BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 310
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 310 (Hancock)
As Amended August 29, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-17
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lara, Bradford, Campos, | | |
| |Williams, Gordon, Hueso | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Norby | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows cities and counties to create incentives for
transit priority projects. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide a
process for cities and counties to create development patterns
in the form of transit priority projects that comply with the
implementation of a sustainable communities strategy (SCS),
create jobs, reduce vehicle miles traveled, expand the
availability of accessible open-space, build the density
needed for transit viability, and meet regional housing
targets.
2)Establishes the Transit Priority Project Program (TPPP).
3)Authorizes a city or county to participate in TPPP by adopting
an ordinance indicating its intent to participate in the
program and by forming and infrastructure financing district
(IFD).
4)Requires a city or county, if it elects to participate in
TPPP, to amend, if necessary, the general plan and any related
specific plan to allow participating developers to build at an
increased height of a minimum of three stories within the
boundaries of the IFD.
5)Requires a TPPP development project to meet all of the
following:
SB 310
Page 2
a) Is located in a designated transit priority project and
within one-half of one mile of a transit station consistent
with the implementation of an SCS;
b) Is located within a zone in which buildings of three
stories or more are authorized;
c) Meets State Air Resources Board land use guidelines with
respect to distance from major emitters;
d) Provides onsite bicycle parking;
e) Provides for car sharing if a car sharing program is
available in the city or county;
f) Provides unbundled parking;
g) Provides to all units transit passes for 10 years as
part of the rent or condo fees if transit passes are
available from local providers;
h) Provides to tenants recycling for bottles, cans, paper,
and plastic containers;
i) Provides open space onsite, including, but not limited
to, accessible roof gardens, or pays a fee into a fund
established for local open space;
j) Provides 20% affordable units in rental or owner
occupied housing for low- or moderate-income persons and
families, or pays a fee in an amount equivalent to the cost
to provide affordable units elsewhere within the city's or
county's jurisdiction, as determined by the city or county.
Built units require an affordability covenant of 55 years
for rental units and 45 years for owner occupied units;
and,
aa) Pays prevailing wages to construction workers for
residential projects over 100 units.
6)Requires a development project that meets the criteria for a
TPPP to comply with any local design guidelines that were
adopted prior to the submission of the project application.
SB 310
Page 3
7)Provides that an IFD may reimburse a developer for any permit
costs or costs associated with the construction of the
affordable housing units in a TPPP.
8)Specifies for the car sharing program the car sharing area may
be onsite, or the developer may pay a fee to the city or
county to cover the cost of providing for car sharing at an
offsite location near the project. The developer is required
to provide one car share for the first
20 units and one car share for every 50 units thereafter.
9)Defines "unbundled parking" as renting a parking space for the
residential units separately from the residential units, or
pays a fee to the appropriate local transit management fund to
cover one-half of the cost of providing a parking space.
10)Prohibits the fee a developer could pay in lieu of providing
space from exceeding $0.10 per square foot.
11)Authorizes an IFD to reimburse a developer of a project that
is both located entirely within the boundaries of that IFD for
any permit expenses incurred pursuant to that TPPP or to
offset additional expenses incurred by the developer in
constructing affordable housing units.
12)Prohibits a city or county from participating in a TPPP if
it: a) prohibits paying prevailing wages for public works;
or, b) prohibits contractors and others from prehire
collective bargaining or similar agreements with labor
organizations regarding employment terms and conditions on
construction projects.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the regional transportation plan for specified
regions to include an SCS, as specified, designed to achieve
certain goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from automobiles and light trucks in a region.
2)Provides that an SCS must:
a) Identify the general location of uses, residential
densities, and building intensities within the region;
b) Identify areas within the region sufficient to house all
SB 310
Page 4
the population of the region, including all economic
segments of the population, over the course of the planning
period of the regional transportation plan;
c) Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an
eight-year projection of the regional housing need for the
region;
d) Identify a transportation network to service the
transportation needs of the region;
e) Gather and consider the best available scientific
information regarding resource areas and farmland in the
region;
f) Set forth a forecasted development pattern for the
region, which, when integrated with the transportation
network, and other transportation measures and policies,
will reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks
to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so; and,
g) Quantify the reduction in GHG emissions projected to be
achieved by the SCS and, if the SCS does not achieve the
targeted reductions in GHG emissions, set forth the
difference between the amount that the SCS would reduce GHG
emissions and the target for the region.
