AB 779: Local government: financial disclosures.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2016-08-31
Existing law requires a local agency, if it is required to report specified information to the Controller and if it maintains an Internet Web site, to post, in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site, information on the annual compensation of its elected officials, officers, and employees, as specified.
This bill would require a city, county, city and county, or special district, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Existing law requires a local agency, if it is required to report specified information to the Controller and if it maintains an Internet Web site, to post, in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site, information on the annual compensation of its elected officials, officers, and employees, as specified.
This bill would require a city, county, city and county, or special district, on or before April 30 of each year, to post a link on the homepage of compensation information in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site to a page that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous Calendar calendar year. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Existing law requires a local agency, if it is required to report specified information to the Controller and if it maintains an Internet Web site, to post, in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site, information on the annual compensation of its elected officials, officers, and employees, as specified.
This bill would require a city, county, city and county, or special district district, on or before April 30 of each year, to post a link on the homepage of its Internet Web site to a page that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous fiscal year and the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation, as specified. Calendar year. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Existing law requires a local agency, if it is required to report specified information to the Controller and if it maintains an Internet Web site, to post, in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site, information on the annual compensation of its elected officials, officers, and employees, as specified.
This bill would require a city, county, city and county, or special district to post a link on the homepage of its Internet Web site that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous fiscal year and the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation, as specified. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the development, adoption, and updating of a congestion management program with specified elements for each county that includes an urbanized area, as defined. The program is required to contain specified elements and to be submitted to regional agencies, as defined, for determination of whether the program is consistent with regional transportation plans. The regional agency is then directed to monitor the implementation of all elements of each congestion management program. Existing law defines infill opportunity zone for purposes of the above-described provisions to mean a specified area designated by a city or county according to certain provisions and that is within a specified distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor.
This bill would revise the definition of infill opportunity zone to not require that it be within a specified distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor. The bill would revise the requirements for a congestion management program by removing traffic level of service standards established for a system of highways and roadways as a required element and instead requiring measures of effectiveness for a system of highways and roadways. The bill would also require the program to analyze the relationship between local land use decisions and regional transportation systems, instead of analyzing impacts of the land use decisions on the transportation systems. The bill would delete existing laws prohibition on including an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel and the requirement that the program provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems. The bill would also require, to the extent the program identifies capacity enhancements, the evaluation of the potential for capacity enhancement to induce additional travel. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local officials relating to the development of a congestion management program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires a local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan with specified components when highway or roadway level of service standards are not maintained on segments or intersections, including an analysis of the cause of the deficiency, list of improvements necessary to maintain minimum levels of service, and estimated costs of the improvements.
This bill would instead require a deficiency plan to be prepared if the agency determines the county or its cities is not conforming with the congestion management plan, and would remove the requirements that a list of improvements necessary and the estimated costs of the improvements be included in a deficiency plan. The bill would exempt from the deficiency cause analysis improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation, traffic generated by a transit priority project, and traffic generated by a mixed use development located within a transit priority project area or infill opportunity zone.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the development, adoption, and updating of a congestion management program with specified elements for each county that includes an urbanized area, as defined. The program is required to contain specified elements and to be submitted to regional agencies, as defined, for determination of whether the program is consistent with regional transportation plans. The regional agency is then directed to monitor the implementation of all elements of each congestion management program. Existing law defines infill opportunity zone for purposes of the above-described provisions to mean a specified area designated by a city or county according to certain provisions and that is within a specified distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor.
This bill would revise the definition of infill opportunity zone to not require that it be within a specified distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor. The bill would revise the requirements for a congestion management program by removing traffic level of service standards established for a system of highways and roadways as a required element and instead requiring measures of effectiveness for a system of highways and roadways. The bill would also require the program to analyze the relationship between local land use decisions and regional transportation systems, instead of analyzing impacts of the land use decisions on the transportation systems. The bill would delete existing laws prohibition on including an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel and the requirement that the program provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems. The bill would also require, to the extent the program identifies capacity enhancements, the evaluation of the potential for capacity enhancement to induce additional travel. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local officials relating to the development of a congestion management program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires a local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan with specified components when highway or roadway level of service standards are not maintained on segments or intersections, including an analysis of the cause of the deficiency, list of improvements necessary to maintain minimum levels of service, and estimated costs of the improvements.
This bill would instead require a deficiency plan to be prepared if the agency determines the county or its cities is not conforming with the congestion management plan, and would remove the requirements that a list of improvements necessary and the estimated costs of the improvements be included in a deficiency plan. The bill would exempt from the deficiency cause analysis improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation, traffic generated by a transit priority project, and traffic generated by a mixed use development located within a transit priority project area or infill opportunity zone.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, proposed revisions to the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that, among other things, promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill would authorize the Office of Planning and Research to determine that transportation impacts for residential and mixed-use projects in transit priority areas do not meet the threshold of significance.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, proposed revisions to the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that, among other things, promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill would provide that the revised guidelines shall not be effective before July 1, 2017. authorize the Office of Planning and Research to determine that transportation impacts for residential and mixed-use projects in transit priority areas do not meet the threshold of significance.
(1)The
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, proposed revisions to the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that, among other things, promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill would instead provide that the transportation impact related to greenhouse gas emissions of a project located within a transit priority area is not a significant impact on the environment. provide that the revised guidelines shall not be effective before July 1, 2017.
(2)CEQA provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of certain projects on an infill site within a transit priority area are not considered to be significant impacts on the environment.
This bill would additionally provide that an automobile delay impact, as described solely by the level of service or a similar measure of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, is not a significant impact on the environment for those projects.
(1)The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, proposed revisions to the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that, among other things, promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
This bill would instead provide that the transportation impact related to greenhouse gas emissions of a project located within a transit priority area is not a significant impact on the environment.
(2)CEQA provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of certain projects on an infill site within a transit priority area are not considered to be significant impacts on the environment.
This bill would additionally provide that an automobile delay impact, as described solely by the level of service or a similar measure of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, is not a significant impact on the environment for those projects.
Existing law required the Office of Planning and Research, on or before January 1, 2004, if sufficient federal funds became available for that purpose, to prepare and publish an advisory planning handbook for use by local officials, planners, and builders that explains how to reduce land use conflicts between the effects of civilian development and military readiness activities carried out on military installations and areas, as specified.
This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.
Existing law required the Office of Planning and Research, on or before January 1, 2004, if sufficient federal funds became available for that purpose, to prepare and publish an advisory planning handbook for use by local officials, planners, and builders that explains how to reduce land use conflicts between the effects of civilian development and military readiness activities carried out on military installations and areas, as specified.
This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that provision.
(a)A city, county, city and county, or special district shall, on or before April 30 of each year, post compensation information in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not have an Internet Web site, it shall compile this information and make that information readily available upon request.
(b)For purposes of this section total compensation includes payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that the city, county, city and county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. Total compensation does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses.
(c)This section does not apply to school districts.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)A city, county, city and county, or special district shall, on or before April 30 of each year, post a link on the homepage of compensation information in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site to a page that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not have an Internet Web site, it shall compile this information and make that information readily available upon request.
(b)For purposes of this section total compensation includes payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that the city, county, city and county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. Total compensation does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses.
(c)This section does not apply to school districts.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)A city, county, city and county, or special district shall, within six months of the close of the fiscal year, on or before April 30 of each year, post a link on the homepage of its Internet Web site to a page that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous fiscal year and the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation, determined pursuant to subdivision (b). calendar year. If a city or special district does not have an Internet Web site, it shall work with the relevant county to post the compile this information on the countys Internet Web site. and make that information readily available upon request.
(b)The city, county, city and county, or special district shall aggregate the total compensation for an employee, including all positions held by that employee during the fiscal year, to determine the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation.
(c)
(b)For purposes of this section total compensation includes payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that the city, county, city and county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. Total compensation does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Although Californias economy is critically dependent upon transportation, its current transportation system relies primarily upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far fewer vehicles than are currently using the system.
(b)Californias transportation system is characterized by fragmented planning, both among jurisdictions involved and among the means of available transport.
(c)The lack of an integrated system and the increase in the number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day results in 400,000 hours lost in traffic, 200 tons of pollutants released into the air we breathe, and three million one hundred thousand dollars ($3,100,000) added costs to the motoring public.
(d)To keep California moving, all methods and means of transport between major destinations must be coordinated to connect our vital economic and population centers.
(e)In order to develop the California economy to its full potential, it is intended that federal, state, and local agencies join with transit districts, business, private, and environmental interests to develop and implement comprehensive strategies needed to develop appropriate responses to transportation needs.
(f)In addition to solving Californias traffic congestion crisis, rebuilding Californias cities and suburbs, particularly with affordable housing and more walkable neighborhoods, is an important part of accommodating future increases in the states population because homeownership is only now available to most Californians who are on the fringes of metropolitan areas and far from employment centers.
(g)The Legislature intends to do everything within its power to remove regulatory barriers around the development of infill housing, transit-oriented development, and mixed use commercial development to reduce regional traffic congestion and provide more housing choices for all Californians.
(h)The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit-oriented development, or mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public hearing nor from finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns.
(i)The Legislature intends that the provisions of the act that added this subdivision be carried out in a manner that promotes reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled, related economic, environmental, and health benefits called for in the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008), and the implementation of complete streets, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65302.
SEC. 2.Section 65088.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:65088.1.As used in this chapter the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)Unless the context requires otherwise, agency means the agency responsible for the preparation and adoption of the congestion management program.
(b)Bus rapid transit corridor means a bus service that includes at least four of the following attributes:
(1)Coordination with land use planning.
(2)Exclusive right-of-way.
(3)Improved passenger boarding facilities.
(4)Limited stops.
(5)Passenger boarding at the same height as the bus.
(6)Prepaid fares.
(7)Real-time passenger information.
(8)Traffic priority at intersections.
(9)Signal priority.
(10)Unique vehicles.
(c)Commission means the California Transportation Commission.
(d)Department means the Department of Transportation.
(e)Infill opportunity zone means a specific area designated by a city or county, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65088.4.
(f)Interregional travel means any trips that originate outside the boundary of the agency. A trip means a one-direction vehicle movement. The origin of any trip is the starting point of that trip. A roundtrip consists of two individual trips.
(g)Level of service standard is a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management program highway and roadway system which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan. It is the intent of the Legislature that the agency shall use all elements of the program to implement strategies and actions that avoid the creation of deficiencies and to improve multimodal mobility.
(h)Local jurisdiction means a city, a county, or a city and county.
(i)Multimodal means the utilization of all available modes of travel that enhance the movement of people and goods, including, but not limited to, highway, transit, nonmotorized, and demand management strategies, including, but not limited to, telecommuting. The availability and practicality of specific multimodal systems, projects, and strategies may vary by county and region in accordance with the size and complexity of different urbanized areas.
(j)(1)Parking cash-out program means an employer-funded program under which an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. Parking subsidy means the difference between the out-of-pocket amount paid by an employer on a regular basis in order to secure the availability of an employee parking space not owned by the employer and the price, if any, charged to an employee for use of that space.
