|
Friday, March 24, 2006
|
|
VOLUME 106
Issue 11
|
|
|
|
|  |
|
|
Housing, Land Use and Transportation
For more information, please contact DeAnn Baker at dbaker@counties.org or 916/327-7500 ext. 509.
Housing
AB 1387 (Jones) – Request for Comment
AB 1387, as amended on January 13 by Assembly Member Dave Jones, would allow local governments to incorporate the mitigation measures approved in a previously certified project area environmental impact report to be applicable to a new residential project if it does not exceed 100 units, has a minimum residential density of 20 units per acre, is located within one-half mile of a transit stop and is on an infill site in an urbanized area and is in compliance with the General Plan and local ordinances. If the project meets these criteria, the local government is not required to comply with specified requirements with respect to the making of any findings regarding the significant environmental effects from impacts of the project on traffic. AB 1387 has been assigned to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee but has not yet been set for a hearing.
AB 2158 (Evans) – Request for Comment
AB 2158, as introduced on February 21 by Assembly Member Noreen Evans, would add adopted spheres of influence for all local agencies in the region and adopted policies of the local agency formation commission in the region that relate to logical and orderly urban growth patterns to the list of specified factors required for the housing element of a General Plan. AB 2158 has been set for a hearing on April 5 in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
AB 2259 (Salinas) – Pending
AB 2259, as introduced on February 22 by Assembly Member Simon Salinas and sponsored by the League of California Cities, would extend the existing provision of the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo law – that authorizes a LAFCo to review and approve a proposal that extends services into previously unserved territory within unincorporated areas and to review the creation of new service providers to extend urban type development into previously unserved territory within unincorporated areas to ensure that the proposed extension is consistent with the policies of the commission and certain policies under state law, to January 2013. It is currently set to expire on 2007. The League expects the bill to serve as a forum for stakeholder discussions on the past effectiveness of the law, and CSAC is seeking counties’ comments on this proposal. AB 2259 has been referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee, but has not yet been set for hearing.
AB 2378 (Evans) – Request for Comment
AB 2378, as introduced on February 23 by Assembly Member Noreen Evans, would extend continued affordability agreements, whereby a developer agrees to ensure the affordability of low and very low income housing for 30 years, to moderate income dwelling units in common interest developments. AB 2378 has been referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee, but has not yet been set for hearing.
AB 2468 (Salinas) – Request for Comment
AB 2468, as introduced on February 23 by Assembly Member Simon Salinas, would allow local governments to participate in a self-certification process similar to that allowed in the San Diego Association of Governments region that would require the inventory of land included in the housing element to accommodate 100 percent of its allocated regional housing need for very low- and low-income households. The local government, once it has adopted the certificate of compliance, would then be required to submit it to the state and applicable council of governments. AB 2468 has been assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee and is scheduled to be heard on April 19.
AB 2484 (Hancock) – Request for Comment
AB 2484, as introduced on February 23 by Assembly Member Loni Hancock, would prohibit density bonus grants for housing developments built on parcels where the maximum allowable residential density exceeds 40 units per acre in metropolitan jurisdictions, 25 units per acre in suburban jurisdictions, 20 units per acre in non-metropolitan jurisdictions and 15 units per acre in unincorporated areas in non-metropolitan counties, and when parking requirements applicable to the parcel do not exceed designated parking standards. AB 2484 has been assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee and is set for hearing on April 19.
AB 2503 (Mullin) – Request for Comment
AB 2503, as introduced on February 23 by Assembly Member Gene Mullin, would allow local governments to enter into a joint powers agreement to form an affordable housing pooling arrangement for the acquisition, construction, or development of housing that is affordable to lower income families. The bill would also allow local governments to establish a housing trust fund program as part of its housing element. AB 2503 has been assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee and is set for hearing on April 19.
AB 2511 (Jones) – Request for Comment
AB 2511, as introduced on February 23 by Assembly Member Dave Jones, contains myriad new prohibitions and restrictions on the planning authority of local governments. Included in the bill are provisions to add very low-income persons or families to the protections against discrimination provided by the planning and zoning law, requirements for a court to issue an order of judgment against any local government that fails to comply with the deadlines for submitting General Plans within 60 days, and to repeal the authority of a local agency to provide by ordinance or issue a zoning variance for so-called mother-in-law units on parcels zoned for single-family and multi-family residences. AB 2511 is co-sponsored by the California Association of Realtors and has been scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 4.
