BILL ANALYSIS
AB 842
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
AB 842 (Jones) - As Amended: March 29, 2007
SUBJECT : Regional plans: traffic reduction.
SUMMARY : Provides implementing language for the expenditure of
funds from the Regional Planning, Housing, and Infill
Incentives Account and the Transit-Oriented Development Account
created pursuant to Proposition 1C and from the money in
Proposition 84 earmarked for local and regional planning.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes $300 million from the Regional Planning, Housing, and
Infill Incentives Account created pursuant to Proposition 1C
available, upon appropriation, to the Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) to fund grants to assist local
agencies in the planning and production of infill housing.
2)Limits eligible grantees from the Infill Incentives money to
councils of government (COGs), or counties for areas with no
COG, that provide HCD with a regional land use and
transportation planning document that includes a reduction of
the growth increment of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by at
least 10% for the region.
3)Allocates, upon appropriation, $100 million for loans and $50
million for grants from the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Account created pursuant to Proposition 1C.
4)Limits eligible grantees from the TOD money to COGs, or
counties for areas with no COG, that demonstrate to HCD that
the proposed project is consistent with a regional land use
and transportation planning document and will reduce the
growth increment of VMT by not less than 15% for the region.
5)Limits eligible loan recipients from the TOD money to COGs, or
counties for areas with no COG, that demonstrate to HCD that
the proposed project is consistent with a regional land use
and transportation planning document and will reduce the
growth increment of VMT by not less than 10% for the region.
6)Makes available, upon appropriation, $30 million of the $90
AB 842
Page 2
million set aside pursuant to Proposition 84 for planning
grants and planning incentives to COGs and counties to fund
grants to assist in the development of regional and countywide
land use and transportation planning documents.
7)Limits eligible grantees from the $30 million for planning
grants and incentives to COGs, or counties for areas with no
COG, that commit to developing a regional land use and
transportation planning document that includes a reduction of
the growth increment of VMT by at least 10% for the region.
8)Makes available, upon appropriation, $60 million of the $90
million set aside pursuant to Proposition 84 for planning
grants and planning incentives to HCD to provide loans to
cities, counties, and cities and counties to assist in
conforming general plans, zoning ordinances, and specific
project plans to a regional or countywide land use and
transportation planning document that includes a reduction of
the growth increment of VMT by not less than 10% for the
region or county.
9)Requires the California Transportation Commission to update
its guidelines for the preparation of regional transportation
plans to include a requirement that each RTP provide for a 10%
reduction in the growth increment of vehicle miles traveled.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates the $850 million Regional Planning, Housing, and
Infill Incentive Account and specifies that funds in the
account shall be made available, upon appropriation and
subject to any other conditions and criteria that the
Legislature establishes in statute, for the following
purposes:
a) Infill incentive grants for capital outlay related to
infill housing development and other related infill
development, including, but not limited to, all of the
following:
i) Park creation, development, or rehabilitation to
encourage infill development, with expenditures for this
purpose limited to no more than $200,000,000.
ii) Water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs
AB 842
Page 3
associated with infill development.
iii) Transportation improvements related to infill
development projects.
iv) Traffic mitigation.
b) Brownfield cleanup that promotes infill housing
development and other related infill development consistent
with regional and local plans.
2)Creates the $300 million Transit-Oriented Development Account
and specifies that funds in the account shall be made
available, upon appropriation, for expenditure pursuant to the
Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program.
3)Establishes the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation
Program (TOD Program) under HCD to provide assistance to
cities, counties, cities and counties, transit agencies, and
developers in developing or facilitating the development of
higher density uses within close proximity to transit stations
that will increase public transit ridership.
4)Specifies that to the extent funds are available under the TOD
Program, HCD shall make grants to cities, counties, cities and
counties, or transit agencies for the provision of
infrastructure necessary for the development of higher density
uses within close proximity to a transit station, or to
facilitate connections between that development and the
station.
5)Specifies that to the extent funds are available under the TOD
Program HCD shall make loans for the development and
construction of a housing development project within close
proximity to a transit station in which at least 15% of the
units will be affordable to lower-income households for at
least 55 years.
6)Requires HCD, in ranking applications for grants and loans
under the TOD Program, to consider the extent to which the
project or development will increase public transit ridership
and minimize automobile trips.
7)Requires HCD, in ranking applications for grants and loans
under the TOD Program, to grant bonus points to projects or
AB 842
Page 4
developments that are in an area designated by the appropriate
council of governments for infill development as part of a
regional plan.
8)Sets aside $90 million under Proposition 84 for planning
grants and planning incentives, including revolving loan
programs and other methods to encourage the development of
regional and local land use plans that are designed to promote
water conservation, reduce automobile use and fuel
consumption, encourage greater infill and compact development,
protect natural resources and agricultural lands, and
revitalize urban and community centers.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)AB 842 proposes setting aside portions of the money in
Proposition 1C for infill incentives and TOD for grants to
COGs, or counties for areas where there is no COG, that have
prepared a regional land use and transportation plan that will
reduce the growth increment in VMT in the region or county.
