AB 2594 (Mullin & Nunez) – Support
As Amended on May 5, 2008

AB 2594, by Assembly Members Gene Mullin and Fabian Nunez, would allow a redevelopment agency to use tax increment funds to acquire, assume, or refinance loans to eligible homeowners with sub-prime or nontraditional mortgages in default or at risk of default.
 
CSAC supports this measure as it seeks to help low- and moderate-income persons and families affected by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It is estimated that 500,000 Californians have lost or will lose their home to foreclosure due to the epic sub-prime mortgage crisis currently hitting the state and the nation. With the high number of foreclosures occurring, and with the worst projected yet to come, it is imperative that all levels of government work together to provide the tools necessary to assist Californians to stay in their homes, as well as to help stabilize the market.

 
AB 2594 was passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 24 by a vote of 8 to 0. 

AB 3005 (Jones) – Oppose
As Amended on May 15, 2008

AB 3005, by Assembly Member Dave Jones, would require a local agency, when assessing an impact fee for the mitigation of traffic impacts on a transit-oriented housing development, to establish the fee at a rate that reflects reduced automobile trip generation associated with such developments unless the local agency finds that the development would not significantly reduce automobile trip generation.
 
First, it is unclear to us why the measure is necessary since the fee imposed on any project must meet the nexus test, which requires that the fee imposed be related to the benefit derived. Thus, the fees imposed for transit-oriented development would reflect a variety of needs not just vehicle trips. Reducing these fees would impact bicycle, pedestrian, and disabled access projects in addition to road projects. The reduction of transportation mitigation fees will jeopardize these alternatives to vehicle travel and thwart the very intent of the bill to provide transportation choices. AB 3005 comes at a time when all transportation systems are severely underfunded and reducing any one revenue stream is very problematic in meeting future needs.
 
AB 3005 will create funding shortfalls if more developments meet the qualifying standards than were originally anticipated without providing any way to make up those fees. Again, it may actually discourage transit friendly planning. Many of these capital improvement plans exist for 10- or even 20-year planning horizons. A local agency that increases transit options during this time within the plan area would see a reduction in fees because they would have to reduce the fees to new subsequent development that met the standards for reduced fees. We should be rewarding agencies that get creative, not tie their hands.
 
AB 3005 is not practical as there isn’t a way for a city or county to accurately estimate how many future developments will qualify for this reduction. As a result, if a local agency guesses wrong, jurisdictions may end up being unable to raise sufficient funds for necessary improvements.
 
Some jurisdictions, rather than considering reducing infill fees, are considering raising fees for projects that contribute to sprawl and long commutes to take into account the full impacts that such commutes have on infrastructure, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and congestion, both project specific and cumulative. While we appreciate the goal of making transit-oriented development pay less fees for traffic and congestion costs, any legislation that seeks to minimize the fees that can be charged on infill development must go the extra yard, and find on a statewide basis, that developments not entitled to a fee reduction must make up the difference. The pie must remain whole.
 
AB 3005 was passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 24 by a vote of 8 to 0.

Land Use 
AB 2093 (Jones) – Oppose
As Amended on May 23, 2008

AB 2093, by Assembly Member Dave Jones, would require that consideration of policies that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) be incorporated into a city or county's general plan.
 
CSAC is opposed to this measure for numerous reasons. Among these reasons is that the measure is premature. While AB 32 (Nunez) set a goal to make California a world leader in addressing climate change, it also recognized that the scope of this goal was so large that it allowed four years (until 2012) to begin its implementation. While the bill does not come effective until after this deadline, the prudent course would be for the state to refrain from adopting new and potentially conflicting standards until the processes that AB 32 put in motion takes shape.
 
Furthermore, AB 2093 does not consider other processes. For example, under the authorizationof SB 97 (Dutton),the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is developing new California Enivironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for addressing climate change under CEQA. At the same time, the California Transportation Commission has just adopted new Guidelines for Regional Transportation Plans to address greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the state’s Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan has yet to be published (due in December 2008). It makes more sense to see what is included in these programs and understand how they are working before adopting a new layer of regulation. The Legislature should avoid a patchwork approach and allow these programs to fully develop and integrate all regulations.
 
AB 2093 failed passage in the Senate Local Government Committee on June 25; however; reconsideration was granted. Thus, it might be heard again before the end of the legislative session. 
 
SB 303 (Ducheny) – Oppose Unless Amended
As Amended on June 9, 2008 

SB 303, by Senator Denise Ducheny, is an alternative measure to SB 375, by Senator Steinberg, that would address climate change from the land use and transportation sectors. SB 303 would require a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to include an initial planning scenario. Under this measure, the initial planning scenario would project a land use and development pattern that includes land use designations, densities, and building intensities for the area covered by the RTP based on existing general plan policies and recent and current growth patterns, provide for sufficient housing within the region to accommodate the region's medium- and long-term housing need for all income levels during the planning period, and establish a regional greenhouse gas emissions target by projecting the Land Use-Transportation Carbon Footprint associated with implementation of the regional transportation plan.
 
A transportation planning agency with a population exceeding 200,000 persons, would be required (A) to adopt and publish procedures governing the preparation and adoption of the RTP, (B) to prepare an alternative planning scenario, and (C) to submit, at least 90 days prior to circulation of the draft RTP, the initial planning scenario and the alternative planning scenario and accompanying report to the State Air Resources Board (ARB). Further, the bill would grant significant new authority to the ARB over RTPs with respect to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Lastly, SB 303 would revise the time period for the development of local housing elements to eight years and require cities and counties to rezone within three years of adoption of their housing element to meet their regional housing needs allocation (RHNA).
 
