BILL ANALYSIS
AB 842
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 16, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Lori Saldana, Chair
AB 842 (Jones) - As Amended: April 23, 2007
SUBJECT : Housing Bond implementation.
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, (Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust
Fund of 2006). Specifically, this bill :
1)Allocates an unspecified amount from the Regional Planning,
Housing, and Infill Incentives Account created pursuant to
Proposition 1C to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to fund grants to assist local agencies in
the planning and production of infill housing. Requires HCD to
award substantial preference to applications that contain
either or both of the following:
a) Projects located in communities that have adopted a
general plan that will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
by 10%, and the project is consistent with that plan;
b) Projects located in a region where the Council of
Government (COG) has adopted a transportation plan or other
regional plan that seeks to reduce VMT by at least 10%, and
the project is consistent with that plan.
2)Allocates an unspecified amount for loans and grants from the
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Account created pursuant to
Proposition 1C. Requires HCD to award substantial preference
to application that contain the following:
a) Projects located in communities that have adopted a
general plan that will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
by 10%, and the project is consistent with that plan.
b) Projects located in a region where the COG has adopted a
transportation plan or other regional plan that seeks to
reduce VMT by at least 10%, and the project is consistent
with that plan.
AB 842
Page 2
3)Requires the California Transportation Commission to update
its guidelines for the preparation of regional transportation
plans (RTP) 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 million.
ii) Water, sewer, or other public infrastructure costs
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)Provides, among other things, the following ranking criteria
for allocation of the Infill Incentive Account:
a) The extent to which the average densities exceed minimum
housing element densities;
b) Proximity or accessibility to a transit station or major
transit stop.
AB 842
Page 3
c) Proximity of housing to parks, employment or retail
centers, schools, or social services.
d) Consistency with an adopted regional blueprint plan or
other adopted regional growth plan intended to foster
efficient land use.
3)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.
4)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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Background
In 2002, California voters approved Proposition 46, the $2.1
billion Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act.
Proposition 46 provided funding for the following programs:
Multifamily Housing Program; Emergency Housing Assistance
Program; Supportive Housing; Farmworker Housing Grant Program;
CalHome Program; Local Housing Trusts; Code Enforcement Program;
California Homebuyer Downpayment Assistance Program; and Jobs
AB 842
Page 4
Housing Improvement Account.
Funds provided under Proposition 46 were mostly exhausted at the
end of 2006.
In November 2006, California voters approved Proposition 1C,
another Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act.
Proposition 1C maintains funding provided under Proposition 46
for most, but not all, of the programs noted above.
Additionally, Proposition 1C establishes funding mechanisms for
infrastructure related to infill housing development and for
development near transit stations.
Purpose of the bill
According to the author, California faces a great challenge in
the coming years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One vital
tool in that endeavor is vehicle miles traveled per household,
an estimate of the time each household spends in its vehicles.
Commonly used as a metric to measure planning progress, reducing
VMT can help Californians get out of their cars and spend more
time with their families. VMT is a widely-used barometer that
encompasses items such as infill development, jobs close to
housing, shorter commute times, better public systems and many
more important quality of life measurements. Reducing VMT
closely correlates with the state goals of improving air
quality, reducing congestion, reducing sprawl, developing energy
independence, and preserving open space.
AB 842 proposes setting aside portions of the funds within
Proposition 1C directed to infill and transit oriented
development for grants to local governments including councils
of governments (COGs) that have prepared a regional land use and
transportation plan that will reduce the growth in VMT in the
region or county by 10 percent.
AB 842 creates an incentive for applicants to adopt general
plans or otherwise be located in a region covered by a COG that
has adopted a transportation plan that will reduce VMT by at
least 10 percent.
Staff Comments
The ongoing creation of regional blueprints across the state is
an exciting development. Local land use decisions have regional
AB 842
Page 5
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; reduce impacts on valuable habitat,
agricultural, and resource lands; improve mobility and reduce
congestion; improves air quality; and improve 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.
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
projects should inherently support these goals if the definition
of a qualifying project was well crafted. As this bill is
currently drafted, rather than establishing a requirement, it
now provides for substantial preference in ranking of
applications. The policy issue for the committee to address is
whether smaller landlocked communities would still be eligible
to compete for funds even if they have otherwise well qualified
infill projects. It would appear that if such communities are
located in regions that have regional planning documents with
the aim of VMT reduction, those applicants would qualify for the
preference.
The Committee may wish to consider how HCD, in awarding funds,
will be able to determine whether a particular local or regional
plan in fact contains a 10% reduction. Will this bill require
HCD to make thorough reviews of each local plan to determine
whether the 10% reduction claim is real? Will there be a need
to determine whether or not the claims made in the plan have
demonstrable results?
Suggested Amendments
As drafted, AB 842 establishes a set-aside from the Infill
Incentive Account, for the purposes of providing grants to
agencies of local government "to assist in the planning and
production of infill housing." As previously noted in order to
qualify for this allocation, the applicant must show that the
project is located in a local jurisdiction that has adopted a
land use plan, and that project is consistent with that plan,
which seeks to reduce VMT by 10 percent. The Committee may wish
to consider, rather than a set-aside, to include the VMT
AB 842
Page 6
incentive within the overall program framework for the Infill
Incentive Account contained in Health and Safety Code Sections
53545.12 and 53545.13.
As noted under existing law, criteria for priority scoring
already exists to create an incentive for developers to increase
densities, develop near jobs, services and parks and to be
consistent with existing land use plans designed to foster
efficient land use. Therefore the Committee may wish to
incorporate the goals of AB 842 into the scoring criteria
established last year for the Infill Incentive Account.
If the Committee desires in fact to have the VMT provision apply
to the entire Infill Incentive Account there would then be no
need for the appropriation provision, therefore the Committee
may wish to delete the appropriation portion of the bill.
As for the TOD portion, given the VMT provisions apply to the
entire Account, the appropriation language is also not necessary
and may be removed.
Double referred : The Assembly Committee on Rules referred AB
842 to Local Government and Housing and Community Development
Committee. The bill passed the Assembly Committee on Local
Government on April 18, 2007 by a vote of 4 to 2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Lung Association
California League of Conservation Voters
Gray Panthers
Opposition
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Analysis Prepared by : Hubert Bower / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085