(2)A parking cash-out program may include a requirement that employee participants certify that they will comply with guidelines established by the employer designed to avoid neighborhood parking problems, with a provision that employees not complying with the guidelines will no longer be eligible for the parking cash-out program.
(k)Performance measure is an analytical planning tool that is used to quantitatively evaluate transportation improvements and to assist in determining effective implementation actions, considering all modes and strategies. Use of a performance measure as part of the program does not trigger the requirement for the preparation of deficiency plans.
(l)Urbanized area has the same meaning as is defined in the 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more than 50,000 population.
(m)Unless the context requires otherwise, regional agency means the agency responsible for preparation of the regional transportation improvement program.
SEC. 3.Section 65088.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:65088.4.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill housing and mixed use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes competing needs.
(b)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if level of service standards are used in a congestion management program, those standards shall not apply to the streets and highways within an infill opportunity zone.
(c)The city or county may designate an infill opportunity zone by adopting a resolution after determining that the infill opportunity zone is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan, and is a transit priority area within a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy adopted by the applicable metropolitan planning organization.
SEC. 4.Section 65089 of the Government Code is amended to read:65089.(a)A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with the schedule for adopting and updating the regional transportation improvement program, for every county that includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the county. The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of the agency. The program shall be developed in consultation with, and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, regional transportation providers, local governments, the department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality management district, either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county.
(b)The program shall contain all of the following elements:
(1)Measures of effectiveness established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the agency. The highway and roadway system shall include at a minimum all state highways and principal arterials. No highway or roadway designated as a part of the system shall be removed from the system. All new state highways and principal arterials shall be designated as part of the system, except when it is within an infill opportunity zone.
(2)A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, these performance measures shall incorporate highway and roadway system performance, and measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, land use, and economic objectives, and shall be used in the development of the capital improvement program required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4).
(3)A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including, but not limited to, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. The agency shall consider parking cash-out programs during the development and update of the travel demand element.
(4)A program to analyze the relationship between land use decisions made by local jurisdictions and regional transportation systems, as reflected in regional transportation plans. This program shall measure, to the extent possible, the effectiveness of the transportation system using the performance measures described in paragraph (2). The program defined under this section may require implementation through the requirements and analysis of the California Environmental Quality Act, in order to avoid duplication.
(5)A seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods. To the extent that the program identifies capacity enhancements, the program shall evaluate the potential for the capacity enhancement to induce additional travel. The program shall conform to transportation-related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures, and include any project that will increase the capacity of the multimodal system. It is the intent of the Legislature that, when roadway projects are identified in the program, consideration be given for maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. The capital improvement program may also include safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects that do not enhance the capacity of the system but are necessary to preserve the investment in existing facilities.
(c)The agency, in consultation with the regional agency, cities, and the county, shall develop a uniform data base on transportation conditions for use in a countywide transportation computer model and shall approve transportation computer models of specific areas within the county that will be used by local jurisdictions to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system that are based on the countywide model and standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. The computer models shall be consistent with the modeling methodology adopted by the regional planning agency. The data bases used in the models shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional planning agency. Where the regional agency has jurisdiction over two or more counties, the data bases used by the agency shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional agency.
(d)(1)The city or county in which a commercial development will implement a parking cash-out program that is included in a congestion management program pursuant to subdivision (b), or in a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4, shall grant to that development an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise in effect for new commercial development.
(2)At the request of an existing commercial development that has implemented a parking cash-out program, the city or county shall grant an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise applicable based on the demonstrated reduced need for parking, and the space no longer needed for parking purposes may be used for other appropriate purposes.
(e)Pursuant to the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and regulations adopted pursuant to the act, the department shall submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator to accept the congestion management program in lieu of development of a new congestion management system otherwise required by the act.
SEC. 5.Section 65089.3 of the Government Code is amended to read:65089.3.The agency shall monitor the implementation of all elements of the congestion management program. The department is responsible for data collection and analysis on state highways, unless the agency designates that responsibility to another entity. The agency may also assign data collection and analysis responsibilities to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. The agency shall consult with the department and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules before program adoption. At least biennially, the agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the congestion management program, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(a)Achieving performance standards for the transportation system as provided in the performance element.
(b)Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the relationship between land use decisions and the regional transportation system.
(c)Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4.
SEC. 6.Section 65089.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:65089.4.(a)If the agency determines that a county or its cities is not conforming to the congestion management plan, a local jurisdiction shall prepare a deficiency plan. The deficiency plan shall be adopted by the city or county at a noticed public hearing.
(b)The agency shall calculate the impacts subject to exclusion pursuant to subdivision (f), after consultation with the regional agency, the department, and the local air quality management district or air pollution control district. If level of service standards are used in a congestion management program, and if the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of these impacts is consistent with the level of service standard, the agency shall make a finding at a publicly noticed meeting that no deficiency plan is required and shall notify the affected local jurisdiction.
(c)The agency shall be responsible for preparing and adopting procedures for local deficiency plan development and implementation responsibilities, consistent with the requirements of this section. The deficiency plan shall include all of the following:
(1)An analysis of the cause of the deficiency. This analysis shall include the following:
(A)Identification of the cause of the deficiency.
(B)Identification of the impacts of those local jurisdictions within the jurisdiction of the agency that contribute to the deficiency. These impacts shall be identified only if traffic level of service standards are used in the congestion management program and if the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of impacts pursuant to subdivision (f) indicates that the level of service standard has not been maintained, and shall be limited to impacts not subject to exclusion.
(2)A list of improvements, programs, or actions, and estimates of costs, that will (A) measurably improve multimodal performance, using measures defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089, and (B) contribute to significant improvements in air quality, such as improved public transit service and facilities, improved nonmotorized transportation facilities, high occupancy vehicle facilities, parking cash-out programs, and transportation control measures. The air quality management district or the air pollution control district shall establish and periodically revise a list of approved improvements, programs, and actions that meet the scope of this paragraph. If an improvement, program, or action on the approved list has not been fully implemented, it shall be deemed to contribute to significant improvements in air quality. If an improvement, program, or action is not on the approved list, it shall not be implemented unless approved by the local air quality management district or air pollution control district.
(3)An action plan, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), that shall be implemented, consisting of improvements, programs, or actions identified in paragraph (2), that are found by the agency to be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The action plan shall include a specific implementation schedule. The action plan shall include implementation strategies for those jurisdictions that have contributed to the cause of the deficiency in accordance with the agencys deficiency plan procedures. The action plan need not mitigate the impacts of any exclusions identified in subdivision (f). Action plan strategies shall identify the most effective implementation strategies for improving current and future system performance.
(d)A local jurisdiction shall forward its adopted deficiency plan to the agency within 12 months of the identification of a deficiency. The agency shall hold a noticed public hearing within 60 days of receiving the deficiency plan. Following that hearing, the agency shall either accept or reject the deficiency plan in its entirety, but the agency may not modify the deficiency plan. If the agency rejects the plan, it shall notify the local jurisdiction of the reasons for that rejection, and the local jurisdiction shall submit a revised plan within 90 days addressing the agencys concerns. Failure of a local jurisdiction to comply with the schedule and requirements of this section shall be considered to be nonconformance for the purposes of Section 65089.5.
(e)The agency shall incorporate into its deficiency plan procedures, a methodology for determining if deficiency impacts are caused by more than one local jurisdiction within the boundaries of the agency.
(1)If, according to the agencys methodology, it is determined that more than one local jurisdiction is responsible for causing a deficient segment or intersection, all responsible local jurisdictions shall participate in the development of a deficiency plan to be adopted by all participating local jurisdictions.
(2)The local jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs shall have lead responsibility for developing the deficiency plan and for coordinating with other impacting local jurisdictions. If a local jurisdiction responsible for participating in a multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan does not adopt the deficiency plan in accordance with the schedule and requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, that jurisdiction shall be considered in nonconformance with the program for purposes of Section 65089.5.
(3)The agency shall establish a conflict resolution process for addressing conflicts or disputes between local jurisdictions in meeting the multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan responsibilities of this section.
(f)The analysis of the cause of the deficiency prepared pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) shall exclude the following:
(1)Interregional travel.
(2)Construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that impact the system.
(3)Freeway ramp metering.
(4)Traffic signal coordination by the state or multi-jurisdictional agencies.
(5)Traffic generated by the provision of low-income and very low income housing.
(6)Traffic generated by any mixed use development located within a transit priority project area or infill opportunity zone. For purposes of this paragraph, mixed use development means development that integrates compatible commercial or retail uses, or both, with residential uses, and that, due to the proximity of job locations, shopping opportunities, and residences, will discourage new trip generation.
(7)Traffic generated by any transit priority project, as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
(8)Improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation.
(g)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a local agency to implement improvements to reduce delay at intersections or roadway segments that the local agency determines would impede the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner set forth in the circulation element of the local agencys general plan.
SECTION 1.Section 53909 is added to the Government Code, to read:53909.(a)A city, county, city and county, or special district shall, within six months of the close of the fiscal year, post a link on the homepage of its Internet Web site that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous fiscal year and the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation, determined pursuant to subdivision (b). If a city or special district does not have an Internet Web site, it shall work with the relevant county to post the information on the countys Internet Web site.
(b)The city, county, city and county, or special district shall aggregate the total compensation for an employee, including all positions held by that employee during the fiscal year, to determine the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation.
(c)For purposes of this section total compensation includes payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that the city, county, city and county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. Total compensation does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses.
SEC. 7.SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 8.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to reduce the financial burden and hurdles to development caused by duplicative transportation and land use planning analyses, and to give local agencies flexibility to quickly update their plans to provide for a safe transportation system for all users, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Although Californias economy is critically dependent upon transportation, its current transportation system relies primarily upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far fewer vehicles than are currently using the system.
(b)Californias transportation system is characterized by fragmented planning, both among jurisdictions involved and among the means of available transport.
(c)The lack of an integrated system and the increase in the number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day results in 400,000 hours lost in traffic, 200 tons of pollutants released into the air we breathe, and three million one hundred thousand dollars ($3,100,000) added costs to the motoring public.
(d)To keep California moving, all methods and means of transport between major destinations must be coordinated to connect our vital economic and population centers.
(e)In order to develop the California economy to its full potential, it is intended that federal, state, and local agencies join with transit districts, business, private private, and environmental interests to develop and implement comprehensive strategies needed to develop appropriate responses to transportation needs.
(f)In addition to solving Californias traffic congestion crisis, rebuilding Californias cities and suburbs, particularly with affordable housing and more walkable neighborhoods, is an important part of accommodating future increases in the states population because homeownership is only now available to most Californians who are on the fringes of metropolitan areas and far from employment centers.
(g)The Legislature intends to do everything within its power to remove regulatory barriers around the development of infill housing, transit-oriented development, and mixed use commercial development in order to reduce regional traffic congestion and provide more housing choices for all Californians.
