BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2509
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2509 (Hayashi)
As Amended April 8, 2010
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Torlakson, Arambula, | | |
| |Bradford, Davis, Solorio, | | |
| |Fong | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Logue | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Adds a new public benefit and a new characteristic of
other land uses that a transit village plan can contain.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds "promote economic development and job creation" to the
list of demonstrable public benefits beyond the increase in
transit usage that a transit village plan can contain.
2)Adds the characteristic of other land uses, including
educational facilities that provide direct linkages for people
traveling to and from primary and secondary education schools,
community colleges, and universities, to the list of specified
characteristics that a transit village plan may address.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes, under the Transit Village Development Planning Act
of 1994, a city or county to prepare a transit village plan
for a Transit Village Development District that addresses the
following characteristics:
a) A neighborhood centered around a transit station that is
planned and designed so that residents, workers, shoppers,
and others find it convenient and attractive to patronize
transit;
b) Mix of housing types, including apartments, within not
AB 2509
Page 2
more than a quarter mile of the exterior boundary of the
parcel on which the transit station is located;
c) Other land uses, including a retail district oriented to
the transit station and civic uses, including day care
centers and libraries;
d) Pedestrian and bicycle access to the transit station,
with attractively designed and landscaped pathways;
e) A transit system that should encourage and facilitate
intermodal service, and access by modes other than single
occupant vehicles;
f) Demonstrable public benefits beyond the increase in
transit usage; and,
g) Sites where a density bonus of at least 25% may be
granted pursuant to specified performance standards.
2)Requires a transit village plan to include any five public
benefits from a list of 13 specified public benefits.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Many local governments and transit agencies
understand the benefits of using transit-oriented development
(TOD) as an urban planning tool to help communities deal with
the possible negative impact of unrestricted growth and sprawl.
Some of these impacts include growing traffic gridlock and
commuting times, the loss of open space, and increased air and
water pollution. Working with local transit agencies, local
communities are creating strong centralized mixed-use
communities by developing TOD projects that are clustered around
train stations and bus centers. The environment and local
economies are enhanced by TOD, and the publicly supported
transit systems benefit from nearby residents and businesses.
This bill adds "educational facilities" that provide a direct
link for people traveling to and from K-12 schools, community
colleges, and universities to the current list of
characteristics that a city or county are authorized to use in
developing a transit village plan. The author believes that
this bill will provide community colleges with the opportunity
to secure future funding for educational centers that can be a
AB 2509
Page 3
part of transit villages. This bill also adds promoting
economic development and job creation in the list of
characteristics a transit village plan can address.
Support arguments: Supporters, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), states that by concentrating a
mix of housing, businesses and community services around transit
stations, transit villages provide convenient access to places
that residents and visitors need to go. VTA states that transit
villages should include K-12 schools, community colleges, and
universities. By locating educational facilities near transit
stations, local agencies give students and faculty members the
option to use public transit to get to and from school. This
bill acknowledges that educational facilities are appropriate
forms of development in a TOD.
Opposition arguments: A nearly identical measure, AB 1158
(Hayashi) was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger last year. In
his veto message, the Governor stated that "this bill is
unnecessary because local governments are already free to
address any form of development as part of a transit village
plan, including educational facilities. In addition, not all
local governments have a need to include educational facilities
in a transit village plan." Given that this bill is almost
identical to the vetoed measure, the Committee may wish to ask
the author what steps are being taken to ensure that this bill
addresses the Governor's concerns.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0004241