BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: AB 2509 HEARING: 6/9/10
AUTHOR: Hayashi FISCAL: No
VERSION: 4/8/10 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
TRANSIT VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
Background and Existing Law
Public officials have invested billions of dollars in
transit projects and programs. However, this public
investment won't pay off if local officials fail to promote
private development around transit stations.
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 local officials want to
encourage transit-oriented development and grant density
bonuses (AB 3152, Bates, 1994). A transit village plan for
a transit village development district must address seven
characteristics:
A neighborhood centered on a transit station.
A mix of housing types.
Other land uses, including retail and civic uses.
Pedestrian and bicycle access.
Intermodal transit service.
Public benefits beyond increasing transit use,
identifying at least five benefits from a statutory
list of 13 items (AB 1320, Dutra, 2004):
Traffic congestion relief Infill and
resource preservation
Air quality improvements Pedestrian safety
Increased transit revenuesNearby retail sales
More affordable housing Job opportunities
Neighborhood redevelopmentCost-effective
infrastructure
Live-work options Increased local tax
revenues
Reduced energy
consumption
Sites for awarding a land use density bonus.
AB 2509 -- 4/8/10 -- Page 2
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 2509 adds, as an eighth characteristic that
cities and counties must include in their transit village
plans, other land uses that provide direct linkages for
traveling to and from educational facilities.
B 2509 also adds economic development and job creation as
the 14th item in the list of public benefits that a transit
village plan may demonstrate.
Comments
1. Common sense . By concentrating a mix of housing,
businesses, and community services around transit stations,
transit villages provide convenient access to the places
that residents and visitors need to go. Current law
already lists retail and civic land uses among the types of
other land uses that a transit village plan must include.
There's no reason why these plans should be silent about
providing access to schools, community colleges, and
universities. AB 2509 reflects this common sense approach
to community development by adding access to educational
facilities to transit village plans' required contents.
2. Nice, but not necessary . Local officials already know
the importance of linking schools to transit villages.
That's why Lancaster officials provided a location for a
school when they adopted the North Downtown Transit Village
Plan. West Sacramento worked with the Los Rios Community
College District to locate a satellite facility next to the
bus transit hub as part of the civic center campus
development. Just because the statute doesn't mention a
land use doesn't exclude it from transit village planning.
For example, Oakland's Fruitvale Transit Village includes a
community health clinic even though state law doesn't
require transit village plans to show health facilities.
In other words, adding access to schools in the transit
village planning law is nice, but not necessary.
3. Almost identical . AB 2509 is almost identical to AB
1158 (Hayashi, 2009) which the Senate Local Government
Committee passed, but the Governor vetoed. The veto
message called last year's bill "unnecessary" and said that
"not all local governments have a need to include
educational facilities in a transit village plan." This
year's Hayashi bill differs from AB 1158 by including
AB 2509 -- 4/8/10 -- Page 3
economic development and job creation as one of transit
village planning's benefits. The Committee may wish to
consider whether that additional language will persuade the
Governor to sign AB 2509.
4. Double-jointing needed . On June 9, the Committee will
also consider AB 987 (Ma). Both AB 2509 and AB 987 amend
Government Code 65460.2, but in different ways. To avoid
one bill chaptering-out the changes made by the other bill,
the authors should include double-jointing amendments.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-3
Assembly Floor: 49-27
AB 2509 -- 4/8/10 -- Page 4
Support and Opposition (6/3/10)
Support : California Transit Association, Chabot-Las
Positas Community College District, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, State Building and Construction
Trades Council of California.
Opposition : Unknown.