(h)The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit-oriented development, or mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public hearing nor from finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns.
(i)The Legislature intends that the provisions of the act that added this subdivision be carried out in a manner that promotes reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled, related economic, environmental, and health benefits called for in the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008), and the implementation of complete streets, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65302.
SEC. 2.Section 65088.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:65088.1.As used in this chapter the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)Unless the context requires otherwise, agency means the agency responsible for the preparation and adoption of the congestion management program.
(b)Bus rapid transit corridor means a bus service that includes at least four of the following attributes:
(1)Coordination with land use planning.
(2)Exclusive right-of-way.
(3)Improved passenger boarding facilities.
(4)Limited stops.
(5)Passenger boarding at the same height as the bus.
(6)Prepaid fares.
(7)Real-time passenger information.
(8)Traffic priority at intersections.
(9)Signal priority.
(10)Unique vehicles.
(c)Commission means the California Transportation Commission.
(d)Department means the Department of Transportation.
(e)Infill opportunity zone means a specific area designated by a city or county, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65088.4, that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 65088.4.
(f)Interregional travel means any trips that originate outside the boundary of the agency. A trip means a one-direction vehicle movement. The origin of any trip is the starting point of that trip. A roundtrip consists of two individual trips.
(g)Level of service standard is a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management program highway and roadway system which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan. It is the intent of the Legislature that the agency shall use all elements of the program to implement strategies and actions that avoid the creation of deficiencies and to improve multimodal mobility.
(h)Local jurisdiction means a city, a county, or a city and county.
(i)Multimodal means the utilization of all available modes of travel that enhance the movement of people and goods, including, but not limited to, highway, transit, nonmotorized, and demand management strategies strategies, including, but not limited to, telecommuting. The availability and practicality of specific multimodal systems, projects, and strategies may vary by county and region in accordance with the size and complexity of different urbanized areas.
(j)(1)Parking cash-out program means an employer-funded program under which an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. Parking subsidy means the difference between the out-of-pocket amount paid by an employer on a regular basis in order to secure the availability of an employee parking space not owned by the employer and the price, if any, charged to an employee for use of that space.
(2)A parking cash-out program may include a requirement that employee participants certify that they will comply with guidelines established by the employer designed to avoid neighborhood parking problems, with a provision that employees not complying with the guidelines will no longer be eligible for the parking cash-out program.
(k)Performance measure is an analytical planning tool that is used to quantitatively evaluate transportation improvements and to assist in determining effective implementation actions, considering all modes and strategies. Use of a performance measure as part of the program does not trigger the requirement for the preparation of deficiency plans.
(l)Urbanized area has the same meaning as is defined in the 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more than 50,000 population.
(m)Unless the context requires otherwise, regional agency means the agency responsible for preparation of the regional transportation improvement program.
SEC. 3.Section 65088.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:65088.4.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill housing and mixed use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes competing needs.
(b)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if level of service standards described in Section 65089 are used in a congestion management program, those standards shall not apply to the streets and highways within an infill opportunity zone.
(c)The city or county may designate an infill opportunity zone by adopting a resolution after determining that the infill opportunity zone is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan, and is a transit priority area within a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy adopted by the applicable metropolitan planning organization.
SEC. 4.Section 65089 of the Government Code is amended to read:65089.(a)A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with the schedule for adopting and updating the regional transportation improvement program, for every county that includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the county. The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of the agency. The program shall be developed in consultation with, and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, regional transportation providers, local governments, the department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality management district, either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county.
(b)The program shall contain all of the following elements:
(1)(A)Traffic level of service standards Measures of effectiveness established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the agency. The highway and roadway system shall include at a minimum all state highways and principal arterials. No highway or roadway designated as a part of the system shall be removed from the system. All new state highways and principal arterials shall be designated as part of the system, except when it is within an infill opportunity zone. Level of service (LOS) shall be measured by Circular 212, by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, or by a uniform methodology adopted by the agency that is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual. The determination as to whether an alternative method is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual shall be made by the regional agency, except that the department instead shall make this determination if either (i) the regional agency is also the agency, as those terms are defined in Section 65088.1, or (ii) the department is responsible for preparing the regional transportation improvement plan for the county.
(B)In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the level of service E or the current level, whichever is farthest from level of service A except when the area is in an infill opportunity zone. When the level of service on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established level of service standard outside an infill opportunity zone, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4.
(2)A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, these performance measures shall incorporate highway and roadway system performance, and measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, land use, and economic objectives, and shall be used in the development of the capital improvement program required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4).
(3)A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including, but not limited to, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. The agency shall consider parking cash-out programs during the development and update of the travel demand element.
(4)A program to analyze the impacts of the relationship between land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on and regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. as reflected in regional transportation plans. This program shall measure, to the extent possible, the impact to effectiveness of the transportation system using the performance measures described in paragraph (2). In no case shall the program include an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel. The program shall provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems. However, in the case of toll road facilities, credit shall only be allowed for local public and private contributions which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. The agency shall calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. The program defined under this section may require implementation through the requirements and analysis of the California Environmental Quality Act, in order to avoid duplication.
(5)A seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4). goods. To the extent that the program identifies capacity enhancements, the program shall evaluate the potential for the capacity enhancement to induce additional travel. The program shall conform to transportation-related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures, and include any project that will increase the capacity of the multimodal system. It is the intent of the Legislature that, when roadway projects are identified in the program, consideration be given for maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. The capital improvement program may also include safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects that do not enhance the capacity of the system but are necessary to preserve the investment in existing facilities.
(c)The agency, in consultation with the regional agency, cities, and the county, shall develop a uniform data base on traffic impacts transportation conditions for use in a countywide transportation computer model and shall approve transportation computer models of specific areas within the county that will be used by local jurisdictions to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system that are based on the countywide model and standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. The computer models shall be consistent with the modeling methodology adopted by the regional planning agency. The data bases used in the models shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional planning agency. Where the regional agency has jurisdiction over two or more counties, the data bases used by the agency shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional agency.
(d)(1)The city or county in which a commercial development will implement a parking cash-out program that is included in a congestion management program pursuant to subdivision (b), or in a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4, shall grant to that development an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise in effect for new commercial development.
(2)At the request of an existing commercial development that has implemented a parking cash-out program, the city or county shall grant an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise applicable based on the demonstrated reduced need for parking, and the space no longer needed for parking purposes may be used for other appropriate purposes.
(e)Pursuant to the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and regulations adopted pursuant to the act, the department shall submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator to accept the congestion management program in lieu of development of a new congestion management system otherwise required by the act.
SEC. 5.Section 65089.3 of the Government Code is amended to read:65089.3.The agency shall monitor the implementation of all elements of the congestion management program. The department is responsible for data collection and analysis on state highways, unless the agency designates that responsibility to another entity. The agency may also assign data collection and analysis responsibilities to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. The agency shall consult with the department and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules prior to before program adoption. At least biennially, the agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the congestion management program, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(a)Consistency with levels of service standards, except as provided in Section 65089.4. Achieving performance standards for the transportation system as provided in the performance element.
(b)Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the impacts of relationship between land use decisions, including the estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts. decisions and the regional transportation system.
(c)Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4 when highway and roadway level of service standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system. 65089.4.
SEC. 6.Section 65089.4 of the Government Code is amended to read:65089.4.(a)A If the agency determines that a county or its cities is not conforming to the congestion management plan, a local jurisdiction shall prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway level of service standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. plan. The deficiency plan shall be adopted by the city or county at a noticed public hearing.
(b)The agency shall calculate the impacts subject to exclusion pursuant to subdivision (f) of this section (f), after consultation with the regional agency, the department, and the local air quality management district or air pollution control district. If level of service standards are used in a congestion management program, and if the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of these impacts is consistent with the level of service standard, the agency shall make a finding at a publicly noticed meeting that no deficiency plan is required and so shall notify the affected local jurisdiction.
(c)The agency shall be responsible for preparing and adopting procedures for local deficiency plan development and implementation responsibilities, consistent with the requirements of this section. The deficiency plan shall include all of the following:
(1)An analysis of the cause of the deficiency. This analysis shall include the following:
(A)Identification of the cause of the deficiency.
(B)Identification of the impacts of those local jurisdictions within the jurisdiction of the agency that contribute to the deficiency. These impacts shall be identified only if traffic level of service standards are used in the congestion management program and if the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of impacts pursuant to subdivision (f) indicates that the level of service standard has not been maintained, and shall be limited to impacts not subject to exclusion.
(2)A list of improvements necessary for the deficient segment or intersection to maintain the minimum level of service otherwise required and the estimated costs of the improvements.
(3)
(2)A list of improvements, programs, or actions, and estimates of costs, that will (A) measurably improve multimodal performance, using measures defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089, and (B) contribute to significant improvements in air quality, such as improved public transit service and facilities, improved nonmotorized transportation facilities, high occupancy vehicle facilities, parking cash-out programs, and transportation control measures. The air quality management district or the air pollution control district shall establish and periodically revise a list of approved improvements, programs, and actions that meet the scope of this paragraph. If an improvement, program, or action on the approved list has not been fully implemented, it shall be deemed to contribute to significant improvements in air quality. If an improvement, program, or action is not on the approved list, it shall not be implemented unless approved by the local air quality management district or air pollution control district.
(4)
(3)An action plan, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), that shall be implemented, consisting of improvements identified in paragraph (2), or improvements, programs, or actions identified in paragraph (3), (2), that are found by the agency to be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The action plan shall include a specific implementation schedule. The action plan shall include implementation strategies for those jurisdictions that have contributed to the cause of the deficiency in accordance with the agencys deficiency plan procedures. The action plan need not mitigate the impacts of any exclusions identified in subdivision (f). Action plan strategies shall identify the most effective implementation strategies for improving current and future system performance.
(d)A local jurisdiction shall forward its adopted deficiency plan to the agency within 12 months of the identification of a deficiency. The agency shall hold a noticed public hearing within 60 days of receiving the deficiency plan. Following that hearing, the agency shall either accept or reject the deficiency plan in its entirety, but the agency may not modify the deficiency plan. If the agency rejects the plan, it shall notify the local jurisdiction of the reasons for that rejection, and the local jurisdiction shall submit a revised plan within 90 days addressing the agencys concerns. Failure of a local jurisdiction to comply with the schedule and requirements of this section shall be considered to be nonconformance for the purposes of Section 65089.5.
(e)The agency shall incorporate into its deficiency plan procedures, a methodology for determining if deficiency impacts are caused by more than one local jurisdiction within the boundaries of the agency.
(1)If, according to the agencys methodology, it is determined that more than one local jurisdiction is responsible for causing a deficient segment or intersection, all responsible local jurisdictions shall participate in the development of a deficiency plan to be adopted by all participating local jurisdictions.
(2)The local jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs shall have lead responsibility for developing the deficiency plan and for coordinating with other impacting local jurisdictions. If a local jurisdiction responsible for participating in a multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan does not adopt the deficiency plan in accordance with the schedule and requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, that jurisdiction shall be considered in nonconformance with the program for purposes of Section 65089.5.
