CC - Item IV.CC-D - Infrastructure Development: Transit Village Planse-Opposestaf epor
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUN(
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY
DATE: JULY 25, 2000
RE: AB 779 (TORLAKSON) - INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: TRANSIT
VILLAGE PLANS - OPPOSE
Attached for the City Council's review are copies of AB 779 (Torlakson), current bill status,
complete bill history, Senate committee analysis, and letter from the League of California Cities
requesting the City oppose AB 779.
The proposed bill AB 779 requires a city or county to give a 25 percent density bonus and a 15
percent parking reduction to the developer of any residential or commercial project within one-
quarter mile of a public transit station. In short, this bill proposes to override all local general plans
and zoning within one-quarter mile of any existing or planned transit station in the state. This is a
direct preemption of local land use authority and sets an extremely bad precedent.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council oppose AB 779.
J U L 2 !5 2000
COMPLETE BILL HISTORY
BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 779
AUTHOR Torlakson
TOPIC Infrastructure development
TYPE OF BILL :
transit village plans.
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Fiscal
Non-Tax-Levy
BILL HISTORY
2000
July 5 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on RLS. Re-referred.
(Ayes 4. Noes 3.).
June 27 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on L.GOV.
June 15 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on L.GOV.
May 2 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on L.GOV.
Apr. 27 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
Apr. 24 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on G.O.
1999
July 14 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on G.O. Joint Rule 61
(a)(9) suspended.
July 12 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
July 8 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer
to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com.
on L.GOV.
June 17 Referred to Coms. on L.GOV. and TRANS.
May 17 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
May 17 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 48. Noes 30. Page
1662.)
May 3 Read second time. To third reading.
Apr. 29 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) (April 28).
Mar. 24 Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
Feb. 25 From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
Feb. 24 Read first time. To print.
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 779
AUTHOR(S) Torlakson.
TOPIC Infrastructure development: transit village plans.
HOUSE LOCATION SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE 06/27/2000
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Non-Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 07/05/2000
LAST HIST. ACTION From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on RLS.
Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 3.).
TITLE An act to amend Sections 65460, 65460.2, and 65460.4 of,
and to add Section 65410.11 to, the Government Code,
relating to infrastructure development.
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 15. 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 24, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 8, 1999
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1999-2000 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 779
Introduced by Assembly Member Torlakson
February 24, 1999
An act to amend Sections 65460, 65460.2. and 65460.4 of, and
it) fepeetl and add Seetion 65469.10 of, the Governfneitt Gade,
to add Section 65410.11 to, the Government Code, relating to
infrastructure development.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 779, as amended, Torlakson. Infrastructure
development: transit village plans.
The Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994
authorizes a city or county to prepare a transit village
development plan that addresses, among other things,
increased densities of residential development within not less
than t/4 mile of a rail transit station and other land uses.
including a retail district, as specified, and sites where a
density bonus of at least 25% may be granted pursuant to
specified performance standards. The act also authorizes a
city, county, or city and county to require a developer to enter
into a development agreement, as specified, to implement a
95
AB 779 -2-
density bonus specified in the transit village plan and provides
that no public works project, tentative subdivision map, or
parcel map may be approved, nor zoning ordinance adopted
or amended, within an area covered by a transit village plan
unless the map, project, or ordinance is consistent with the
adopted transit village plan.
This bill would revise these provisions to apply to a public
transit station, as defined, and would revise the density
bonuses and any parking reduction available to project
applicants for commercial, residential, or mixed commercial
and residential uses within t/4 mile of a public transit station,
as specified. The bill would authorize the city, county, or city
and county to revise an applicant's calculations to conform to
these requirements.
The bill would also require that, where the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to an applicant's
proposal for a project, as specified, the environmental analysis
shall not include reduced density or increased parking
alternatives or recorrtmend reduced density or increased
parking as a mitigation measure, unless it is necessary to
reduce or avoid a specific, adverse, and significant impact on
public health or safety. If compliance with CEQA is not
otherwise required, the applicant's request for or the agency's
granting of the density bonus or parking reduction would not
make CEQA applicable and would not be interpreted to
require a general plan amendment, rezone, or any other
discretionary land use approval. The bill would also require
the agency to grant the request unless it makes a specified
finding based on substantial evidence in the record.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 65460 of the Government Code
2 is amended to read:
3 65460. (a) This article shall be known and may be
4 cited as the Transit Village Development Planning Act of
5 1994.
95
-3- AB 779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(b) As used in this article, the following definitions
shall apply:
(1) "Public transit station" means an existing rail
station- or ferry dock or landing, or a planned rail station
or ferry dock or landing for which construction funds are
committed or programmed.
(2) "Commercial" or "commercial uses" means office,
retail. research and development, or public uses.