The bill also proposes creating a grant program to help COGs
in preparing regional land use and transportation planning
documents that reduce the growth increment in VMT and a loan
program to help cities and counties conform their general
plans and zoning to these regional plans using the $90 million
earmarked in Proposition 84 for local and regional planning.
2)Although it is unclear in the bill, the author has indicated
that with respect to the infill incentives money, the intent
is for each qualifying COG to develop a program to provide
grants to cities and counties, and possibly other entities,
for qualifying infill projects. With respect to the TOD
money, the intent is for qualifying COGs to provide grants to
cities, counties, transit agencies, and developers, who are
already authorized under existing statute to apply for the TOD
money.
3)The author has indicated that the bill is a work in progress
and still has many details that need to be worked out, such as
how HCD would determine how much money to grant to each
qualifying COG and county; what statutory guidance, if any,
COGs would be given in structuring their infill grant
programs; who would be eligible to apply for the infill money;
AB 842
Page 5
and what sorts of projects would be eligible for the infill
money and whether those projects would have to have an
affordable housing component.
4)As currently written, this bill raises a number of concerns,
primarily with respect to the infill money and the TOD money.
First, the bill sends a portion of these pots of money to
qualifying COGs, which would then provide grants for infill
incentives and TOD. This adds an additional level of
bureaucracy to the delivery of this money. If the state has
to provide grants to qualifying COGs and then the COGs have to
give grants to cities and counties for specific projects, that
means administration money comes out of both pots of money at
two different points, reducing the total amount available for
projects. The Committee may wish to consider whether this is
the best model. Neither of these pots of money is especially
large - $850 million total for infill incentives and $300
million for TOD. It may make more sense to have the state
distribute the money directly to cities and counties for
qualified projects to speed delivery time and reduce
administrative costs.
5)In addition, AB 842 ties access to a portion of the infill and
TOD money to being in a region that has completed what is
often referred to as a "regional blueprint," and only then if
that blueprint would lead to a 10% reduction in the growth in
VMT. The ongoing creation of regional blueprints across the
state is an exciting development. Local land use decisions
have regional impacts, so developing a regional framework for
land use decision-making, even a voluntary one, is a positive
step. In general, these regional blueprints aim to support
better land use and transportation decision-making that
supports infill and compact development; reduces impacts on
valuable habitat, agricultural, and resource lands; improves
mobility and reduces congestion; improves air quality; and
improves jobs/housing balance. However, in many areas of the
state, these blueprints are still works in progress, and they
may not all be able to show a 10% reduction in VMT growth.
The Committee may wish to consider whether limiting access to
even a portion the bond funds based on these blueprints is
premature.
6)Reducing the growth in vehicle miles traveled is critical if
California is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and traffic
congestion. However, it seems that infill projects and TOD
AB 842
Page 6
projects should inherently support these goals if the
definition of a qualifying project is crafted carefully so
that only "good" infill and TOD receive money. The Committee
may wish to consider whether it makes sense to set a specific
VMT reduction target to qualify to receive grants, or whether
it is good enough simply to be engaging in the types of
development that will lead to a reduction in VMT growth by
their very nature.
7)While it makes sense to make some portion of the planning
money available under Proposition 84 to support blueprint
planning efforts, to both create blueprints and to bring local
general plans into line with blueprint goals, the Committee
may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to narrow the
focus of this money on reducing VMT growth while ignoring
other goals. The language in Proposition 84 related to the
$90 million for planning states that the money is to be used
"to encourage the development of regional and local land use
plans that are designed to promote water conservation, reduce
automobile use and fuel consumption, encourage greater infill
and compact development, protect natural resources and
agricultural lands, and revitalize urban and community
centers." VMT reduction may be one goal, but is not the only
goal.
8)The California Association of Councils of Governments
(CALCOG), while supportive of the idea of giving COGs with
regional blueprints a role in distributing bond funds, is
opposed to the notion of requiring such blueprints to show a
10% reduction in the growth of VMT. CALCOG states that while
the Sacramento Area Council of Government's (SACOG) regional
blueprint "has established a 10% VMT reduction per household,
other regions are not so sure that is the best way to measure
their progress. A major key to the success of these
blueprints is that they have been developed locally with broad
stakeholder participation and no state control. We believe
that this feature of AB 842 stands in the way of other
regions' needs for flexibility in developing these
blueprints."
9)This bill is double-referred to the Committee on Housing and
Community Development.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 842
Page 7
Support
California Association of Councils of Government (in concept)
Opposition
California Association of Councils of Government (unless
amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Anya Lawler / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958