(3)The agency shall establish a conflict resolution process for addressing conflicts or disputes between local jurisdictions in meeting the multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan responsibilities of this section.
(f)The analysis of the cause of the deficiency prepared pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) shall exclude the following:
(1)Interregional travel.
(2)Construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that impact the system.
(3)Freeway ramp metering.
(4)Traffic signal coordination by the state or multi-jurisdictional agencies.
(5)Traffic generated by the provision of low-income and very low income housing.
(6)(A)Traffic generated by high-density residential development located within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station, and
(B)
(6)Traffic generated by any mixed use development located within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing, as determined by the agency. a transit priority project area or infill opportunity zone. For purposes of this paragraph, mixed use development means development that integrates compatible commercial or retail uses, or both, with residential uses, and that, due to the proximity of job locations, shopping opportunities, and residences, will discourage new trip generation.
(g)For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)High density means residential density development which contains a minimum of 24 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density per acre which is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre shall automatically be considered high density.
(2)Mixed use development means development which integrates compatible commercial or retail uses, or both, with residential uses, and which, due to the proximity of job locations, shopping opportunities, and residences, will discourage new trip generation.
(7)Traffic generated by any transit priority project, as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
(8)Improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation.
(g)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a local agency to implement improvements to reduce delay at intersections or roadway segments that the local agency determines would impede the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner set forth in the circulation element of the local agencys general plan.
SEC. 7.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 8.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to reduce the financial burden and hurdles to development caused by duplicative transportation and land use planning analyses, and to give local agencies flexibility to quickly update their plans to provide for a safe transportation system for all users, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21099.(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms mean the following:
(1)Employment center project means a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
(2)Floor area ratio means the ratio of gross building area of the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for the project divided by the net lot area.
(3)Gross building area means the sum of all finished areas of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls.
(4)Infill site means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
(5)Lot means all parcels utilized by the project.
(6)Net lot area means the area of a lot, excluding publicly dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
(7)Transit priority area means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)(1)The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
(2)The Office of Planning and Research may determine that transportation impacts, including as measured by vehicle miles traveled, for residential and mixed-use projects in transit priority areas do not meet the threshold of significance.
(3)Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.
(4)This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a projects potentially significant transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. The methodology established by these guidelines shall not create a presumption that a project will not result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the adequacy of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to this section.
(5)This subdivision does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.
(c) (1) The Office of Planning and Research may adopt guidelines pursuant to Section 21083 establishing alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The alternative metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of service, where appropriate and as determined by the office.
(2)This subdivision shall not affect the standard of review that would apply to the new guidelines adopted pursuant to this section.
(d)(1)Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
(2)(A)This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers provided by other laws or policies.
(B)For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
(e)This section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more protective of the environment.
(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms mean the following:
(1)Employment center project means a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
(2)Floor area ratio means the ratio of gross building area of the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for the project divided by the net lot area.
(3)Gross building area means the sum of all finished areas of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls.
(4)Infill site means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
(5)Lot means all parcels utilized by the project.
(6)Net lot area means the area of a lot, excluding publicly dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
(7)Transit priority area means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)(1)The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
(2)The Office of Planning and Research may determine that transportation impacts, including as measured by vehicle miles traveled, for residential and mixed-use projects in transit priority areas do not meet the threshold of significance.
(2)
(3)Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.
(3)
(4)This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a projects potentially significant transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. The methodology established by these guidelines shall not create a presumption that a project will not result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the adequacy of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to this section.
(4)
(5)This subdivision does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.
(5)The revised guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be effective before July 1, 2017.
(c) (1) The Office of Planning and Research may adopt guidelines pursuant to Section 21083 establishing alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The alternative metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of service, where appropriate and as determined by the office.
(2)This subdivision shall not affect the standard of review that would apply to the new guidelines adopted pursuant to this section.
(d)(1)Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
(2)(A)This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers provided by other laws or policies.
(B)For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
(e)This section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more protective of the environment.
(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms mean the following:
(1)Employment center project means a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
(2)Floor area ratio means the ratio of gross building area of the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for the project divided by the net lot area.
(3)Gross building area means the sum of all finished areas of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls.
(4)Infill site means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
(5)Lot means all parcels utilized by the project.
(6)Net lot area means the area of a lot, excluding publicly dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
(7)Transit priority area means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)(1)The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
(2)Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.
(3)This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a projects potentially significant transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. The methodology established by these guidelines shall not create a presumption that a project will not result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the adequacy of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to this section.
(4)This subdivision does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.
(5)On or before July 1, 2014, the Office of Planning and Research shall circulate a draft revision prepared pursuant to paragraph (1).
(5)The revised guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be effective before July 1, 2017.
(c) (1) The Office of Planning and Research may adopt guidelines pursuant to Section 21083 establishing alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The alternative metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of service, where appropriate and as determined by the office.
(2)This subdivision shall not affect the standard of review that would apply to the new guidelines adopted pursuant to this section.
(d)(1)Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
(2)(A)This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers provided by other laws or policies.
(B)For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
(e)This section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more protective of the environment.
SECTION 1.Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:21099.(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms mean the following:
(1)Employment center project means a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
(2)Floor area ratio means the ratio of gross building area of the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for the project divided by the net lot area.
(3)Gross building area means the sum of all finished areas of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls.
(4)Infill site means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
(5)Lot means all parcels utilized by the project.
(6)Net lot area means the area of a lot, excluding publicly dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
(7)Transit priority area means an area within one-half mile of a transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)(1)For a project located in a transit priority area, the transportation impact related to greenhouse gas emissions shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.
(2)This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a projects potentially significant transportation impacts related to other air quality, noise, or safety, or any other nongreenhouse gas emissions related impact associated with transportation.
(3)This subdivision does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.
(c)Pursuant to Section 21083, the Office of Planning and Research may prepare and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency may adopt revisions to the guidelines establishing alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The alternative metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of service, where appropriate and as determined by the office.
(d)(1)Automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measure of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, aesthetic, and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
(2)(A)This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers provided by other laws or policies.
(B)For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
(e)This section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more protective of the environment.
(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms mean the following:
(1)Employment center project means a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
(2)Floor area ratio means the ratio of gross building area of the development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for the project divided by the net lot area.
(3)Gross building area means the sum of all finished areas of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls.
(4)Infill site means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
(5)Lot means all parcels utilized by the project.
(6)Net lot area means the area of a lot, excluding publicly dedicated land and private streets that meet local standards, and other public use areas as determined by the local land use authority.
(7)Transit priority area means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)(1)The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083 establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, the office shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
(2)Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.
(b)(1)For a project located in a transit priority area, the transportation impact related to greenhouse gas emissions shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.
(3)
(2)This subdivision does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a projects potentially significant transportation impacts related to other air quality, noise, or safety, or any other nongreenhouse gas emissions related impact associated with transportation. The methodology established by these guidelines shall not create a presumption that a project will not result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the adequacy of parking for a project shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to this section.
(4)
(3)This subdivision does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.
(5)On or before July 1, 2014, the Office of Planning and Research shall circulate a draft revision prepared pursuant to paragraph (1).
(c) (1) The Pursuant to Section 21083, the Office of Planning and Research may adopt prepare and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency may adopt revisions to the guidelines pursuant to Section 21083 establishing alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. The alternative metrics may include the retention of traffic levels of service, where appropriate and as determined by the office.
(2)This subdivision shall not affect the standard of review that would apply to the new guidelines adopted pursuant to this section.
(d)(1)Aesthetic Automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measure of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, aesthetic, and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
(2)(A)This subdivision does not affect, change, or modify the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers provided by other laws or policies.
(B)For the purposes of this subdivision, aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
(e)This section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more protective of the environment.
SECTION 1.Section 65040.9 of the Government Code is amended to read:65040.9.(a)On or before January 1, 2004, the Office of Planning and Research shall, if sufficient federal funds become available for this purpose, prepare and publish an advisory planning handbook for use by local officials, planners, and builders that explains how to reduce land use conflicts between the effects of civilian development and military readiness activities carried out on military installations, military operating areas, military training areas, military training routes, and military airspace, and any other territory adjacent to those installations and areas.
(b)At a minimum, the advisory planning handbook shall include advice regarding all of the following items:
(1)The collection and preparation of data and analysis.
(2)The preparation and adoption of goals, policies, and standards.
(3)The adoption and monitoring of feasible implementation measures.
(4)Methods to resolve conflicts between civilian and military land uses and activities.
(5)Recommendations for cities and counties to provide drafts of general plan and zoning changes that may directly impact military facilities, and opportunities to consult with the military base personnel prior to approving development adjacent to military facilities.
(c)In preparing the advisory planning handbook, the office shall consult with persons and organizations with knowledge and experience in land use issues affecting military installations and activities.
(d)The office may accept and expend any grants and gifts from any source, public or private, for the purposes of this section.
(a)On or before January 1, 2004, the Office of Planning and Research shall, if sufficient federal funds become available for this purpose, prepare and publish an advisory planning handbook for use by local officials, planners, and builders that explains how to reduce land use conflicts between the effects of civilian development and military readiness activities carried out on military installations, military operating areas, military training areas, military training routes, and military airspace, and any other territory adjacent to those installations and areas.
(b)At a minimum, the advisory planning handbook shall include advice regarding all of the following items:
(1)The collection and preparation of data and analysis.
(2)The preparation and adoption of goals, policies, and standards.
(3)The adoption and monitoring of feasible implementation measures.
(4)Methods to resolve conflicts between civilian and military land uses and activities.
(5)Recommendations for cities and counties to provide drafts of general plan and zoning changes that may directly impact military facilities, and opportunities to consult with the military base personnel prior to approving development adjacent to military facilities.
(c)In preparing the advisory planning handbook, the office shall consult with persons and organizations with knowledge and experience in land use issues affecting military installations and activities.
