Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act

Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act
Name	Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act
Long name	Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act
Enacted by	California State Legislature
Signed by	Arnold Schwarzenegger
Date signed	2008
Status	enacted

Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act

The Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act is a California statute enacted to direct land use planning toward compact development, transit-oriented communities, and affordable housing preservation. It aims to coordinate zoning changes, incentives, and environmental review processes with transportation planning, housing policy, and community development strategies. The law interacts with existing statutory frameworks such as the California Environmental Quality Act, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and local general plan requirements.

Background and Purpose

The Act was developed amid debates following landmark decisions including Sierra Club v. County of Fresno and policy shifts around SB 375 (2008), addressing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled concerns. Driven by advocacy from groups like the Greenbelt Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Local Government Commission, the statute sought to reconcile growth management promoted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and housing goals advanced by the California Housing Finance Agency. It responded to pressures from municipal governments such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento to align zoning with transit investments made by agencies like Caltrans and regional transit districts such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit District.

Provisions and Policy Mechanisms

The Act establishes mechanisms for rezoning, density bonuses, and expedited environmental review tied to specified criteria. It authorizes incentives similar to those in California Density Bonus Law and coordinates with Redevelopment frameworks previously used by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The statute creates a nexus between eligible projects and transit corridors identified by entities including the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the San Diego Association of Governments. It amends elements of the Subdivisions Map Act and prescribes objective design standards, invoking elements of State Housing Law to limit discretionary review where projects meet predefined thresholds. The law also includes anti-displacement measures referencing tools used by San Jose and Oakland such as tenant protection ordinances and community land trusts modeled after Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative.

Implementation and Administration

Responsibility for implementation is shared across state agencies and local jurisdictions. The Office of Planning and Research issues guidelines and model ordinances, while the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the California Air Resources Board coordinate on greenhouse gas targets tied to the statute’s goals. Funding and grants are administered through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program, and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program. Counties and cities such as Santa Clara County, Contra Costa County, and Fresno County adopt local implementation plans incorporated into their general plan housing elements, with oversight by the Housing and Community Development Department.

Impacts and Outcomes

Analyses by the Public Policy Institute of California, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, and academic researchers at University of California, Berkeley report mixed outcomes. The Act contributed to projects near Downtown Los Angeles and along El Camino Real that increased housing production and ridership on systems like Metrolink. It influenced infill development in places including San Diego, Long Beach, and Sacramento, and supported preservation efforts in historic neighborhoods such as North Beach and Old Oakland. Environmental assessments linked to California Environmental Quality Act streamlining reduced processing times for qualifying projects, while state housing element compliance showed shifts in allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation framework. However, effects on affordable housing stock varied across jurisdictions, with notable implementation successes in Berkeley and Santa Monica contrasted by slower progress in Riverside and Bakersfield.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics from groups including Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and local neighborhood coalitions have argued the Act undermines local control and historic preservation in districts like Pasadena and Napa. Legal challenges invoked precedents from California Coastal Commission rulings and disputes over the interpretation of CEQA safeguards. Affordable housing advocates such as California Housing Partnership and tenant organizations in Los Angeles contended that incentives favored market-rate development unless coupled with stronger inclusionary mandates. Developers and proponents cited expedited procedures and reduced litigation risk as benefits, while opponents warned of displacement pressures reminiscent of controversies in Mission District and Echo Park.

Legislative History and Amendments

Introduced amid concurrent bills like SB 375 (Steinberg) and debates over redevelopment dissolution, the Act moved through committees including Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development and the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. The statute was signed during the administration of Arnold Schwarzenegger and later amended to refine anti-displacement provisions, align with subsequent housing laws such as SB 743 (2013), and clarify interactions with the California Environmental Quality Act. Subsequent legislative adjustments incorporated recommendations from the Legislative Analyst's Office and judicial guidance from cases adjudicated in the California Supreme Court and various California Courts of Appeal.

Category:California statutes