Housing

AB 325 (Alejo) – Oppose
As Introduced on February 13, 2013

AB 325, by Assembly Member Luis Alejo, would expand, from one to over four years, the statute of limitations to sue a county or city, challenging the adoption of a housing element or a number of related local ordinances. 

CSAC opposed previous efforts to expand the statute of limitations as it leaves local agencies, business, and developers unfairly open to uncertainty long after decisions have been made. Working with the American Planning Association, Rural County Representatives of California, and the League of California Cities, we have offered amendments that would provide an additional alternative to challenge the adequacy of a housing element rather than open local agencies up to litigation for an unreasonable period of time. It is unclear at this time whether the author and sponsors will accept our suggested compromise. 

AB 325 was pulled from the April 3 Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee hearing agenda at the request of the author and will be rescheduled for a future hearing. 

AB 745 (Levin) – Request for Comment
As Introduced on February 21, 2013

AB 745, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, would authorize a city or county to request the appropriate council of governments to adjust a density to be deemed appropriate if it is inconsistent with the city’s or county’s existing density. Under current law, the housing element must include analysis of identified sites which must demonstrate density standards to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional need for all income levels, including lower-income households. That law requires a city or county to either provide a prescribed analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need, or deem certain densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households. 

SB 391 (DeSaulnier) – Request for Comment
As Introduced on February 20, 2013

SB 391, by Senator Mark DeSaulnier, would enact the California Homes and Jobs Act of 2013. The bill would impose a fee, except in certain specific instances, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded. The measure would require that revenues from this fee be sent quarterly to the Department of Housing and Community Development for deposit in the newly created California Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The bill would provide that moneys in the fund may be expended to support affordable housing, administering housing programs, and the cost of periodic audits.

SB 391 is set for hearing before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 9.

Land Use

AB 116 (Bocanegra) – Support if Amended
As Amended on March 20, 2013

AB 116, by Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra, would extend, by 24-months, the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that has not expired as of the effective date of the Subdivision Map Act and will expire prior to January 1, 2016. 

CSAC does support the 24-month map extensions for more recently approved maps. However, if AB 116 were signed into law as currently in print, it would enact the eighth automatic map extension since 1990. As a result, some unexpired tentative maps may be upwards of 18 years old. Another two year extension on such old maps could prevent local governments from meeting goals and priorities established after original map approval, as well as comply with many new mandates that local agencies must now consider in approving a map. In addition to multiple housing element updates, local governments are dealing with new requirements as a result of the passage of AB 32 and SB 375 to address climate change impacts and move towards the development of more compact, sustainable communities, all of which impact local land use decisions. 

Again, CSAC supports another automatic 24-month extension for newer maps, but respectfully requests the following amendments to address our concerns with older maps:

• Provide an automatic extension of 24-months to maps that are 12 years or younger at the effective date of the extension; and
• Provide an extension at the discretion of the county or city for maps that are 12 years or older at the effective date of the extension, with tolling for those applications with maps that have been under litigation.

We believe these amendments strike a balance that allows development projects to continue to move forward as the housing market and overall economy recover yet provides for necessary local agency review of old maps to ensure they are consistent with current local planning documents. 

AB 116 was passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 3 by a vote of 9-0. However, many of the committee members spoke in favor of finding a compromise to alleviate our concerns as the measure moves forward. We look forward to continuing our work with the author and sponsors to find a mutually agreeable solution. 

AB 683 (Mullin) – Support
As Introduced on February 21, 2013

AB 683, by Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, would authorize a city or county to specially assess any fines or penalties not paid after demand by the city or county against the owner of real property whom owes fines or penalties. The fines and penalties may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as regularly county taxes thereby avoiding additional time consuming and costly new procedures. Finally, the measure would also authorize a local agency to appoint a hearing officer to hear and decide issues regarding ordinance violations and the imposition of administrative fines and penalties.

Local agencies can have code enforcement violation cases drag on for years. The changes proposed by AB 683 would provide cities and counties an additional tool for recouping fines and penalties owed to the local agency and streamlines the existing code enforcement process.

