BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: AB 987 HEARING: 6/9/10
AUTHOR: Ma FISCAL: No
VERSION: 5/20/10 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
TRANSIT VILLAGE PLANS
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 officials want to encourage transit-oriented
development and grant density bonuses (AB 3152, Bates,
1994).
The maximum size of a transit village development district
is the total area within -mile from the exterior boundary
of the parcel on which the transit station is located.
That distance reflected planners' conventional wisdom in
1994. However, research published in 2007 by San Jos?
State University's Mineta Transportation Institute found
that transit riders walk farther than commonly assumed.
Transit riders in the San Francisco Bay Area and Portland,
Oregon said they walked about -miles to their rail transit
stations. Transit village proponents want the law to
reflect this newer understanding.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 987 expands the maximum size of a transit
village development district from the total area within
-mile of the exterior boundary of the parcel on which a
transit station is located to the total area within -mile
of a transit station's main entrance.
AB 987 revises the legislative declarations within the
Transit Village Planning Act and adds two more findings
regarding environmental conditions and sustainable
AB 987 -- 5/20/10 -- Page 2
development standards. The bill also clarifies that the
Act's reference to a "county" also means a city and county.
Comments
1. Public transit, private investment . 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 don't encourage denser, more compact
development around transit stations is the cost of public
works needed to support new residents and businesses.
Although AB 987 doesn't 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, AB 987 widens the policy horizon.
2. Go figure . A transit village plan with a -mile radius
around a transit station covers about 125 acres. Doubling
the radius of a circle quadruples the circle's area. A
-mile radius covers about 500 acres. There are over 300
rail transit stations in California operated by Amtrak,
BART, Metrorail, and several transit agencies with
light-rail systems. If local officials lack the money to
finance the public works that support transit villages, how
will they pay for infrastructure within transit village
planning areas that could be four times larger?
3. Earlier attempts . AB 987 is not the first time that
Assembly Member Ma has attempted to expand the area for
transit village planning. Besides expanding the planning
area, AB 338 (Ma, 2009) would have waived the
voter-approval requirements for setting up Infrastructure
Financing Districts 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, 2008) would have linked IFDs to transit village
AB 987 -- 5/20/10 -- Page 3
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.
4. Double-jointing . On June 9, the Committee will also
consider AB 2509 (Hayashi). Both AB 987 and AB 2509 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: 4-1
Assembly Floor: 43-29
AB 987 -- 5/20/10 -- Page 4
Support and Opposition (6/3/10)
Support : California Transit Association.
Opposition : Department of Housing and Community
Development.