(d)The office may accept and expend any grants and gifts from any source, public or private, for the purposes of this section.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 24, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| Aug 25, 2015 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Jun 2, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| Jun 13, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Jun 13, 2016 | Withdrawn from committee. |
| Jun 15, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. |
| Aug 1, 2016 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 29). |
| Aug 2, 2016 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 3, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 8, 2016 | From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Withdrawn from committee. |
| Aug 15, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 15, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 8. Page 4988.). |
| Aug 15, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 8.). |
| Aug 16, 2016 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 18 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Aug 18, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. |
| Aug 25, 2016 | From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) . |
| Aug 30, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 30, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6421.). |
| Sep 8, 2016 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| May 28, 2015 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 28). |
| Feb 26, 2015 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 28. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and NAT. RES. |
| Apr 6, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 14, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 15, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 21, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 20). Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES. |
| Apr 28, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 13, 2015 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Feb 25, 2015 | Read first time. To print. |
| Jun 1, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. |
| Jun 2, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 1. Page 1870.) |
| Jun 18, 2015 | Referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Jul 7, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on E.Q. |
| Aug 19, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E.Q. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2016 | AB 779 GARCIA, C. Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 25, 2016 | With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in. | Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government |
Passed |
|
| Aug 15, 2016 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB779 Cristina Garcia By Hertzberg | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 29, 2016 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Jun 3, 2015 | AB 779 GARCIA, C. Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 28, 2015 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 27, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources |
Passed |
|
| Apr 20, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Natural Resources] | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Association of California Healthcare Districts | ** Against | Aug 30, 2016 |
| Association Of California Healthcare Districts (Achd) | * Against | Jun 29, 2016 |
| California Chapter, American Planning Association | ** Support | Apr 27, 2015 |
| California Infill Builders Federation | ** Support | Apr 27, 2015 |
| California Infill Federation | ** Support | Jun 29, 2016 |
| California League Of Conservation Voters | ** Support | Aug 30, 2016 |
| California Professional Firefighters | * Support | Jun 29, 2016 |
| California Special Districts Association | ** Against | Aug 30, 2016 |
| California State Association Of Counties | ** Against | Aug 30, 2016 |
| Council of Infill Builders | * Against | Apr 27, 2015 |
| League Of California Cities | ** Against | Aug 30, 2016 |
| National Resources Defense Council | * Against | Apr 27, 2015 |
| RePLANET LLC | * Support | Apr 27, 2015 |
| Rural County Representatives of California | ** Against | Aug 30, 2016 |
| Sierra Club California | ** Support | Aug 30, 2016 |
| State Association Of County Auditors | * Neutral | Jun 29, 2016 |
GOVERNOR'S VETO
GV Bill Id:AB 779
Author:(Cristina Garcia)
As Amended Ver:September 8, 2016
2/3 vote
ASSEMBLY: |
| (June 3, 2015) | SENATE: | 30-8 | (August 15, 2016) |
(vote not relevant)
COMMITTEE VOTE: | 8-0 | (August 25, 2016) | RECOMMENDATION: | concur |
(L. Gov.)
ASSEMBLY: | 79-0 | (August 30, 2016) |
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Requires cities, counties and special districts to compile compensation information about their elected officials and post it on their Web sites.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
- Bill Summary. This bill requires cities, counties and special districts, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information about their elected officials in a conspicuous location on their Web sites. The compensation information must contain the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not have a Web site, it shall compile this information and make it readily available upon request.
This bill defines "total compensation" to include payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that a city, county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses. The bill does not apply to school districts. This bill is sponsored by the author.
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "People have a right to know how much their elected officials are paid. By featuring the compensation information on local Web sites, residents will have better access to this information. AB 779 requires the breakdown of all types of compensation to be posted. This full reporting will add needed transparency. For example, a recent newspaper investigation reported the city of Maywood was paying officials and some employees $250 monthly mileage stipends. It's unclear how such a payment could be justified, as the city is just larger than one square mile.
"Unfortunately, abuses like those that occurred in the city of Bell and other local governments are still occurring. Currently, the SCO (State Controller's Office) posts local entity's salary information by position, but does not include names. While the SCO posts break down some compensation, they also include an 'other' category. Something like a mileage stipend, mentioned above, would fall in this 'other' category."
- Background. The Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of local governments. These reports must include the annual compensation of a local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data, available on its Web site in a form that can be printed and downloaded. Local agencies that maintain a Web site must post this compensation information in a conspicuous location on their Web sites. Local agencies are allowed to meet this requirement by posting a link to the Controller's Web site instead.
The Controller's instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification, including whether the employee held multiple positions. Local agencies must submit this information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th.
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have come under scrutiny for their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping $700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia), Chapter 894, Statutes of 2014, required local agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees, required local agencies to post this information on their Web sites, and required the Controller to compile, publish, and make this information publicly available on the Controller's Web site.
- State Mandate. This bill is keyed a state mandate, which means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies for implementing the bill's provisions if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state.
- Support Arguments. The California League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club California, in support, state, "We are pleased to support AB 779, which increases local government transparency and helps residents easily find information about their local officials' compensation. Scandals in Bell and Vernon concerning pay for elected officials highlight the need for more transparency about who is paid what, in order to prevent the misuse of taxpayer dollars…
"This information will allow residents to better understand the amounts and types of compensation that these officials receive. Some local government entities already post this information prominently on their websites. Also, some California news organizations and interest groups currently request, compile, and post local government compensation on their websites. However, the amount of information varies by entity and region, and what is available can be difficult to find."
- Opposition Arguments. The League of California Cities, in opposition, writes, "Current law already requires local agencies to report the compensation of their government boards as well as all employees to the California State Controller. These reports include the following items requested in AB 779 in the compilation of total compensation: stipends, automobile allowance, technology allowance, phone allowance, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premiums, and any other type of compensation. AB 779 differs only in specifically requesting that unused vacation time be reported and that the different compensation categories be broken out.
"This measure requires a new duplicative report to be posted on agencies' websites although current law (Government Code Section 53901) already requires compensation reports to be posted in a conspicuous location on agencies' websites. We believe that existing forms and instructions are sufficient to accommodate the intent of this measure without requiring duplicative reporting and posting."
"This bill requires local agencies to post the names and total compensation of elected officials on their websites.
"Local agencies already provide extensive employee compensation information, which includes the compensation for elected officials, to the State Controller's Office. If an agency maintains a website, it must post this information as well. There is no evidence that existing disclosure requirements are insufficient. Further, this bill exposes the General Fund to reimbursable mandate costs that it cannot afford."
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0005066
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA2 Bill Id:AB 779
Author:(Cristina Garcia)
As Amended Ver:August 3, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: |
| (June 3, 2015) | SENATE: | 30-8 | (August 15, 2016) |
(vote not relevant)
COMMITTEE VOTE: | 8-0 | (August 25, 2016) | RECOMMENDATION: | concur |
(L. Gov.)
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Requires cities, counties and special districts to compile compensation information about their elected officials and post it on their Web sites.
The Senate amendments strike the Assembly version of this bill and instead:
- Require a city, county, city and county, or special district, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site (website) that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year.
- Require a city or special district that does not have a website to compile this information and make it readily available upon request.
- Define "total compensation" to mean payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that the city, county, city and county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses.
- Specify that this bill does not apply to school districts.
- Provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies for those costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the State Controller (Controller) to compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of each county, city, and special district within this state, together with any other matter he or she deems of public interest.
- Requires the officer of each local agency who has charge of the financial records to furnish to the Controller a report of all the financial transactions of the local agency during the next preceding fiscal year.
- Requires local agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees, and requires the Controller to compile, publish, and make this information publicly available on the Controller's website.
- Requires local agencies to post information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees on their websites. A local agency may meet this requirement by posting, in a conspicuous location on its website, a link to the Controller's website.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
- Bill Summary. This bill requires cities, counties and special districts, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information about their elected officials in a conspicuous location on their websites. The compensation information must contain the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not have a website, it shall compile this information and make it readily available upon request.
This bill defines "total compensation" to include payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that a city, county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses. The bill does not apply to school districts.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "People have a right to know how much their elected officials are paid. By featuring the compensation information on local websites, residents will have better access to this information. AB 779 requires the breakdown of all types of compensation to be posted. This full reporting will add needed transparency. For example, a recent newspaper investigation reported the city of Maywood was paying officials and some employees $250 monthly mileage stipends. It's unclear how such a payment could be justified, as the city is just larger than one square mile.
"Unfortunately, abuses like those that occurred in the city of Bell and other local governments are still occurring. Currently, the SCO (State Controller's Office) posts local entity's salary information by position, but does not include names. While the SCO posts break down some compensation, they also include an 'other' category. Something like a mileage stipend, mentioned above, would fall in this 'other' category."
- Background. The Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of local governments. These reports must include the annual compensation of a local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data, available on its website in a form that can be printed and downloaded. Local agencies that maintain a website must post this compensation information in a conspicuous location on their websites. Local agencies are allowed to meet this requirement by posting a link to the Controller's website instead.
The Controller's instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification, including whether the employee held multiple positions. Local agencies must submit this information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th.
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have come under scrutiny for their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping $700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia), Chapter 894, Statutes of 2014, required local agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees, required local agencies to post this information on their websites, and required the Controller to compile, publish, and make this information publicly available on the Controller's website.
- State Mandate. This bill is keyed a state mandate, which means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies for implementing the bill's provisions if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state.
- Support Arguments. The California League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club California, in support, state, "We are pleased to support AB 779, which increases local government transparency and helps residents easily find information about their local officials' compensation. Scandals in Bell and Vernon concerning pay for elected officials highlight the need for more transparency about who is paid what, in order to prevent the misuse of taxpayer dollars…
"This information will allow residents to better understand the amounts and types of compensation that these officials receive. Some local government entities already post this information prominently on their websites. Also, some California news organizations and interest groups currently request, compile, and post local government compensation on their websites. However, the amount of information varies by entity and region, and what is available can be difficult to find."
- Opposition Arguments. The League of California Cities, in opposition, writes, "Current law already requires local agencies to report the compensation of their government boards as well as all employees to the California State Controller. These reports include the following items requested in AB 779 in the compilation of total compensation: stipends, automobile allowance, technology allowance, phone allowance, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premiums, and any other type of compensation. AB 779 differs only in specifically requesting that unused vacation time be reported and that the different compensation categories be broken out.
"This measure requires a new duplicative report to be posted on agencies' websites although current law (Government Code Section 53901) already requires compensation reports to be posted in a conspicuous location on agencies' websites. We believe that existing forms and instructions are sufficient to accommodate the intent of this measure without requiring duplicative reporting and posting."
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004933
Date of Hearing: August 25, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 779 (
Author:Cristina Garcia) – As Amended Ver:August 3, 2016
SUBJECT: Local government: financial disclosures.
SUMMARY: Requires cities, counties and special districts to compile compensation information about their elected officials and post it on their websites.
The Senate amendments strike the Assembly version of this bill and instead:
- Require a city, county, city and county, or special district, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site (website) that contains the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year.
- Require a city or special district that does not have a website to compile this information and make it readily available upon request.
- Define "total compensation" to mean payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that the city, county, city and county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses.
- Specify that this bill does not apply to school districts.
- Provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies for those costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the State Controller (Controller) to compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of each county, city, and special district within this state, together with any other matter he or she deems of public interest.
- Requires the officer of each local agency who has charge of the financial records to furnish to the Controller a report of all the financial transactions of the local agency during the next preceding fiscal year.
- Requires local agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees, and requires the Controller to compile, publish, and make this information publicly available on the Controller's website.
- Requires local agencies to post information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees on their websites. A local agency may meet this requirement by posting, in a conspicuous location on its website, a link to the Controller’s website.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
- Bill Summary. This bill requires cities, counties and special districts, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information about their elected officials in a conspicuous location on their websites. The compensation information must contain the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not have a website, it shall compile this information and make it readily available upon request.
