 |
 |
Follow Marin Events
|
•
• •
• |
|
======================================================== SACRAMENTO SMART GROWTH REPORT October 7, 2002
IN THIS ISSUE: 1) Stronger Planning Rules Meet with Some Success 2) More Significant Housing Law Changes To Take Effect 3) New Measures to Facilitate Infill Development 4) CEQA Changes Coming Stronger Planning RULES Meet with Some Success The biggest news on the planning front this year came on September 29th with the signing of AB 857 (Wiggins and Sher). The bill establishes three planning priorities for the state – promoting infill development and equity, protecting the most valuable natural and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns where infill development is not possible – to be used in determining state infrastructure spending. The measure also asks the state’s five-year infrastructure plan, the Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) and other state functional plans to be consistent with these priorities, and directs the Governor to establish a process for resolving conflicts between state agencies, agency functional plans, and state infrastructure projects. In his signing message, the Governor stated, “I commend the authors for their dedication and commitment to the important environmental and long-term planning needs of California.” He went on to ask that “OPR [the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research], with the assistance of all state agencies, prepare the 2003 Environmental Goals and Policy Report and to examine conflicts, which may exist between and within state agencies and their policies and programs. I remain committed to seeing these important responsibilities through.” This will be the first update of the EGPR since 1978. The Governor had also signed SB 1808 (McPherson), which would have required OPR to report to the Governor and the Legislature annually regarding implementation of the State Environmental Goals and Policy Report. Because the code section contained in SB 1808 was also affected by AB 857, and AB 857 was signed last, SB 1808 will not take effect. However, the Governor and OPR have made clear their intentions to produce a new EGPR by next year. CFN cosponsored AB 857 with CFN’s Affiliate, the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the bill’s sponsor. CFN is clearly pleased with the Governor’s signature on the bill and signing message, and looks forward to working on its implementation with Affiliates and others. A number of other planning-related measures also were signed, including the following: SB 1468 (Knight) – Increases requirements for planning by cities, counties, and the Public Utilities Commission, as well as OPR advisory materials, related to growth affecting military facilities and military readiness, as federal funds are available to reimburse the costs of compliance. AB 2787 (Aroner) – Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, to develop guidelines and at least one model ordinance for new construction and home modifications that are consistent with principles of universal design that increase housing options for seniors, people with disabilities, and others. SB 1711 (Costa) – Clarifies that water treatment facilities are to be exempt from local building and zoning ordinances in the same way as other water and electrical energy facilities. The Governor, however, vetoed a number of measures that would have increased local planning requirements, based on budget concerns over direct state costs or reimbursable local costs. These bills included: ·
AB 2175 (Daucher), which
required OPR to include in its guidelines for city and county general plans
how to address human services matters. · AB 2954 (Simitian), required the land use element of the general plan to address the distribution of child care facilities. · AB 3057 (Matthews), which required a city or county to amend its general plan to include a local agricultural and open-space element. A few other good ideas never made it to the Governor’s desk: AB 1927 (Kehoe) was a $6 billion G.O. bond act providing funds for neighborhood residential and commercial infrastructure needs, for infrastructure needs related to transit-oriented development, and for infill development and mixed-use projects. These ideas were later folded into SB 1647 (Perata), a $1 billion bond act which made it to the Assembly floor. AB 784 (Hertzberg) would have required OPR to develop a model residential building code along “new urbanist” lines. More Significant Housing Law Changes TO TAKE
EFFECT Efforts to substantially reform housing element law and enforcement procedures died this session, with the inability to agree on the contents of SB 910 (Dunn). However, in addition to Senator Burton’s successful $2.1 billion housing bond and construction defect legislation reported on in the last issue, several more significant pieces of housing legislation were also signed by the Governor in the last weeks. AB 2292 (Dutra) prohibits a city or county from downzoning any parcel below the density that the Department of Housing and Community Development used to determine compliance by the locality with the housing element of the general plan. The only exception is if the city or county can establish, through written findings based on substantial evidence, that the downzoning is consistent with the general plan and does not reduce the number of identified residential units below the city or county's share of the regional housing need. If a city or county chooses to downzone in one area of its jurisdiction in a way that drops it below its regional housing need requirement, then it must increase density by upzoning in some other area or taking other action to keep the overall number of housing units consistent with the amount set forth in the general plan's housing element. The bill also requires a court, with very limited exceptions, to award attorney's fees and court costs to a plaintiff who successfully sues a local government for violating the provisions of this bill. Cosponsors of the measure were the California Association of Realtors, California Apartment Association, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Western Center on Law and Poverty. AB 1866 (Wright), a fairly controversial measure
discussed in the September 24th issue, significantly changes existing density