SEC. 2. Section 65460.2 of the Government Code is
amended to read:
65460.2. A city or county may 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) A mix of housing types, including multiple
dwelling units, within not 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 public 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, including all of the following:
(1) Reduction of traffic congestion.
(2) Improved air quality.
(3) Increased transit revenue yields.
(4) Increased stock of affordable housing.
(5) Redevelopment of depressed and marginal
inner-city neighborhoods.
(6) Live-travel options for transit-needy groups.
(7) Promotion of infill development and preservation
of natural resources.
95
AB 779 -4
1 (8) Promotion of a safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly
2 environment around transit stations.
3 (9) Reduction of the need for additional travel by
4 providing for the sale of goods and services at transit
5 stations.
6 (10) Promotion of job opportunities.
7 (11) Improved cost effectiveness through the use of
8 the existing infrastructure.
9 (12) Increased sales and property tax revenue.
10 (13) Reduction in energy consumption.
11 (g) Other_ provisions that may be necessary, based on
12 the report prepared pursuant to subdivision (b) of
13 Section 14045.
14 SEC. 3. Section 65460.4 of the Government Code is
15 amended to read:
16 65460.4. A transit village development district shall
17 include all land within not more than a quarter mile of the
18 exterior boundary of the parcel on which is located a
19 public transit station designated by the legislative body of
20 a city, county, or city and county that has jurisdiction over
21 the station area.
22 For purposes of this article, "district" means a transit
23 village development district as defined in this section.
24
25 repealed
26 5 qeptien 65460.10 is added to the Geveffimeiit
27 rode-ta- ead
28 SEC. 4. Section 65410.11 is added to the Government
29 Code, to read:
30 65460.10.
31 65410.11. (a) Regardless of whether a transit village
32 plan or a transit village development district is adopted
33 by a city, county, or city and county, applicants for
34 commercial, residential, or mixed commercial and
35 residential uses within one-quarter mile of a public transit
36 station shall be entitled to a 25 percent residential density
37 bonus, a minimum 25 percent commercial density bonus,
38 and a 15 percent parking reduction as defined in
39 subdivision (f). A city, county, or city and county shall
40 consider the granting of a density bonus and parking
95
F
5- AB 779
1 reduction as ministerial unless the city, county, or city and
2 county_ makes the findings in subdivision (g).
3 (b) On land designated in an agency's general plan
4 and applicable zoning ordinance as residential, either
5 single family or multifamily, an applicant shall be entitled
6 to a residential density bonus of 25 percent more units
7 than the maximum units allowed under the general plan
8 and zoning ordinance. The applicant shall calculate the
9 residential density bonus by establishing the maximum
10 allowed density under the city's, county's, or city and
11 county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance
12 and increasing that number of units by 25 percent,
13 rounded up to the closest unit. Any applicable setback
14 requirements and other restrictions that determine the
15 maximum footprint for. the project shall continue to
16 apple. However, the residential density bonus need not
17 comply with otherwise applicable height restrictions.
18 The applicant shall make the request for the residential
19 density bonus at the time the application is submitted and
20 shall include the calculations justifying the requested
21 residential density bonus. Where the applicant's
22 calculations do not conform with the requirements of this
23 subdivision, the city, county, or city and county may
24 revise them to so conform.
25 (c) On land designated in a city's, county's, or city and
26 county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance
27 for any type of commercial use, an applicant shall be
28 entitled to a commercial density bonus of a 25 percent
29 increase in square footage more than the maximum
30 square footage allowed under the general plan and
31 zoning ordinance. The applicant shall calculate the
32 commercial density bonus by establishing the maximum
33 allowed square footage under the city's, county's, or city
34 and county's general plan and zoning ordinance,
35 including applicable setback requirements, and
36 increasing that square footage by 25 percent. However,
37 if the calculation results in a partial floor, the applicant
38 shall be granted a commercial density bonus of more than
39 25 percent or a percentage equal to the additional square
40 footage necessary to construct a complete floor. An
95
AB 779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-6-
applicant granted a commercial density bonus shall
comply with applicable setback requirements and other
restrictions that determine the maximum footprint for
the project, but need not comply with height restrictions
that otherwise might apply. The applicant shall make the
request for the commercial density bonus at the time the
application is submitted to the city, county, or city and
county and shall include the calculations justifying the
requested commercial density bonus. Where the
applicant's calculations do not conform with the
requirements of this subdivision, the city, county, or city
and county may revise them to so conform.
(d) On land designated in a city's, county's, or city and
county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance
for mixed commercial and residential uses, an applicant
shall be entitled to both a residential and commercial
density bonus as set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c). The
applicant shall make the request for the residential
density bonus or the commercial density bonus or both at
the time that the application is submitted to the city,
county, or city and county and shall include the
calculations justifying the requested bonuses. Where the
applicant's calculations do not conform with the
requirements of this subdivision, the city, county, or city
and county may revise them to so conform.