This bill defines "total compensation" to include payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that a city, county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses. The bill does not apply to school districts.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "People have a right to know how much their elected officials are paid. By featuring the compensation information on local websites, residents will have better access to this information. AB 779 requires the breakdown of all types of compensation to be posted. This full reporting will add needed transparency. For example, a recent newspaper investigation reported the city of Maywood was paying officials and some employees $250 monthly mileage stipends. It's unclear how such a payment could be justified, as the city is just larger than one square mile.
"Unfortunately, abuses like those that occurred in the city of Bell and other local governments are still occurring. Currently, the SCO (State Controller's Office) posts local entity's salary information by position, but does not include names. While the SCO posts break down some compensation, they also include an 'other' category. Something like a mileage stipend, mentioned above, would fall in this 'other' category."
- Background. The Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of local governments. These reports must include the annual compensation of a local agency’s elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data, available on its website in a form that can be printed and downloaded. Local agencies that maintain a website must post this compensation information in a conspicuous location on their websites. Local agencies are allowed to meet this requirement by posting a link to the Controller's website instead.
The Controller’s instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification, including whether the employee held multiple positions. Local agencies must submit this information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th.
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have come under scrutiny for their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping $700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia), Chapter 894, Statutes of 2014, required local agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees, required local agencies to post this information on their websites, and required the Controller to compile, publish, and make this information publicly available on the Controller's website.
- State Mandate. This bill is keyed a state mandate, which means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies for implementing the bill's provisions if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state.
- Support Arguments. The California League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club California, in support, state, "We are pleased to support AB 779, which increases local government transparency and helps residents easily find information about their local officials' compensation. Scandals in Bell and Vernon concerning pay for elected officials highlight the need for more transparency about who is paid what, in order to prevent the misuse of taxpayer dollars…
"This information will allow residents to better understand the amounts and types of compensation that these officials receive. Some local government entities already post this information prominently on their websites. Also, some California news organizations and interest groups currently request, compile, and post local government compensation on their websites. However, the amount of information varies by entity and region, and what is available can be difficult to find."
- Opposition Arguments. The League of California Cities, in opposition, writes, "Current law already requires local agencies to report the compensation of their government boards as well as all employees to the California State Controller. These reports include the following items requested in AB 779 in the compilation of total compensation: stipends, automobile allowance, technology allowance, phone allowance, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premiums, and any other type of compensation. AB 779 differs only in specifically requesting that unused vacation time be reported and that the different compensation categories be broken out.
"This measure requires a new duplicative report to be posted on agencies’ websites although current law (Gov. Code Sec. 53901) already requires compensation reports to be posted in a conspicuous location on agencies’ websites. We believe that existing forms and instructions are sufficient to accommodate the intent of this measure without requiring duplicative reporting and posting."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California League of Conservation Voters
Sierra Club California
Opposition
Association of California Healthcare Districts
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Cities of Cloverdale, Hesperia, Indian Wells, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Rocklin, and San Carlos
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 779
Author:(Cristina Garcia)
As Amended Ver:August 3, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: |
| (June 3, 2015) | SENATE: | 30-8 | (August 15, 2016) |
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Requires cities, counties and special districts to compile compensation information about their elected officials and post it on their Web sites (websites).
The Senate amendments delete the prior contents of the bill and add the current language.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
- Bill Summary. This bill requires cities, counties and special districts, on or before April 30 of each year, to post compensation information in a conspicuous location on their Internet websites. The compensation information must contain the names, positions, and total compensation, including a breakdown of the types of compensation provided, of each elected official within that entity for the previous calendar year. If a city or special district does not have an Internet website, it shall compile this information and make that information readily available upon request.
This bill defines "total compensation" to include payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation time, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, and technology allowances. Any other type of compensation that a city, county, or special district provides shall also be included and specified. "Total compensation" does not include reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses. The bill does not apply to school districts.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "People have a right to know how much their elected officials are paid. By featuring the compensation information on local websites, residents will have better access to this information. AB 779 requires the breakdown of all types of compensation to be posted. This full reporting will add needed transparency. For example, a recent newspaper investigation reported the city of Maywood was paying officials and some employees $250 monthly mileage stipends. It's unclear how such a payment could be justified, as the city is just larger than one square mile.
"Unfortunately, abuses like those that occurred in the city of Bell and other local governments are still occurring. Currently, the SCO [State Controller's Office] posts local entity's salary information by position, but does not include names. While the SCO posts break down some compensation, they also include an 'other' category. Something like a mileage stipend, mentioned above, would fall in this 'other' category."
- Background. The State Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of local governments, including counties, cities, special districts, and joint powers authorities. These reports must also state the annual compensation of a local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data, available on its website in a form that can be printed and downloaded. Local agencies that maintain a website must post the report and the compensation information, or a link to the report on the Controller's website, in a conspicuous location.
The Controller's instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification, including whether the employee held multiple positions. Local agencies must submit this information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th.
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have come under scrutiny for their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping $700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia), Chapter 894, Statutes of 2014, required local agency financial transaction reports to include information about the annual compensation of the local agency's elected officials, officers, and employees, required local agencies to post this information on their websites, and required the Controller to compile, publish, and make this information publicly available on the Controller's website.
- Support Arguments. The California League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club California, in support, state, "We are pleased to support AB 779, which increases local government transparency and helps residents easily find information about their local officials' compensation. Scandals in Bell and Vernon concerning pay for elected officials highlight the need for more transparency about who is paid what, in order to prevent the misuse of taxpayer dollars. …This information will allow residents to better understand the amounts and types of compensation that these officials receive. Some local government entities already post this information prominently on their websites. Also, some California news organizations and interest groups currently request, compile, and post local government compensation on their websites. However, the amount of information varies by entity and region, and what is available can be difficult to find."
- Opposition Arguments. The League of California Cities, in opposition, writes, "Current law already requires local agencies to report the compensation of their government boards as well as all employees to the California State Controller. These reports include the following items requested in AB 779 in the compilation of total compensation: stipends, automobile allowance, technology allowance, phone allowance, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premiums, and any other type of compensation. AB 779 differs only in specifically requesting that unused vacation time be reported and that the different compensation categories be broken out.
"This measure requires a new duplicative report to be posted on agencies' websites although current law (Government Code Section 53901) already requires compensation reports to be posted in a conspicuous location on agencies' websites. We believe that existing forms and instructions are sufficient to accommodate the intent of this measure without requiring duplicative reporting and posting."
- Gut and Amend. The subject matter of this bill has not been heard in any Assembly policy committee this legislative session.
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003925
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 779
:
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/29/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-1, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote
DIGEST: This bill requires local agencies to post the names and total compensation of elected officials on their Web sites.
Existing law:
- Requires the State Controller to compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of local governments, including counties, cities, special districts, and joint powers authorities.
- Requires these annual reports to state the annual compensation of a local agency’s elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed by the Controller.
- Requires the Controller to make these reports, including compensation data, available on its Web site in a form that can be printed and downloaded.
- Requires local agencies that maintain a Web site to post the report and the compensation information, or a link to the report on the Controller’s Web site, in a conspicuous location.
This bill:
- Requires, on or before April 30 of each year, a city, county, city and county, or special district to post in a conspicuous location on their Web site information that contains the names, positions, and total compensation of each elected official for the previous calendar year.
- Requires a city, county, city and county, or special district that does not have a Web site to compile this information and make it readily available upon request.
- Defines total compensation to include the aggregate of payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, technology allowances, and any other type of compensation provided.
- Excludes reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses from the definition of compensation under this bill.
Background
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have come under scrutiny for their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping $700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile. Troubled by these abuses, some advocates for open government want local agencies to post additional information about local elected officials’ compensation on their Web site.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. Exorbitant employee compensation undermines the public’s faith that taxpayer dollars are being put to the best use. But without adequate information on compensation, it is difficult to identify and hold accountable those who are being overpaid. The average citizen is unlikely to think of the State Controller’s Office Web site when looking for local government compensation information; logic leads them to look on the local government’s Web site. And even if a taxpayer can find the right Web site, it can be difficult to tie compensation to specific individuals. AB 779 helps Californians to easily find information about their local elected officials to hold them accountable. Matching the level of compensation with names and breaking out parts of compensation (such as car allowances) makes it easier to identify egregious compensation practices. The California Legislature already posts names and salaries for all its employees; AB 779 ensures that local governments take small steps in a similar direction.
- Redundant. State law already requires local governments to provide exhaustive information on the compensation of its elected officials to the State Controller’s Office, which then posts the information in an accessible format. Local agencies must also include a prominent link to that information on their Web site, either by posting the information themselves or pointing the user to the Controller’s Web site. AB 779 requires local governments to post similar information on their Web sites. If there are concerns with the transparency afforded by the Controller’s compensation reports, it makes sense to address those deficiencies instead of creating costly and duplicative requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
California League of Conservation Voters
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/10/16)
California Special Districts Association
Rural County Representatives of California
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-1, 6/3/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Gatto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Thurmond
8/10/16 15:45:21
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: | AB 779 | Hearing Date: | 6/29/16 |
Author: | Cristina Garcia | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 6/2/16 | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Favorini-Csorba | ||
Local government: financial disclosures
Requires local agencies to post the names and total compensation of elected officials and the ten highest-paid employees on their websites.
Background
The State Controller must compile and publish reports of the financial transactions of local governments, including counties, cities, special districts, and joint powers authorities. These annual reports must also state the annual compensation of a local agency’s elected officials, officers, and employees in accordance with reporting instructions developed by the Controller. The Controller must make these reports, including compensation data, available on its website in a form that can be printed and downloaded. Local agencies that maintain a website must post the report and the compensation information, or a link to the report on the Controller’s website, in a conspicuous location (AB 2040, Garcia, 2014 and AB 341, Achadjian, 2015).
The Controller’s instructions define compensation to include salaries, overtime pay, lump sum pay, pension contributions, health/vision/dental benefits, deferred compensation contributions, and any other compensation (such as automobile allowances). Local agencies must compile this information for each employee, who is identified by their classification, including whether the employee held multiple positions. In 2015, the Legislature required local agencies to submit this information for the previous calendar year no later than April 30th (AB 341, Achadjian, 2015).
In recent years, several small cities in Los Angeles County have come under scrutiny for their compensation practices. In particular, beginning in July 2010, a series of news reports revealed that City of Bell officials received some of the highest salaries in the nation, topping $700,000 annually. These revelations led to further inquiries into financial irregularities that culminated with convictions for the former mayor, four former city councilmembers, the city administrator, and the assistant city administrator. More recently, City of Maywood officials drew criticism in May 2016 for receiving automobile stipends of $250/month, even though the city is the second smallest in the county and covers approximately one square mile.
Troubled by these abuses, some advocates for open government want local agencies to post additional information about employee compensation on their website.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 779 requires a city, county, city and county, or special district to post a link on its homepage that contains the names, positions, and total compensation of each elected official within that entity for the previous fiscal year and the 10 employees with the greatest total compensation. AB 779 defines total compensation to include the aggregate of payments for salaries, overtime, unused vacation, stipends, pension contributions, retirement contributions, health premium contributions, automobile allowances, phone allowances, technology allowances, and any other type of compensation provided. Reimbursements or payments for work-related travel expenses do not count as compensation under the bill. The city, county, or special district must aggregate the compensation of each employee that holds more than one position.
