BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1006|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1006
Author: Buchanan (D), et al
Amended: 6/1/09 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE : 10-0, 7/8/09
AYES: Wright, Harman, Benoit, Calderon, Denham, Florez,
Negrete McLeod, Price, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza, Padilla, Wiggins
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-1, 8/24/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, Leno, Runner, Wolk
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock, Oropeza, Price, Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 62-15, 6/2/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State buildings: building locations:
considerations
SOURCE : City of Elk Grove
DIGEST : This bill adds a new provision to the State
Building Construction Act that requires the Department of
General Services to consider the proximity of the workforce
and the population being served when deciding where to
build or lease state office buildings.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, the State Building
Construction Act (Act) of 1955, generally sets forth
CONTINUED
AB 1006
Page
2
procedures for the acquisition and construction of state
buildings. Existing law requires the Department of General
Services (DGS) to prepare plans and specifications for any
public building constructed pursuant to the Act.
Existing law provides that the "Capitol Area Plan" is the
official state master plan for development in the central
City of Sacramento for the location of state buildings and
other improvements. The Plan serves as a guide for future
state policy in the locating of state buildings and other
facilities in the metropolitan area. The Capitol Area Plan
is a mixed-use plan for the management, development and
disposition of state-owned property located directly south
and east of the State Capitol and Capitol Park in the City
of Sacramento.
Currently, DGS has numerous requirements to comply with
when locating state operations. For example, Government
Code Section 15808.1 in general requires DGS to consider
locating state buildings in public transit corridors.
Executive Order D-46-01 directs DGS to use smart growth and
"green" principles when siting, constructing and leasing
state buildings. These include, amongst others, preferred
site or leasing in a central city or area of similar
character immediately adjacent thereto; sensitivity to
building design and scale and environmental concerns;
proximity to public transit and other needed
infrastructure.
This bill requires DGS, when selecting locations for
state-owned or leased buildings in excess of 10,000 square
feet, to consider all of the following:
1. The location of the community or population served.
2. The availability and proximity of transit service,
including regularly operated bus lines.
3. The residential location of the state workforce to be
housed, with priority given to areas demonstrating the
highest reduction of miles traveled by the workforce.
Comments
AB 1006
Page
3
According to the author's office, the single largest source
of greenhouse gases in California is emissions from
passenger vehicles. For instance, one out of every ten Elk
Grove residents is a State government employee that travels
30.4 minutes to work or more, depending on traffic
congestion. This travel creates 90,836,875 annual commute
vehicle miles traveled which contributes to poor air
quality in the region. The author's office claims that
locating state offices close to where its employees live
will reduce miles driven by state workers and traffic
congestion on state highways and surface streets. It can
provide more time for employees to spend in their own
neighborhood, thereby increasing the quality of life for
those employees. Additionally, the author's office
emphasizes that this bill will go a long way in helping the
State attain its greenhouse reduction goals established in
the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
Almost 20 years ago, DGS undertook an ambitious program to
save money and make government more accessible to citizens
by rearranging state offices in major urban centers. The
plan also envisioned small-scale consolidation in numerous
other California communities where the state leased
dispersed office space. Based on a series of regional
plans and facility studies, DGS' efforts led to office
consolidation projects in major metropolitan areas (San
Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Riverside/San Bernardino,
Long Beach, San Diego and Sacramento.) Generally,
justification for these new projects focused on the
economic benefits of ownership compared to the avoided cost
of leasing.
Consolidation of state office space in the Capitol Area has
also been the state's long-standing goal, and was the
impetus behind the first comprehensive master plan for the
Capitol Area prepared in 1960. In addition, development of
the Capitol Area as a vibrant mixed-use center, with a
variety of office, commercial and residential uses, is a
major goal of the Capitol Area Plan that was adopted in
1977, and has been a long-standing policy of the state, and
the City of Sacramento. The Plan serves as a flexible
framework for the ongoing planning of specific development
activities in the Capitol Area.
AB 1006
Page
4
The Capitol Area Plan encompasses a statutory defined
geographic area of approximately 290 acres (between
5th/17th Streets and L/R Streets) to the south, east and
west of the State Capitol Building and Capitol Park, it
includes state office space, housing units and commercial
establishments on state-owned land. DGS is responsible for
the implementation of the state office and parking elements
of the Plan and the Capitol Area Development Authority, a
state-city joint powers authority, is responsible for
implementation of the residential and commercial elements.
In 1995, the Urban Land Institute, a nonprofit education
and research institute based in Washington D.C., examined
California's office program, involving land use, agency
location policy, facilities planning, state property
development and redevelopment. The study recommended,
among other items, that: (1) the Capitol building and its
surrounding park be viewed as unique treasures that deserve
protection and where possible enhancement; (2) the state
give immediate priority to the development of the land it
already owns to the east and south of the Capitol to ensure
that the Capitol is not left on the fringe as development
within the city drifts to the north; (3) state-owned land
in the area north of Q Street in the Capitol Area should be
the state's first priority for locating downtown office
space, with the Central Business District being the second
priority; and, (4) programs requiring very large floor
plates or having no programmatic need to be near the
Capitol would be appropriately located outside the downtown
area.
The Urban Land Institute study also recommended that
whether the location of an agency is to be in downtown
Sacramento or in an outlying area, it must be convenient to
public transportation and highway corridors to allow easy
access to the regional transportation network for commuting
to work and between work locations and to limit urban
sprawl and provide efficient use of public infrastructure
expenditures. The study noted that a concentrated focus on
development and transportation will mitigate the dangers of
urban sprawl and reduce the amount of air pollution that
sprawl can generate.
AB 1006
Page
5
Prior/Related legislation
SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 375, Statutes of 2008 , requires
metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable
community strategies, as defined, in their regional
transportation plans for the purpose of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, aligning planning for transportation and
housing, and creating specified incentives for the
implementation of the strategies.
AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006 , establishes
the Global Warming Act of 2006, which is a comprehensive
greenhouse gas emissions reduction program that requires
efforts from both the public and private sectors to achieve
the goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Consideration of transit $20 $40
$40General/
services when locating Special
state facilities
*Service Revolving Fund (non governmental cost fund of
working capital and revolving funds used to record and
report activities from various sources; approximately 30
percent of the monies in this fund are federal with the
remaining funds being General and special and vary
depending on the workload DGS undertakes for a department
or agency).
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/09)
City of Elk Grove (source)
AB 1006
Page
6
Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce
Elk Grove Economic Development Corporation
State Building and Construction Trades Council
California League of Conservation Voters
Green California
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee,
Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Monning, Nava, Nestande, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Tran, Yamada, Bass
NOES: Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Conway, DeVore, Duvall,
Gaines, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Niello,
Nielsen, Audra Strickland, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Block, Miller
TSM:do 8/26/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****