BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 987|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 987
          Author:   Ma (D)
          Amended:  8/18/10 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE  :  3-1, 6/16/10
          AYES:  Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
          NOES:  Aanestad
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cox
           
          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  43-29, 1/27/10 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Transit village development districts

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill expands the maximum size of a transit  
          village development district from the total area within  
          one-quarter mile of the exterior boundary of the parcel on  
          which a transit station is located to the total area within  
          one-half mile of a transit station's main entrance.

           Senate Floor Amendments  of 8/18/10 avoid a chaptering-out  
          problem by inserting double-jointing provisions.

           ANALYSIS  :    The Transit Village Development Act allows  
          cities and counties to plan for more intense development  
          around transit stations:  rail or light-rail stations,  
          ferry terminals, bus hubs, or bus transfer stations.   
          Transit village plans identify areas where officials want  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 987
                                                                Page  
          2

          to encourage transit-oriented development and grant density  
          bonuses (AB 3152 [Bates], Chapter 780, Statutes of 1994).

          The maximum size of a transit village development district  
          is the total area within one-quarter mile from the exterior  
          boundary of the parcel on which the transit station is  
          located.  
          
          This bill expands the maximum size of a transit village  
          development district from the total area within one-quarter  
          mile of the exterior boundary of the parcel on which a  
          transit station is located to the total area within  
          one-half mile of a transit station's main entrance.

          This bill revises the legislative declarations within the  
          Transit Village Planning Act and adds two more findings  
          regarding environmental conditions and sustainable  
          development standards.  This bill also clarifies that the  
          Act's reference to a "county" also means a city and county.
          
           Comments  

          The public sector's investment in commuter rail,  
          light-rail, ferries, and bus lines is part of a wider  
          strategy to improve air quality, save energy, and improve  
          mobility.  When communities encourage transit agencies to  
          build expensive systems, but then fail to promote higher  
          density development around transit stations, the loss is  
          environmental and social, as well as physical and fiscal.   
          Those losses are regional, not just local.  One reason that  
          communities do not encourage denser, more compact  
          development around transit stations is the cost of public  
          works needed to support new residents and businesses.   
          Although this bill does not create a new funding source for  
          those public works, it encourages local officials and their  
          planners to take a wider view of transit village  
          development.  By expanding and redefining the area for  
          transit village planning, this bill widens the policy  
          horizon.
          
           Prior Legislation

           AB 338 (Ma), 2009-10 Session, would have waived the  
          voter-approval requirements for setting up infrastructure  







                                                                AB 987
                                                                Page  
          3

          financing districts (IFDs) and issuing IFD bonds.  Governor  
          Schwarzenegger vetoed the 2009 Ma bill because "elections  
          are the sole basis of public input and fiscal discipline in  
          the creation of an IFD, and it is necessary to require  
          voter approval."  Besides expanding the planning area, AB  
          1221 (Ma), 2007-08 Session, would have linked IFDs to  
          transit village development.  Governor Schwarzenegger  
          vetoed the 2008 Ma bill because he said that it was not a  
          statewide priority.  Unlike the two recent attempts, this  
          year's bill does not amend the IFD law.
          
           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/18/10)

          California Transit Association
          City of Torrance
          San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
          Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/18/10)

          Department of Housing and Community Development


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles  
            Calderon, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, Eng, Evans,  
            Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hayashi,  
            Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal,  
            Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, Portantino,  
            Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,  
            Torres, Torrico, Yamada
          NOES:  Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,  
            Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,  
            Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Huber,  
            Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello,  
            Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Carter, De Leon, Hall, V. Manuel Perez,  
            Torlakson, Bass









                                                                AB 987
                                                                Page  
          4

          AGB:mw  8/19/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****