AB 779 requires this information to be posted within six months of the close of the fiscal year. A city or special district that does not have a website must work with the relevant county to post the information on the county’s website.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. Exorbitant employee compensation undermines the public’s faith that taxpayer dollars are being put to the best use. But without adequate information on compensation, it is difficult to identify and hold accountable those who are being overpaid. The average citizen is unlikely to think of the State Controller’s Office website when looking for local government compensation information; logic leads them to look on the local government’s website. And even if a taxpayer can find the right website, it can be difficult to tie compensation to specific individuals. AB 779 helps Californians to easily find information about their local elected officials and the highest earners to hold them accountable. Matching the level of compensation with names, instead of only employee classifications, and breaking out parts of compensation (such as car allowances) makes it easier to identify egregious compensation practices. The California Legislature already posts names and salaries for all its employees; AB 779 ensures that local governments take small steps in a similar direction.
2. Redundant. State law already requires local governments to provide exhaustive information on the compensation of its employees to the State Controller’s Office, which then posts the information in an accessible format. Local agencies must also include a prominent link to that information on their website, either by posting the information themselves or pointing the user to the Controller’s website. AB 779 requires local governments to post nearly identical and redundant information on their websites. In addition, one of the few new pieces of information required by the bill—names of employees—poses a privacy and safety risk by potentially subjecting employees to harassment. If there are concerns with the transparency afforded by the Controller’s compensation reports, it makes sense to address those deficiencies instead of creating costly and duplicative requirements. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 779 to modify the components and presentation of those reports instead of imposing new requirements.
3. Homepage. Even in today’s digital age, not all cities and special districts have websites. Typically, current law only requires online posting of materials (such as agendas) if local agencies have a website. AB 779 requires cities and special districts that lack websites to work with the relevant county to post compensation information. Counties with large numbers of small special districts may find themselves expending significant effort to collect and host this information. This burden may fall especially hard on rural counties that have smaller population bases. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 779 to instead require local agencies to only post the compensation information on their website if they have one.
4. Timing is everything. Just last year, the Legislature amended the deadline by which cities, counties, and special districts must provide annual compensation information to the State Controller’s Office: April 30th for the information provided in the preceding calendar year. But AB 779 requires these agencies to post the information within six months of the close of the fiscal year. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 779 to specify the same deadline as in current law.
5. New bill, prior votes not relevant. As passed by the Assembly, AB 779 contained provisions relating to transportation and congestion management. The Senate Governance & Finance Committee never heard that version of the bill. The June 2 amendments deleted AB 779's contents and inserted the current language relating to local government compensation.
6. Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Office, AB 2801 creates a new state-mandated local program because it increases the duties of local officials. AB 2801 says that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that it creates a state-mandated local program, the state must reimburse local agencies by following the existing statutory process for mandate claims.
7. Prior and related legislation. AB 2040 (Garcia, 2014) requires local agencies to prominently post a link on their websites to the Controller’s compensation reports. Previous versions of the legislation also required local agencies to post the names and monthly compensation of every employee and elected official employed by the agency. AB 2257 (Maienschein), which the Committee will hear on June 29th along with AB 779, directs local agencies that have websites to include on their homepage a link to the most recent agenda of their governing bodies.
Assembly Actions
Not relevant to the June 2nd version of the bill.
Support and Opposition
(6/23/16)
Support: California League of Conservation Voters; Sierra Club California.
Opposition: California Professional Firefighters; California Special Districts Association; California State Association of Counties; County of Sacramento; League of California Cities; Rural County Representatives of California; Urban Counties of California.
-- END --
AB 779 (Cristina Garcia) Page 6 of 6
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 779 Hearing Date: 8/25/2015
Author: |
Cristina Garcia |
||
Version: |
8/19/2015 |
||
Urgency: |
Yes |
Fiscal: |
Yes |
Consultant: |
Alison Dinmore |
||
SUBJECT: Transportation: congestion management program
DIGEST: This bill deletes the traffic level of service standards (LOS) as an element of a congestion management program and would delete related requirements, including the requirement that a city or county prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Requires congestion management programs to be used by a regional transportation planning agency (regional agency) to meet federal requirements for a congestion management system and incorporated into the congestion management system.
Requires a congestion management program to be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that has an urbanized area. Urbanized area means the same as the 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more than 50,000 population.
Requires a congestion management program to include the following elements:
Traffic LOS standards established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the regional agency, including at a minimum all state highways and roadways. Requires that in no case shall LOS standards fall below a specific level or the current level. When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established LOS standard outside an infill opportunity zone, a deficiency plan shall be adopted.
A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives.
A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots.
A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts.
A seven-year capital improvement program to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods to mitigate regional transportation impacts.
Requires the congestion management programs to be submitted to the regional agency and for the regional agency to evaluate the consistency between the program and the regional transportation plan.
Requires the regional agency to monitor the implementation of all elements of the congestion management program. The regional agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the congestion management program, including but not limited to:
Consistency with LOS standards;
Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including the costs associated with mitigating these impacts; and
Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan when highways and roadway LOS standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system.
A local jurisdiction shall prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system.
The analysis for the cause of the deficiency shall exclude:
Interregional travel;
Construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that impact the system;
Freeway ramp metering;
Traffic signal coordination by the state or multi-jurisdictional agencies;
Traffic generated by the provision of low-income and very low income housing; and
Traffic generated by high-density residential developments located within one-fourth mile of a fixed-rail passenger station and traffic generated by mixed-use developments located within one-fourth mile of a fixed-rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed-use development is used for high-density residential housing.
Defines “infill opportunity zone” as a specific area, designated by a city or county, that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is defined in existing law, except that it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. A high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with a fixed bus route service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
Defines “level of service standard” as a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management program highway and roadway system, which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan.
This urgency bill:
Deletes the traffic LOS standards as an element of a congestion management program and would delete related requirements, including the requirement that a city or county prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS are not maintained.
Requires the performance element measures include greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Removes the requirement that an infill opportunity zone be within one-fourth mile from a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.
Adds to the list of exclusions from a deficiency analysis:
Traffic generated by any transit priority project; and
Improvements to facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transportation.
States that nothing shall be interpreted to require a local agency to implement improvements to reduce delay at intersections or roadway segments that the local agency determines would impede the development of a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. According to the author, existing law mandates that congestion management plans designate minimum LOS for certain roadways. Additionally, local governments that fail to maintain minimum LOS risk losing sales tax dollars. As a result, those LOS are often required in local general plans. Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013) set in motion a process to remove LOS from the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While this change moved California closer to achieving its environmental goals, it requires infill developers to conduct two different analyses for new projects: one using LOS under congestion management law and another requiring the use of a different metric under CEQA, likely vehicle miles traveled (VMT). According to the author, these duplicative analyses are problematic because they increase the costs for urban infill projects. These increased costs are associated with traffic mitigation, high-rise construction, cost of land acquisition, seismic and sea-level inundation risk, and often increased community input. This bill will align congestion management law with the recent changes in CEQA law to allow congestion management agencies to use a non-LOS metric for transportation planning and eliminate the need for duplicative analyses.
Congestion Management Program. In 1990, the Legislature established the Congestion Management Program, which requires congestion management agencies in areas with a population of 50,000 to measure minimum capacity on designated roadways using the LOS metric. LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on roadway segments and is expressed through a letter grade ranging from A to F (A indicating free-flowing traffic and F indicating a breakdown of flow). Because LOS standards are tied to sales tax dollars, LOS standards are often found in local general plans and congestion management plans. Additionally, existing law requires minimum LOS for certain roadways. If an intersection falls below a threshold, the regional agency must develop a deficiency plan to improve the LOS through mitigation, such as expanding roads and adding lanes, to accommodate more vehicles and allow traffic to move more freely.
Encouraging infill development and state GHG goals. California’s climate change laws seek to reduce transportation emissions by reducing the amount that people need to drive. Congestion management law, however, often encourages more driving. This is because LOS considers delay experienced by drivers, not passengers, including public transportation passengers. For example, a bus is given the same weight as a passenger vehicle in a traffic study. Another example is that if a project in question includes a bus-only or bicycle lane, the traffic engineer conducting the study would expect increased delay for passenger vehicles. The result of an LOS calculation would indicate that the project degrades LOS even if the project is a more efficient use of road space and would promote less-polluting uses. Furthermore, mitigating adverse impacts of LOS standards often results in more driving by widening roads to accommodate more cars, at the expense of alternative transportstion modes.
Additionally, LOS has been identified as a barrier to infill development and transit-oriented development. A traffic study using LOS might find that sprawl developments perform well (i.e., traffic flows more freely) because there are fewer cars around. An urban infill project, however, might perform poorly because it would contribute to an already congested condition, even though residents and consumers associated with infill projects are less likely to rely on cars for their transportation needs. Mitigation efforts to increase traffic flow, such as expanding roads, may not be possible in urban areas and may therefore prevent a project from moving forward.
This bill would allow local governments to address congestion using measures of effectiveness other than physical road capacity, which would encourage other modes of travel such as biking and transit and permit infill development where it otherwise would have been precluded.
Conforming to recent CEQA changes. CEQA requires new projects to analyze potential environmental changes created by the proposed project. Transportation impacts analyzed under CEQA have typically focused on the impact of projects on traffic flow using LOS. SB 743, however, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative methods of measuring transportation impacts to LOS under CEQA, such as VMT. Developers are still required, however, under congestion management law to prepare an LOS study. This means that developers may be preparing two separate studies to satisfy two separate legal requirements. This bill would provide greater flexibility for the developer to prepare one analysis, such as a VMT analysis, to meet the requirements of CEQA and congestion management law.
Related Legislation:
AB 1098 (Bloom, 2015) — deleted the traffic LOS as an element of a congestion management program and would revise the requirements for other elements of a congestion management program by, among other things, requiring performance measures to include vehicle miles traveled, air emissions, and bicycle, transit, and pedestrian mode share. This bill was held in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
SB 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013) — requires OPR to adopt CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Thursday,
August 20, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
California Infill Federation
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
AB 779
Page 2
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 779
(Cristina Garcia)
As Amended June 1, 2015
Majority vote
Committee |
Votes |
Ayes |
Noes |
Transportation |
15-0 |
Frazier, Achadjian, Baker, Bloom, Campos, Chu, Daly, Dodd, Eduardo Garcia, Gomez, Kim, Linder, Medina, Melendez, O'Donnell |
|
Natural Resources |
9-0 |
Williams, Dahle, Cristina Garcia, Hadley, Harper, McCarty, Rendon, Mark Stone, Wood |
|
Appropriations |
12-0 |
Gomez, Bonta, Calderon, Daly, Eggman, Eduardo Garcia, Gordon, Holden, Quirk, Rendon, Weber, Wood |
|
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to determine, for the purposes of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review, that transportation impacts from residential and mixed-use projects in transit priority areas do not meet the threshold of "significant."