bonus law to, among other things, prohibit local governments from applying any
development standard – broadly defined as any ordinance, general plan
element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local law, policy,
regulation or condition – that would preclude the development of
developer-requested density bonus units. It also requires the court to award
the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit if a court finds
that a city or county’s refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of
development standards is in violation of the new law. The measure also
requires ministerial (administrative) review of second units. SB 972 (Costa) excludes from prevailing wage laws adopted last year the construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of privately owned residential projects that are self-help housing, operated on a not-for-profit basis as housing for homeless persons, or that provide for housing assistance, but the measure does not preempt local prevailing wage ordinances for housing projects. SB 1721 (Soto) extends the existing 'anti-NIMBY' statute – which restricts local governments' ability to reject or render infeasible housing developments for low- and moderate-income households – to include the use of design review standards to block a proposed housing development. It also specifically clarifies that the law applies to farmworker housing. Based on state cost concerns, the Governor vetoed two other significant measures: SB 1509 (Dunn), which would have offset the property tax lost by local governments due to the tax-exempt status of nonprofit-owned affordable housing; and SB 1654 (Burton), which would have established within the Governor's office an Office of Homelessness. New Measures to Facilitate Infill Development The Governor has signed two bills to help facilitate new infill development. SB 1636 (Figueroa) exempts an “infill opportunity zone” from the level of service standards for roadways that are specified in a congestion management program. An infill opportunity zone is defined as a specific area designated by a city or county before Dec. 31, 2009, as a target for new compact residential, mixed use retail or mixed use commercial development within 1/3 mile of: a site with an existing or future rail transit station; a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service; or an intersection of at least two major bus routes, or within 300 feet of a bus rapid transit corridor, in counties with a population over 400,000. The bill requires the mixed use development zoning to consist of three or more land uses that facilitate significant human interaction in close proximity, with housing as the primary land use supported by other land uses such as office, hotel, health care, hospital, entertainment, restaurant, retail, and service uses. The measure was sponsored by CFN’s Affiliate, the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP). SB 1925 (Sher) recasts, recodifies, and consolidates
into one article various exemptions from CEQA requirements, including
exemptions for agricultural housing, affordable housing projects, and projects
in the central business district in the City of Oakland. The measure also
provides a new exemption from CEQA for an infill project that: is not more
than 100 residential units; is on an infill site of not more than 4 acres
total located within an urbanized area; is within one-half mile of a major
transit stop; does not include any single-level building that exceeds 100,000
square feet; promotes higher density infill housing, as defined; at least 10%
of the housing is sold to families of moderate income, or not less than 10% of
the housing is rented to families of low income, or not less than 5% of the
housing is rented to families of very low income; the project developer
provides sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to
ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for very low,
low-, and moderate-income households as specified; community-level
environmental review has been certified or adopted within specified time
limits; and the project meets other specified conditions. CEQA still applies
to a development project that meets the above criteria if any of the following
occur: there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a
project-specific, significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances, or substantial changes or new information with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that are related to
the project has occurred since community-level environmental review was
certified or adopted.
With respect to a project that includes a housing
development, SB 1925 prohibits a public agency from reducing the proposed
number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a
particular significant effect on the environment if it determines that there
is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that
would provide a comparable level of mitigation. It also prohibits the division
of a project into smaller projects to qualify for one or more exemptions from
CEQA. The Governor vetoed AB 2561 (Vargas), which would have
allowed a city council to form for 10 years a business improvement district
(BID) that contains a mass transit station and that proposes to spend a
minimum of 25% of its budget promoting or encouraging mass transit use, upon
the submission of a written petition signed by 30% of the property owners in
the proposed district. In the Governor’s veto message, he stated, “I am
committed to the principles of smart growth and urban revitalization.”
However, he objected to the bill based on concerns over lowered petition
requirements (30% vs. 50% of property owners) and longer assessment periods
(10 years vs. 5 years) compared to existing BID law. CEQA Changes Coming Besides SB 1925 described above, several other changes to CEQA will also take effect next January: AB 1108
(Pavley) provides that any noticed scoping meeting that is conducted in the
city or county in which a project is located pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is deemed to satisfy the state scoping meeting
requirement under CEQA with regard to projects of statewide, regional, or
areawide significance. Would also impose additional requirements on a lead
agency related to project’s with potential effects on military activities.
