Housing

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. 

AB 745 is set for hearing before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 17. 

AB 1229 (Atkins) – Support
As Introduced on February 22, 2013

AB 1229, by Assembly Member Toni Atkins, would restore an essential tool to counties for planning and providing their fair share of the housing need for lower-income residents in the state. Specifically, the measure restores a county’s ability to establish inclusionary zoning programs.

Counties have always had the authority to adopt local inclusionary housing ordinances. However, in a 2009 appellate court decision, Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, 175 Cal. App. 4th 1396 (2009), the courts took a very broad interpretation of the Costa-Hawkins Act and its application on inclusionary housing ordinances, eliminating a city or county’s authority to require inclusionary housing. Costa-Hawkins was intended to restrict systems of rent control, not preclude rent restrictions on inclusionary housing. 

The state is still facing a shortage of decent rental housing affordable to low-income Californians. It is critical that counties be able to establish proactive programs to help provide safe, clean, and affordable housing statewide to meet the critical demand. 

AB 1229 is set for hearing before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 17. 

SB 391 (DeSaulnier) – Request for Comment
As Amended on April 2, 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 was passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 9 by a vote of 6 to 3. The measure is now set for hearing before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. 

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 is set for hearing before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on April 17. 

AB 774 (Donnelly) – Support
As Introduced on February 21, 2013

AB 774, by Assembly Member Tim Donnelly, would expand public safety posting requirements upon counties dissolving a county service area or zone for public streets and requires notification to property owners when revenue is insufficient to meet the costs of operating and maintaining services. 

AB 774 is set for hearing before the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 17. 

AB 184 (Senate Governance and Finance Committee) – Support
As Amended on April 9, 2013

SB 184, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee Local Government Omnibus, would, among other things, provide technical clarification to the definition of a “city” in the statutes governing Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs). 

Specifically, the statutes governing IFDs only use the term “city” because “city” is defined, for the purposes of the IFD statutes, as including a city, county, and city and county. The definition of a “city” that incorporates a county is factually inaccurate and the exclusive use of the term “city” throughout the IFD statutes may mislead some readers into thinking that counties are not authorized to use IFDs. SB 184 would remove counties from the definition of a “city” and insert the term “county” throughout the statutes governing IFDs.

SB 184 is set for hearing before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 17. 

SB 684 (Hill) – Support
As Amended on April 1, 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 was set for hearing before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 9 but was canceled at the request of the author. 

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 was passed out of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on April 9 by a unanimous vote. The measure is now set for hearing before the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on May 1. 

Sacred Sites

AB 52 (Gatto) – Request for Comment
As Amended on April 8, 2013

AB 52, by Assembly Member Mike Gatto, would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to specify that a project that has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal resource would be considered a project that has a significant effect on the environment. 

AB 52 is set for hearing before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April 15. 

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 was set for hearing before the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 10 but it was canceled at the request of the author.