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible fiscal impact.
COMMENTS: SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013, among other things, directed OPR to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14) to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that are not based on level of service (LOS). This bill additionally authorized, but did not require, OPR to apply the new criteria outside of transit priority areas.
LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on roadway segments and is expressed with a letter grade ranging from A to F. LOS A represents free-flowing traffic, while LOS F represents congested conditions. LOS has been criticized as an outdated metric because it does not consider person delay and neglects transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many believe that an over-reliance on LOS considerations by planners has led to widening intersections and roadways to move automobile traffic faster at the expense of other modes of transportation. LOS has also been criticized as a barrier to infill and transit-oriented development. A traffic study using LOS might find that greenfield developments perform well because there are so few other cars around. An urban infill project, on the other hand, might perform poorly because it would contribute to an already congested condition, even though residents and consumers associated with infill projects are less likely to rely on cars for their transportation needs.
In response to SB 743, OPR published a preliminary evaluation of potential alternatives to LOS in December 2013. Based on comments received in response to that document, the office released draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in August 2014, and accepted comments on the draft through November 2014. The draft proposed to replace LOS analysis with an analysis of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as a measure of the significance of a project's transportation impacts.
OPR took a phased approach to implementation in the first draft, proposing that the new analysis procedures would apply immediately upon the effective date of the revised CEQA Guidelines to projects located within one-half mile of major transit stops and high-quality transit corridors, and statewide after January 1, 2016. OPR additionally proposed allowing jurisdictions to opt in to the new procedures regardless of location from the time of adoption.
The sponsor, the Infill Builders Federation, is concerned that the revisions as currently drafted, while intended to benefit infill development, may actually put infill at a greater disadvantage by requiring infill projects to undergo an untested VMT analysis that initially will not apply to development projects in other areas. The sponsor is concerned that this places both an added analysis burden and potentially an added litigation burden on infill rather than making it easier to move these types of projects forward. To address this concern, this bill clarifies that OPR may determine that residential and mixed-use projects in transit priority areas do not meet the threshold of "significant" for the purposes of CEQA, particularly when the VMT metric is used.
Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000778
AB 779
Page 2
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB 779
(Cristina Garcia) – As Amended April 14, 2015
Policy Committee: |
Transportation |
Vote: |
15 - 0 |
|
Natural Resources |
|
9 - 0 |
|
|
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill delays, until July 1, 2017, the effective date of revised CEQA guidelines establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, i.e. within one-half mile of major transit stop.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The guidelines are to be finalized this year, thus the bill will delay their adoption by at least six months and likely longer. Two staff at OPR are currently working on the guidelines, and delaying implementation will extend this process and create uncertainty, resulting in over $150,000 of additional staff resources toward this effort. In addition, Caltrans, which is gearing up to implement the guidelines, will incur delay-related fiscal impacts.
COMMENTS:
Background. SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013, among other things, directed OPR to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that are not based on level-of-service (LOS). (LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on roadway segments and is expressed with a letter grade ranging from A (free-flowing traffic) to F (congested conditions).) LOS has been criticized as an outdated metric because it does not consider person delay and neglects transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many believe that an over-reliance on LOS considerations by planners has led to widening intersections and roadways to move automobile traffic faster at the expense of other modes of transportation. LOS has also been criticized as a barrier to infill and transit-oriented development.
In response to SB 743, OPR published a preliminary evaluation of potential alternatives to LOS in December, 2013. Based on comments received in response to that document, the office released draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in August, 2014, and accepted comments on the draft through November, 2014. The draft proposed to replace the LOS analysis with an analysis of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as a measure of the significance of a project's transportation impacts.
Purpose. This bill delays any revisions to the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant to SB 743 from becoming effective prior to July 1, 2017. The sponsor, the Infill Builders Federation, is concerned that the revisions, as currently drafted, while intended to benefit infill development, may actually put infill at a greater disadvantage by requiring infill projects to undergo an untested VMT analysis that initially will not apply to development projects in non-transit-oriented areas. The sponsor is concerned that this places both an added analysis burden and potentially an added litigation burden on infill rather than making it easier to move these types of projects forward.
OPR has indicated that it is likely to issue a revised draft of the guidelines, although the timing and extent of changes to the first draft are uncertain. It is also not clear when OPR expects that final revisions will be formally adopted.
Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 779
Page 3
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Das Williams, Chair
AB 779
(Cristina Garcia) – As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Environmental quality: transit priority areas
SUMMARY: Delays the effective date of revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas until July 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW:
Requires, under CEQA, lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to adopt, guidelines for the implementation of CEQA by public agencies.
Requires OPR to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new, non-"level of service" (LOS) criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within "transit priority areas." (LOS is a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management program highway and roadway system which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan.)
Defines "transit priority area" as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop (i.e., 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) that is either existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon of a specified federal transportation plan.
Requires the criteria to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Requires OPR to recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts, including vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.
Authorizes OPR to establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
Provides that automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of capacity or congestion, shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to CEQA, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.
Provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of residential, mixed-use, and employment center projects on infill sites shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment for purposes of CEQA, while also stating that the authority of a lead agency to consider aesthetic impacts pursuant to local design review ordinances or other discretionary powers is not affected.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013, among other things, directed OPR to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that are not based on LOS. The bill additionally authorized, but did not require, OPR to apply the new criteria outside of transit priority areas.
LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on roadway segments and is expressed with a letter grade ranging from A to F. LOS A represents free-flowing traffic, while LOS F represents congested conditions. LOS has been criticized as an outdated metric because it does not consider person delay and neglects transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many believe that an over-reliance on LOS considerations by planners has led to widening intersections and roadways to move automobile traffic faster at the expense of other modes of transportation. LOS has also been criticized as a barrier to infill and transit-oriented development. A traffic study using LOS might find that greenfield developments perform well because there are so few other cars around. An urban infill project, on the other hand, might perform poorly because it would contribute to an already congested condition, even though residents and consumers associated with infill projects are less likely to rely on cars for their transportation needs.
In response to SB 743, OPR published a preliminary evaluation of potential alternatives to LOS in December, 2013. Based on comments received in response to that document, the office released draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in August, 2014, and accepted comments on the draft through November, 2014. The draft proposed to replace the LOS analysis with an analysis of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as a measure of the significance of a project's transportation impacts.
OPR took a phased approach to implementation in the first draft, proposing that the new analysis procedures would apply immediately upon the effective date of the revised CEQA Guidelines to projects located within one-half mile of major transit stops and high-quality transit corridors, and statewide after January 1, 2016. OPR additionally proposed allowing jurisdictions to opt in to the new procedures regardless of location from the time of adoption.
This bill delays any revisions to the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant to SB 743 from becoming effective prior to July 1, 2017. The sponsor, the Infill Builders Federation, is concerned that the revisions, as currently drafted, while intended to benefit infill development, may actually put infill at a greater disadvantage by requiring infill projects to undergo an untested VMT analysis that initially will not apply to development projects in other areas. The sponsor is concerned that this places both an added analysis burden and potentially an added litigation burden on infill rather than making it easier to move these types of projects forward.
OPR has indicated that it is likely to issue a revised draft of the guidelines based on the nearly 200 comments it received on the first draft, although the timing of that draft and the extent of the changes to the first draft it might contain are uncertain. It is not clear when OPR expects that final revisions will be formally adopted.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
The California Infill Federation (Sponsor)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
AB 779
Page 3
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 779
(Cristina Garcia) – As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Environmental quality: transit priority areas
SUMMARY: Specifies that revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas shall not be effective before July 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW:
Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that are not based on level of service (LOS).
Defines "transit priority area" as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop (i.e., 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) that is either existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon of an adopted regional transportation plan.
Requires the new criteria to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Requires OPR to recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts, including vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.
Authorizes OPR to establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.
Provides that automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of capacity or congestion, shall not support a finding of significance pursuant to CEQA, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any, once the guidelines are certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency.
Authorizes OPR to adopt CEQA Guidelines establishing metrics for analysis of transportation impacts that are alternatives to LOS to be used outside transit priority areas and authorizes the metrics to include the retention of LOS where appropriate as determined by OPR.
Required OPR to circulate a draft of the revisions to the CEQA Guidelines by July 1, 2014.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013, among other things, directed OPR to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas that are not based on LOS. The bill additionally authorized, but did not require, OPR to apply the new criteria outside of transit priority areas.
LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on roadway segments and is expressed with a letter grade ranging from A to F. LOS A represents free-flowing traffic, while LOS F represents congested conditions. LOS has been criticized as an outdated metric because it does not consider person delay and neglects transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many believe that an over-reliance on LOS considerations by planners has led to widening intersections and roadways to move automobile traffic faster at the expense of other modes of transportation. LOS has also been criticized as a barrier to infill and transit-oriented development. A traffic study using LOS might find that greenfield developments perform well because there are so few other cars around. An urban infill project, on the other hand, might perform poorly because it would contribute to an already congested condition, even though residents and consumers associated with infill projects are less likely to rely on cars for their transportation needs.
In response to SB 743, OPR published a preliminary evaluation of potential alternatives to LOS in December, 2013. Based on comments received in response to that document, the office released draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in August, 2014, and accepted comments on the draft through November, 2014. The draft proposed to replace LOS analysis with an analysis of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as a measure of the significance of a project's transportation impacts.
OPR took a phased approach to implementation in the first draft, proposing that the new analysis procedures would apply immediately upon the effective date of the revised CEQA Guidelines to projects located within one-half mile of major transit stops and high-quality transit corridors, and statewide after January 1, 2016. OPR additionally proposed allowing jurisdictions to opt in to the new procedures regardless of location from the time of adoption.
This bill delays any revisions to the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant to SB 743 from becoming effective prior to July 1, 2017. The sponsor, the Infill Builders Federation, is concerned that the revisions as currently drafted, while intended to benefit infill development, may actually put infill at a greater disadvantage by requiring infill projects to undergo an untested VMT analysis that initially will not apply to development projects in other areas. The sponsor is concerned that this places both an added analysis burden and potentially an added litigation burden on infill rather than making it easier to move these types of projects forward.
OPR has indicated that it is likely to issue a revised draft of the guidelines based on the nearly 200 comments it received on the first draft, although the timing of that draft and the extent of the changes to the first draft it might contain are uncertain. It is not clear when OPR expects that final revisions will be formally adopted. It may be that the next draft will address many of the concerns raised by the sponsor of this bill, in which case this bill may not be necessary. However, in the event that the next draft still raises concerns, the sponsor would like to delay implementation to provide additional time to try to resolve them. Given the complexity of the issue and the potential scope of the changes in question, it makes sense to provide additional time, if necessary, to craft an approach that best supports the state's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing multimodal transportation networks.
Double referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee should it pass out of this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Infill Builders Federation (Sponsor)
California Chapter, American Planning Association (if amended)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):