The measure passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee on April by a vote of 7-2.

SB 33 (Wolk) – Support
As Amended on March 6, 2013

SB 33, by Senator Lois Wolk, would amend state law governing Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs) to provide an improved mechanism to deliver much-needed infrastructure projects and create jobs in California. SB 33 would, among other things, eliminate the two-thirds vote requirement to establish an IFD, remove the two-thirds vote requirement to issue IFD-associated bonds, extend the life of IFDs from thirty to forty years, expand the eligible projects to include transit priority projects consistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy, and would allow IFDs to locate in former redevelopment areas.

IFDs allow the reallocation of existing tax revenues to improve a designated area and specifically allows local governments to use their property tax increment to pay for public works projects. Current law, which requires a two-thirds voter approval to create an IFD, unnecessarily discourages local governments from using this creative option to fund much needed infrastructure projects. SB 33 still requires approval of every affected taxing jurisdiction including the City Council or Board of Supervisors to approve a plan for the IFD thus making it a public process that allows for community input into the program. 

Given the fact that there has been a significant underinvestment in transportation infrastructure across the state over the past few decades and that the major sources of transportation funding are no longer sufficient to maintain our current system, let alone modernize it, SB 33 offers an much-needed solution to allow local governments more flexibility to make transportation investments in their communities.

SB 33 is set for hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 8. 

SB 684 (Hill) – Support
As Introduced on February 22, 2013

SB 684, by Senator Jerry Hill, would authorize the extension, preservation and retention of existing redevelopment signs with approval of the county or city. The bill does not authorize new signage nor are the existing signs under this proposal billboards. 

This measure is necessary in light of the elimination of redevelopment agencies and the unintended consequence that existing sign agreements cannot be extended because there is no longer a redevelopment agency to authorize the extension. Before the elimination of redevelopment agencies, these signs were exempt from the Outdoor Advertising Act. Signage agreements needed authorization from the redevelopment agency and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). SB 684 simple clarifies that existing redevelopment signs can be extended with approval of a county or city, in place of the redevelopment agency, and Caltrans. 

SB 684 is set for hearing before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 9.

Public Works Administration

SB 785 (Wolk) – Support
As Amended on April 1, 2013

SB 785, by Senator Lois Wolk, would recast existing design-build statutes for purposes of eliminating inconsistencies and consolidating present statutory authority as well as extend the sunset date on existing design-build authority and reduce the project cost threshold to projects that exceed $1 million. 

The design-build method is an approach to delivering public works projects which counties find beneficial. Under design-build, the owner contracts with a single entity to both design and construct a project at a fixed price. The owner prepares documents that describe the concept of the project and the desired outcome for the project. In addition to price, proposals are generally evaluated on criteria such as best-value, qualifications and design quality. By using design-build, projects can be completed faster, as construction can commence during the design phase. Contractors are provided with more flexibility over project design, materials and construction methods. This promotes project design and construction innovation, which can ultimately result in higher quality, as well as cost savings. Further, time-consuming and costly disputes between designer and contractor are reduced, because both parties are affiliated with the same entity.

Approximately nine counties have used the design-build method for project delivery for a variety of projects ranging from parking facilities to parks and recreation projects to fire stations. Counties, and tax payers in general, benefit from the use of design-build authority due to cost savings produced by this method of project delivery. Furthermore, given the continued difficult economic times across the State, local agencies need maximum flexibility to delivery projects based on their expertise in choosing the right delivery method.

SB 785 is set for hearing before the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on April 9.

Transportation

AB 22 (Blumenfield) – Oppose
As Introduced on December 3, 2012

AB 22, by Assembly Member Blumenfield, would require any city or county that has an ordinance that requires the city or county to repair or reconstruct streets, sidewalks, or driveways damaged as a result of tree growth to obtain voter approval before repealing that ordinance.

CSAC opposed a similar measure introduced in 2012 and we continue to oppose this policy proposal as it creates a dangerous precedent, undermines the role of county boards of supervisors, and creates a disincentive for local governments to assist with the costs of sidewalk repairs.

AB 22 is set for hearing before the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 10.