AB 2526 (Arambula) – Request for Comment
AB 2526, as introduced on February 23 by Assembly Member Juan Arambula, would revise the attached housing development permitted use criteria to apply to a city or census-defined place with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and a total population of at least 2,500. AB 2526 would also authorize a local government to defer payment of required fees until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the housing development is designated for lower income households in which at least 49 percent of the total units are reserved for occupancy at an affordable rate. AB 2526 is co-sponsored by the California Association of Realtors and has been scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Committee on Local Government on April 19.
AB 2638 (Laird) – Pending
AB 2638, as introduced on February 24 by Assembly Member John Laird, would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to implement the Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program and begin offering grants through the program. AB 2638 would also eliminate the distinction in existing law between housing trusts that existed before January 1, 2003 and those that are created after that date. AB 2638 has been scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on May 1.
AB 2763 (Nava) – Request for Comment
AB 2763, as introduced on February 24 by Assembly Member Pedro Nava, would provide that relocatable housing shall be deemed an agricultural land use designation and employee housing, and shall only be used to house migrant farm workers. AB 2763 has been set for hearing on April 5 in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
AB 3005 (Emmerson) – Watch
AB 3005, as introduced by Assembly Member Bill Emmerson, would build on existing law that permits a city and county to request denial of a residential care facility license on the basis of overconcentration of residential care facilities. AB 3005 would permit a city and county to submit to the Director of Social Services additional documentation and evidence regarding the siting of a proposed residential care facility designed for 6 or fewer residents. AB 3005 has been scheduled to be heard by the Assembly human Services Committee on April 25.
AB 3042 (Evans) – Request for Comment
AB 3042, as introduced on February 24 by Assembly Member Noreen Evans, would provide an additional procedure by which a city or county may enter into an agreement to transfer a percentage of its share of the regional housing needs to another jurisdiction. AB 3042 has not yet been assigned to a committee.
SB 1177 (Hollingsworth) – Oppose
SB 1177, by Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, would delete the requirement that a developer show that a waiver or modification of development standards is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. While the California Association of Realtors and Western Center on Law and Poverty are sponsoring the bill, CSAC, the League of California Cities and California Chapter of the American Planning Association all oppose it. SB 1117 was passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on March 21 and is pending on the Senate Floor.
SB 1322 (Cedillo) – Request for Comment
SB 1322, as introduced on February 16 by Senator Gil Cedillo, would require cities and counties to provide sufficient sites with zoning that permits for emergency shelter facilities and residential service providers with six or more residents, or allow such facilities by right. Several concerns have been brought to our attention, including the process – or lack thereof -- by which counties would have to determine the need for such facilities and zone accordingly and the bill’s unlimited number of residents allowed in each facility.
Current law allows group home facilities with six or fewer residents by right in residential areas, and communities and neighborhoods would be hard pressed to absorb AB 1322’s much larger facilities. CSAC is also aware of the concern about the lack of public input in the use by right process. SB 1322 was passed by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on March 21 and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Your input and comments on this legislation are encouraged.
SB 1330 (Dunn) – Request for Comment
SB 1330, as amended March 23 by Senator Joe Dunn, would allow homebuilders and homeowners to recover attorney’s fees should they prevail in their challenge of a local governments’ compliance with the housing element law. This bill extends the sunset on this legislation, which is currently in effect, until 2008. SB 1330 is co-sponsored by the California Association of Realtors and was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 23, but was re-referred to the committee at that time.
SB 1754 (Lowenthal) – Request for Comment
SB 1754, as introduced on February 24 by Senator Alan Lowenthal, would establish a pilot project allowing for the formation, under criteria developed by councils of governments, of 100 housing and infill infrastructure financing districts throughout the state. A city or county would be eligible to apply to its council of governments or the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank in order to establish such a district. SB 1754 is sponsored by the League of California Cities and is set for hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee on April 5.
SB 1798 (Perata) – Request for Comment
SB 1798, as introduced on February 24 by Senate pro Tem Don Perata, would exempt residential projects from CEQA if they are located on an infill site on not more than 10 acres and the project does not contain more than 200 units. Current law exempts projects on not more than 4 acres and with not more than 100 residential units. SB 1798 has been assigned to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee but has not yet been set for hearing.