CSAC supports utilizing regional approaches to address the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; however, we have several concerns with the bill. We oppose requiring submittal of RTPs to the State and the statutory authority granted to the ARB to challenge or amend those plans. We support cities and counties working through their regional governments to develop the RTP and an enhanced land use plan to address GHG reduction targets. Regional governments are utilizing very sophisticated modeling and analysis to determine alternative growth scenarios appropriate for their unique circumstances in order to achieve the GHG reduction targets. We do not believe that the State has the expertise or knowledge to override these regional efforts and provide sufficient flexibility necessary to achieve these GHG reduction goals.
 
Lastly, we would request inclusion of language that acknowledges the contribution that many counties make towards the GHG reduction effort with respect to agriculture and resource land protection. While counties that serve in this role may not compete well for transportation investments, they remain the owners and operators of a significant portion of the state’s transportation system and thus need recognition for funding to meet preservation, safety, and interconnectivity needs.
 
SB 303 was passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee on June 23 by a vote of 13 to 0 and now awaits a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. However, Senator Ducheny intends to hold it in committee for the time being to allow discussions and negotiations to continue on both this bill and SB 375 by Senator Steinberg. 
 
Transportation 
AB 1252 (Caballero) – Support
As Amended on June 19, 2008
 
AB 1252, by Assembly Member Anna Caballero, would appropriate an additional $150 million from Proposition 1C and $150 million from Proposition 1B. These represent augmentations in this budget year. More specifically, AB 1252 would provide an additional $50 million for transit-oriented development and $100 million for infill projects. Further, the bill would provide $63 million for railroad grade crossing projects and an additional $87 million from the Proposition 1B Local Streets and Road Improvement, Congestion Relief, and Traffic Safety (LSR) Account in the current fiscal year (FY 2007-08) to counties for much needed improvements to the county roadway system.
 
CSAC supports these augmentations, but in particular supports the additional local streets and roads monies for counties. To date, counties have drawn down 99% of the county share of the first LSR appropriation and are actively putting this money into local projects in communities across the state. While the appropriation of $400 million to counties included in the Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget was a vital infusion of funds, the need on the local roadway system is far greater. Thus, all 58 counties stand ready to construct even more projects in the coming years.
 
The local system is a critical component to a seamless statewide transportation system for the traveling public, whether by vehicle or transit, for commerce or, for farm to market needs. Counties can put this money to use immediately on traffic congestion relief, traffic safety, storm damage, preservation, construction, and other projects to improve mobility throughout California.
 
AB 1252 was passed of the Assembly Floor by a unanimous vote on June 26. It is expected that the Governor will sign this measure prior to June 30. 
 
AB 2650 (Carter) – Support
As Amended on June 16, 2008
 
AB 2650, by Assembly Member Wilmer Amina Carter, would extend both reporting deadlines and the sunset for the Caltrans pilot program by which the department streamlines the environmental review process for transportation projects by assuming the federal government's review responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
 
The Pilot Program requires Caltrans to comply with all Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NEPA regulations, environmental policies, and formal guidance. Under the program, one layer of bureaucracy, related to FHWA’s review of environmental documents, is removed, decreasing the time required for environmental approvals. Based on the first six months of the pilot program, draft environmental documents have been approved in 72% less time (from a median approval time of 6.1 months prior to the Pilot Program to 1.7 months since the Pilot Program began), and final environmental l documents in 67% less time (from a median time of 2.4 months to 0.8 months). These time savings are based on a limited number of projects for which Caltrans independently made environmental approvals under the Pilot Program. Therefore, this legislation is a key element in helping Caltrans streamline the environmental review process for critical transportation projects.
 
AB 2650 is set for hearing June 30 before the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
 
AB 3034 (Galgiani & Ma) – Support
As Amended on April 21, 2008

AB 3034, by Assembly Members Galgiani and Ma, would revise, update and expand upon provisions of the original bond proposal that enacted the high-speed train system (HST) in 2002 (SB 1856, Costa) and would establish additional fiscal controls on the expenditure of state bond funds to ensure that they are directed to construction activities in the most cost effective and efficient way. Among other things, AB 3034 would do the following:
 
·   State the Legislature’s intent that construction of the HST system be consistent with the High Speed Rail Authority’s more recent November 2005 certified environmental impact report, rather than the Authority’s June 2000 Final Business Plan;
·   Place a limit on the use of bond funds for preconstruction activities in order to maximize the amount of funds available for HST system construction;
·   Ensure that complementary rail capital improvements funded from the $950 million in bond funds allocated to intercity, commuter and urban rail systems shall provide direct connectivity and benefits to the HST system and its facilities or be part of the construction of the system; and
·   Require that in selecting each specific segment for construction and prior to awarding a construction contract, the Authority must have a detailed funding plan identifying the full cost of constructing the segment and the sources of all revenues needed to complete the segment’s construction.
 
California’s booming population and current and future economic prosperity depend on access to an efficient, seamless, multi-modal transportation network – a network that should include high speed rail options. Furthermore, as all levels of government struggle battle congestion and air pollution and work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect prime agriculture and critical resource land, the need for high speed rail in California has become even greater.
 
AB 3034 is set for hearing July 1 before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.