3)Requires a transit priority project to: a) contain at least
50% residential use, based on total building square footage
and, if the project contains between 26% and 50%
nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75;
b) provide a minimum net density of at least
20 dwelling units per acre; and, c) be within one-half mile of a
major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included
in a regional transportation plan.
4)Defines "major transit stop" as a site containing an existing
rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus
or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more
major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.
5)Authorizes cities and counties to create IFDs and issue bonds
to pay for community scale public works: highways, transit,
SB 310
Page 5
water systems, sewer projects, flood control, child care
facilities, libraries, parks, and solid waste facilities.
6)Allows an IFD to divert property tax increment revenues from
other local governments, excluding school districts, for up to
30 years, in order to pay back bonds issued by the IFD.
7)Requires any IFD that constructs dwelling units to set aside
not less than 20% of those units to increase and improve the
community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing
available at an affordable housing cost to persons and
families of low- and moderate-income.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008,
built on the existing regional transportation planning process
to connect the reduction of GHG from cars and light trucks to
land use and transportation policy. In 2006, the Legislature
passed AB 32 (N��ez and Pavley), Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006,
the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires the
State of California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels no
later than the year 2020.
SB 375 (Steinberg) asserted that "without improved land use and
transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve
the goals of AB 32."
This bill seeks to further the objectives of SB 375 (Steinberg)
by creating a voluntary option for cities and counties to
encourage transit-oriented development in IFDs. This bill
builds on IFD law by allowing IFD funding to help incentivize
TPPPs thus promoting denser residential and mixed use
development closer to transit stations. The author "believes
that insufficient incentives exist to surmount certain financial
and procedural barriers to construct infill and transit-oriented
development. Additionally, the author seeks to require
developers to reciprocate incentives to construction workers and
residents of transit priority projects."
Cities and counties can create IFDs and issue bonds to pay for
community scale public works: highways, transit, water systems,
sewer projects, flood control, child care facilities, libraries,
parks, and solid waste facilities. To repay the bonds, IFDs
divert property tax increment revenues from other local
governments for 30 years. However, IFDs are prohibited from
SB 310
Page 6
diverting property tax increment revenues from schools.
Public officials continue to search for ways to raise the
capital they need to invest in public works projects, like
public transit facilities, infill development, or clean water.
One concept recognizes that expanded public structures can boost
the value of nearby property. Higher property values produce
higher property tax revenues. Property tax increment financing
captures those property tax increment revenues. When
redevelopment officials use property tax increment financing to
eradicate blight, state law does not require voter approval.
When local officials use IFDs to capture property tax increment
revenues, state law requires a two-thirds approval.
To qualify for the economic subsidies offered by this bill, a
builder must propose a project that meets more than a dozen
conditions, from car sharing to prevailing wages. Some of these
requirements may be difficult for builders and local officials
to adapt to specific projects. Cities regularly ask builders
for concessions in return for lowering fees or expediting
decisions. The Legislature may wish to consider whether the
incentives in this bill are enough to convince builders to use
the bill.
Support arguments: Supporters argue that this bill creates a
more flexible development tool to finance needed affordable
housing and transit-oriented development projects. Given the
"opt-in" nature of IFDs tax increment financing, more local
governments will have a voice in if their growth in property tax
is allocated, a luxury currently not provided to them under
redevelopment law.
Opposition arguments: Opposition could argue that the numerous
conditions required of a development project in order to be
eligible for this program can be quite costly for a developer
and the creation of an IFD may be tough for a local government.
Therefore, there may be more of a cost benefit to the builder
and the local government to just enter into a development
agreement with the locality rather than fulfilling all the
requirement of a TPPP, thus making the program less useful.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
SB 310
Page 7
FN: 0002275