill. CARB estimates that in order to comply with AB 32, a reduction of 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide will need to be achieved by 2020. A majority of these reductions are scheduled to come from new transportation strategies, energy efficiency strategies and low carbon fuel standards. The Plan will be presented to CARB for consideration in November, 2008. The Plan must be adopted by law prior to January, 2009. At this time, CARB has not issued any requirements for local governments to reduce their GHG emissions. Rather, the Plan encourages local governments to take steps to make these reductions voluntarily and to work cooperatively with CARB to do so. Of primary interest to many local governments in the State is AB 32's language regarding community design. The Plan recommends that local governments employ both land use policies and design standards that reduce GHG emissions. Although this is consistent with the goals and objectives of the One Valley One Vision process, there is some concern that AB 32 could eventually place mandates on local land use patterns, thereby restricting local land use authority. In fact, various environmental interests have submitted comments to CARB to include specific land use requirements within the Plan. CARB maintains that the Plan will continue to leave land use decisions to local governments. Summary of Assembly Bill No. 32 and Senate Bill No. 375 October 7, 2008 Page 2 Senate Bill No. 375: SB 375 sets out a path for establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for the transportation sector (cars and light trucks) using an incentive based, regional approach. The California Air Resources Board (CARE) will set these reduction targets and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) will develop plans to achieve them. The 14 sub -regions of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the MPO representing six southern California counties, including Los Angeles County, will need to work together to create a regional plan, called a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS will identify how regions will meet the emissions targets established by CARB. CARB will review the SCS and has approval authority. Significant milestones in the process include the following: • A Regional Targets Committee (RTC) will be formed to advise CARB on setting regional GHG emissions targets; • The RTC must make recommendations to CARB by September 30, 2009; • CARB must set regional GHG emissions targets by September 30, 2010; • The 14 sub -regions within SCAG would work together to create the SCS; • The SCS must be completed in conjunction with the RTP after the emissions targets have been released. The draft 2008 RTP is currently under public review for adoption in 2009. The adoption date for the next RTP after September 30, 2010 is unknown; • CARB will review the SCS and has approval authority; • Future transportation projects that are in compliance with the SCS will receive funding priority. SB 375 establishes CEQA-related incentives for projects that are consistent with an approved SCS: • Residential or mixed-use residential projects will not be required to analyze GHG emissions caused by cars and light trucks; • Residential or mixed-use residential projects will not be required to address growth inducing or cumulative impacts from cars and light trucks; • Environmental documents will not be required to analyze a reduced density alternative to address effects of a project on global climate change, the regional transportation network, or to address growth inducing impacts; • Establishes specific exemptions from CEQA or a streamlined CEQA process regarding "transit priority projects." A transit priority project is defined as at least 50% residential, a density of at least 20 units per acre within one-half mile of a transit corridor. SB 375 would make two significant changes to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) issued by SCAG. First, the RHNA allocation must be consistent with the SCS. Under Summary of Assembly Bill No. 32 and Senate Bill No. 375 October 7, 2008 Page 3 SB 375, the housing need must be consistent with the development pattern for residential housing that reduces GHG emissions. This means that the RHNA allocation concept of "fair share" may change. Second, cities and counties in areas of Clean Air Act non -attainment would have eight years to update their housing elements instead of the current five year schedule. Although the concepts contained within the City's One Valley One Vision program are consistent with the intent of SB 375, there are several significant implications: • SB 375 indirectly dictates local land use' policy: Although the bill specifically states that it does not diminish local land use authority, it effectively requires local agencies to make planning decisions consistent with the SCS in order for their transportation projects to be eligible for state and federal transportation funds; • MPO's would have greater authority to select eligible transportation projects based on the regional SCS: MPO's would be granted broader authority to select projects eligible for funding based on the SCS; • GHG emissions could become the deciding factor in transportation investments: Because projects that are not consistent with the SCS may not be funded, more conventional factors inherent in transportation planning such as the economic vitality, enhanced mobility, or full consideration of social and financial forces, may not be considered as carefully; and • May jeopardize "capacity enhancing" transportation projects: The bill implies making, "capacity enhancing," projects (highway, roadway, rail, etc.) a potential target for litigation because these types of projects may not be consistent with the SCS and therefore considered the "wrong" kind of growth. SB 375 references the roles of sub -regional councils of governments located within the six county Southern California Association of Government regions in preparing the SCS. Santa Clarita is not located within a formal sub -regional council of governments. Staff is currently researching the applicability to Santa Clarita of those provisions of SB 375 relating to sub -regional councils of government. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other actions as determined by the City Council and Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. However, the full implications of how SB 375 may affect funding decisions for transportation projects in the SCV is unknown at this time. KP:DGP:kb S \CD\Dave Peterson\Green Team\aWsW75 study session 10708 doc C • Assembly Bill No. 32 & Senate Bill No. 375 ••sea Purpose •e•e Assembly Bill 32: Summary !*I, • Summarize AB 32 and SB 375 City Council I Planning Commission o, Joint Study Session October 7, 2008 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 32 ••0{0 Assembly Bill 32: Summary "� l ®vr • California Air Resources Board (CARB) Is the lead agency • Created a "Draft Scoping Plan" in June of 2008 • Will be presented to CARB for adoption In November, 2008 • Must be adopted prior to January, 2009 • WIII take effect In 2012 L • Requires California to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 • Estimated Reduction of 169 million metric tons of CO2 • Requires an 80% reduction in GHG by 2050 • Majority of reductions will come from the transportation sector, new energy efficiency strategies and a new low -carbon fuel standard Assembly Bill 32: Summary • No requirement for local governments • Encourages local governments to set local emission reduction targets • Encourages local governments to implement • Demand-side energy reduction strategies • Green building programs • Waste and recycling programs • Water efficiency programs • "Green' Fleet vehicles • Land use strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled 1 ••sea Purpose •e•e Assembly Bill 32: Summary !*I, • Summarize AB 32 and SB 375 • Discuss potential Implications • Requires California to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 • Estimated Reduction of 169 million metric tons of CO2 • Requires an 80% reduction in GHG by 2050 • Majority of reductions will come from the transportation sector, new energy efficiency strategies and a new low -carbon fuel standard Assembly Bill 32: Summary • No requirement for local governments • Encourages local governments to set local emission reduction targets • Encourages local governments to implement • Demand-side energy reduction strategies • Green building programs • Waste and recycling programs • Water efficiency programs • "Green' Fleet vehicles • Land use strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled 1 •seo Assembly Bill 32: Summary !*I, • "The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" • Requires California to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 • Estimated Reduction of 169 million metric tons of CO2 • Requires an 80% reduction in GHG by 2050 • Majority of reductions will come from the transportation sector, new energy efficiency strategies and a new low -carbon fuel standard Assembly Bill 32: Summary • No requirement for local governments • Encourages local governments to set local emission reduction targets • Encourages local governments to implement • Demand-side energy reduction strategies • Green building programs • Waste and recycling programs • Water efficiency programs • "Green' Fleet vehicles • Land use strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled 1 ••a9n AB 32: Implications 9a•s •• 3,f • CARB being pressured to require programs for local governments • Could limit local land use authority • No criteria established for GHG analysis in Environmental documents ••9.O •PPO Senate Bill 375: Summary 00a ' gym i • Signed by the Govemor"on September 30, 2008 • Relationship to AB 32 • Appliesonly to cars and light trucks as they relate to transportation and land use planning • AB 32 will determine the emission reduction target state wide • SB 375 will determine the required regional emission reduction • Requires • CARB to set regional GHG reduction targets • Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) to develop plans to meet the targets •N•6 •roe Senate Bill 375: Summary Owi S Y.1 S +1 • Achieving Regional GHG Reduction Targets • MPO's responsible for drafting Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) • Part of the Regional Transit Plans (RTP's) • Establishes a land use baseline • Must project long-term growth • SB 375 does not require reduction targets be met, nor does it affect local land use or general plans • It does give priority to transportation projects consistent with the SCS • It does allow some relief from CEQA for specific types of projects SENATE BILL NO. 375 MOO •••a Senate Bill 375: Summary 0a9PP O•sa 9Ah• a z • Setting Regional GHG Reduction Targets' • CARB will appoint a Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC) to advise CARB • RTAC must make recommendations to CARB by September 30, 2009 • CARB to set targets by September 30, 2010 ••••� •a•a Senate Bill 375: Summary •9S6 • Achieving Regional GHG Reduction Targets • The Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG) Is the regional MPO for Santa Clanta • The Sub -Regions will create the SCS with SCAG • Annual Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) must be consistent with the SCS 2 Senate Bill 375: Summary • Relief from CEQA for Projects Consistent with the SCS: • Exemption from Analysis of GHG Emissions • Growth Inducing & Cumulative Traffic Impacts • Reduced Density Alternative • Transit Priority Projects • New CEQA Exemption • SCS/APS Environmental Assessment •aem = ao�e DISCUSSION SB 375: Implications •Pam ssm-a • OVOV is consistent in concept • Indirectly Dictates Local Land Use Authority • Ties land use directly to transportation • SCAG's Regional Council would give more weight to RTP eligible protects consistent with the SCS • Could make GHG emissions the deciding factor in determining where transportation investments are made • May jeopardize "capacity enhancing" projects • Will require more involvement from the City in the Regional Planning Process M