SB 1393 (Kuehl), among many provisions, permits an appeal of a CEQA-related decision, such as a CEQA exemption or negative declaration, made by a non-elected body (e.g., a planning commission) to the City Council or Board of Supervisors before the filing of a lawsuit. It also limits to “reasonable” costs the fees local jurisdictions may charge groups filing a lawsuit for producing local records. It also allows a party to be added to a lawsuit, preventing a lawsuit from being dismissed simply because the plaintiff fails to name within 30 days a party other than the lead agency and real parties. It additionally requires the Resources Agency to develop a protocol, with public participation, for reviewing certified regulatory programs to evaluate their consistency with CEQA. The Governor, however, vetoed SB 1828 (Burton) which would have made significant changes to CEQA concerning projects with potential effects on Native American sacred sites. Measures to Spend Park Bond Funds Signed
Proposition 40, passed by the voters in March 2002, contained bond funds for a variety of program categories. Several bills signed this session more specifically allocate the funds within those categories. These include: AB 52 (Wiggins), which, of the $75 million in
Proposition 40 for the preservation of agricultural lands and grazing lands,
appropriates $9.6 million as follows: ·
$4.8 million to the
Wildlife Conservation Board for the purposes of the Oak Woodlands Conservation
Act; and · identifies local planning activities eligible to receive planning grants from the California Farmland Conservancy Program. AB 2534 (Pavley) allocates $223.4 million of Proposition 40 funds for
watersheds, clean beaches, and water quality to the following
programs:
1)
$46.4 million to the State Coastal Conservancy for its
own use or for certain types of grants, such as those that reduce
contamination or water in the coastal zone, protect coastal fish and wildlife
habitat, and acquire, protect, and restore coastal wetlands, including $7
million that must be used for installing equipment to monitor coastal currents
to determine areas of contamination; 2) Small Community Wastewater Grant Program, $15 million, to assist small communities in meeting water pollution control requirements; 3) Urban Storm Water Grant Program, $15 million, for projects designed to implement runoff pollution reduction and prevention programs; 4) Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, $20 million, for specified types of projects that will protect the beneficial uses of water and address nonpoint source pollution; 5) Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program, $12 million; 6) Integrated Watershed Management Programs, $7 million, for monitoring, collection, and analysis of water quality and pollution transport in groundwater and surface water; 7) Small Community Groundwater Grant Program, $10 million, to assist small communities in complying with groundwater contaminant level requirements. Integrated Watershed Management Programs; 8) $50 million, for the development of local watershed management plans and for the implementation of watershed protection and water management projects; 9) $2 million to the Department of Forestry and Fire protection for forest improvement projects, as defined in statute. AB 716 (Firebaugh) establishes the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, consisting of specified members, in the California State Library and requires the endowment to use funds allocated and appropriated from Proposition 40, and from other sources, including federal grants, to make grants and loans to public agencies and nonprofit organizations, including museums, relating to historical resources, and to develop various programs and projects to protect and preserve California's cultural and historic resources. It requires the endowment to conduct a comprehensive survey of the state of cultural and historical preservation, accessibility, and interpretation in California and to report on the survey to the Legislature and the Governor by November 1, 2005. The measure specifically appropriates $128,415,000 of Proposition 40 funds to the California State Library for purposes of the endowment, and $91,350,000 to the Department of Parks and Recreation for opportunity grants. It also appropriates $74,680,000 to the Department of Parks and Recreation for recreational grants, as provided. The Governor has vetoed AB 1403 (Thomson), which, concerning the $75
million in Proposition 40 for the preservation of agricultural and grazing
lands, stated legislative intent to allocate, upon appropriation by the
Legislature: $40 million to the California Farmland Conservancy Program Fund
for expanding farmland conservancy programs; $5 million for the Agricultural
Protection Planning Grant Program, which the bill would establish within the
Department of Conservation for, among other things, assisting cities and
counties in applying for California Farmland Conservancy funds; $5 million for
oak woodlands conservation; $5 million to the State Coastal Conservancy for
the protection of agricultural land, as specified; and $20 million to the
Wildlife Conservation Board for grazing and grassland protection. For details and analyses of any of the aforementioned bills, please click on the 2002 CFN bill tracking list at http://www.calfutures.org/reformhome.html. ========================================================== The James Irvine and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundations created The California Policy Forum (http://www.calpolicyforum.org) to support policy research and public education on fiscal, governance and land use issues in California. California Policy Forum is a network of organizations and individuals working to improve California's future through policy reform. The partners include: California Center for Regional Leadership (CCRL) California Futures Network (CFN) Cities, Counties, Schools (CCS) Partnership http://www.ccspartnership.org/ Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) Environmental Policy Center (EPC) Latino Issues Forum (LIF) League of Women Voters of California Educational Fund (LWVCEF) http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/aboutlwvc/lwvcef.html San Diego Dialogue (SDD) ========================================================= ======================================================== Produced and written by the California Futures Network, and distributed by the CALIFORNIA POLICY FORUM: Connecting People to Policy--Creating opportunities for California citizens and leaders to meet, discuss, and find common ground on sensible long-term reforms to the state's land use, fiscal and governmental policies, and educating and engaging policy-makers in collaborative efforts to implement these reforms. Sponsored by the James Irvine and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundations. ========================================================= This Smart Growth Report is the first of two parts summarizing the final results of the 2001-2002 legislative session. These two reports will be the last newsletters for 2002. The Smart Growth Report will start up again in early 2003. For information on any of the bills mentioned, please click on the 2002 CFN bill tracking list at http://www.calfutures.org/reformhome.html. You can also download hard copy bill tracking reports, including a complete report, and separate reports of chaptered and vetoed bills. For questions or comments about the Sacramento Smart Growth Report, contact CFN at: mailto:angel@calfutures.org. ========================================================= |
|