SB 1800 (Ducheny) – Request for Comment
SB 1800, as introduced on February 24 by Senator Denise Ducheny, would require all local governments to establish 20-year land supplies for housing, called Housing Opportunity Plans. The bill would also establish a Housing Opportunity Plan Fund, to be administered by the Pooled Money Investment Board. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, moneys in the fund shall be used for the purpose of providing loans from the Pooled Money Investment Account to cities, counties, and cities and counties to prepare and adopt plans that provide housing pursuant to the housing opportunity plans. Lastly, the bill would provide that no reimbursement shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act, but would recognize that local agencies may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs.
SB 1800 is a complex bill that stems from the Building Industry and League of California Cities negotiations of the last two years, which ultimately failed to result in a consensus approach for legislation. This measure is sponsored by the building industry. CSAC is seeking comments from counties on this legislation, which is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 4.
Transportation
AB 2295 (Arambula) – Sponsor
AB 2295, by Assembly Member Juan Arambula, would clarify in current statute that local rehabilitation projects are eligible for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding.
The city street and county road system is critical to public mobility, whether traveling by vehicle or transit, and critical to commerce and farm to market needs. Unfortunately, monies available to cities and counties, particularly for preservation of the system have failed to keep pace with the need. According to the SR 8 (Burton) report conducted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) back in 1999, the local rehabilitation needs are nearly $13 billion and will continue to grow by $400 million annually. Every dollar that is not spent today to prevent further deterioration of this system will result in the need for a $6 investment within 3 to 5 years. Access to state and federal transportation dollars are critical to supplement local revenues that are currently dedicated to the local system.
Current law recognizes the need to invest in the local transportation system, as this is a critical component to a seamless transportation network. Today local rehabilitation projects represent about 7 percent of the current STIP. This measure would simply continue that eligibility and flexibility for regions to choose appropriate funding priorities for their particular region.
For these reasons, CSAC is sponsoring AB 2295. Counties are encouraged to support AB 2295. The bill is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 17, 2006.
SB 1694 (Aanestad) – Sponsor
SB 1694 by Senator Sam Aanestad would dedicate a portion of the SAFETEA LU or federal gas tax dollars returned to California to counties for the secondary highway system.
After a two-year delay, the Federal Reauthorization for distribution of the 18-cent federal gas tax was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. Under the new act referred to as SAFETEA LU, California will receive a 34 percent increase in revenues over TEA 21 the previous federal act. This is estimated to result in approximately $5 billion more in revenues for California’s transportation needs above those received in the 6-years of the previous act.
A coalition of transportation stakeholders was formed over two years ago and dedicated its efforts to maximize the return of revenue to California in spite of differing perspectives and sometimes conflicting priorities. Now work begins on implementing SAFETEA LU at the state level to ensure the Schwarzenegger Administration and State Legislature adopt an equitable approach for distribution of these revenues.
Federal monies directed to the rural or secondary highway system have been frozen since 1991 when city and county direct subventions were eliminated and a hold harmless was adopted in state law (SB 1435, Kopp, Chapter 1177, Statutes of 1992). While other program categories have experienced a 70 percent increase in funding, the secondary highway system has not shared in that growth.
SB 1694 would ensure that the secondary highway system shares in the growth of SAFETEA LU or federal dollars directed to California. This is important for the following reasons:
· The secondary highway system is a critical component to a seamless statewide transportation system for the traveling public, whether by vehicle or transit, for commerce and for farm to market needs.
· The needs or neglect of the local system is well documented from the SR 8 (Burton) Report done in May 1999 and subsequent surveys that show only 3 of California’s counties can meet 20-year repaving cycles. In fact, 34 counties are only able to repave every 50 years, while 21 of those are beyond a 100-year repaving cycle.
· The Road Information Program (TRIP) found that rural roads have more than double the fatality rate of Interstates and Freeways and California is ranked in the top 5 states for rural road fatalities.
More specifically, SB 1694 would amend the Streets & Highways Code to allocate 15 percent or $30 million annually, whichever is higher, of the Equity Bonus monies to counties for the secondary highway system. The Equity Bonus monies represent $208 million annually, and are the only discretionary revenues allocated to California under SAFETEA LU. The total amount of the Equity Bonus money would otherwise be directed entirely to State Highway preservation under the SHOPP, which has grown from $500 million annually to $1.7 billion since 1991.
This bill would also extend the provisions in existing law that allow counties to exchange these federal dollars for state dollars in order to expedite project delivery and save on administrative overhead estimated to be twenty percent.
This measure is pending before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. Counties are urged to send support letters to the Committee on SB 1694.
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION
|
|
|
Published by
The LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN is published weekly during the State Legislative Session by the California State Association of Counties, 1100 K Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA 95814.
|
|
|
| |