(e) In the event that compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code) is required for either a residential,
commercial, or mixed commercial and residential project
as described in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), the project, as
defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code,
shall include the residential or commercial density bonus.
Project alternatives in any environmental analysis
prepared under CEQA shall not include reduced density
alternatives or recommend reduced density as a
mitigation measure, unless the alternatives or mitigation
are necessary to reduce or avoid a specific, adverse, and
significant impact on public health or safety. In the event
that compliance with CEQA is not otherwise required,
95
-7- AB 779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the applicant's request for or the city's, county's, or city
and county's granting of the residential or commercial
density bonus shall not make CEQA applicable. The
request for or the granting of a residential or commercial
density bonus, in and of itself, shall not be interpreted to
require a general plan amendment, rezone, or any other
discretionary land use approval.
(f) On land designated in a city's, county's, or city and
county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance as
residential, either single family or multifamily, any type
of commercial, or mixed commercial and residential uses,
an applicant shall be entitled to a 15 percent parking
reduction from the agency's minimum parking
requirement. The parking reduction shall apply to the
project in addition to the density bonus granted pursuant
to subdivision (b), (c), or (d). The applicant shall make
the request for the parking reduction at the time the
application is submitted to the city, county, or city and
county and shall include the calculations justifying the
requested parking reduction. In the event that
compliance with CEQA is required for a project for which
a parking reduction is requested, the project, as defined
in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code, shall
include the parking reduction. Project alternatives in any
environmental analysis prepared under CEQA shall not
include increased parking alternatives or recommend
increased parking as mitigation, unless the alternatives or
mitigation are necessary to reduce or avoid a specific,
adverse, and significant impact on public health or safety.
In the event that compliance with CEQA is not otherwise
required, the applicant's request for or the agency's
granting of the parking reduction shall not make CEQA
applicable. The request for or the granting of a parking
reduction, in and of itself, shall not be interpreted to
require a general plan amendment, rezone, or any other
discretionary land use approval.
(g) The city, county, or city and county shall grant an
applicant's request for the residential or commercial
density bonus unless the agency makes a finding, based on
substantial evidence in the record, that (1) the city,
95
AB 779
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
O
95
-8-
county, or city and county has already adopted a specific
plan that entitles the development to at least a 25 percent
density bonus, or (2) the residential or commercial
density bonus will result in a specific, adverse, and
significant impact on public health or safety, including
insufficient water, sewer, or other- utilities to support the
additional density, or that the public transit station is not
pedestrian accessible to the proposed development site,
and there is no feasible method available to substantially
reduce or avoid the specific, adverse, and substantial
impact to an acceptable level.
(h) The city, county, or city and county shall grant an
applicant's request for the parking reduction unless the
city, county, or city and county makes a finding, based on
substantial evidence in the record, that (1) the city,
county, or city and county has already adopted a specific
plan that entitles the development to a 15 percent
parking reduction, or (2) the parking reduction will
result in a specific. adverse, and significant impact on
public health or safety and there is no feasible method
available to substantially reduce or avoid the specific,
adverse, and substantial impact to an acceptable level.
(i) Applicants shall not be entitled to more than one
statutory density bonus.
0) Notwithstanding Section 65803, this section shall
apply to charter cities for the reasons set forth in Section
65460.1 and because denser development around rail
stations is an issue of statewide interest.
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Richard K. Rainey, Chairman
BILL NO: AB 779
AUTHOR: Torlakson
VERSION: 6/27/00
HEARING: 7/5/00
FISCAL: No
CONSULTANT: Detwiler
TRANSIT VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
Background and Existing Law
The Planning and Zoning Law requires every city and county
to adopt a general plan, with specified contents. Local
officials' land use decisions zoning, subdivisions,
public works, use permits must be consistent with their
general plans.
over 20 years ago, the Legislature created the density
bonus as an exception to the usual consistency requirement.
When a developer promises to make at least 200 of.the
housing units affordable for lower-income households, the
city or county must grant the developer 25% more units over
the otherwise maximum density allowed by the general plan
and zoning (AB 1151, Roos, 1979).
Over $14 billion has been invested in California's rail
public transit systems over the last 25 years but mass
transit ridership continues to slip. one reason is that
new development focuses on areas served by publicly
financed freeways and not on transit corridors. The public
investment in rail transit goes to waste when local
officials fail to promote private development around rail
transit stations. Local officials in some communities have
created transit villages by increasing residential and
commercial densities within walking distance of rail stops,
speeding up permits, and subsidizing public works to
attract private investors.
In 1994, legislators passed the Transit Village Development
Planning Act which allowed cities and counties to plan more
intense development around rail transit stations. Transit
village plans are supposed to identify areas where local
officials would be willing to grant 25% density bonuses (AB
3152, Bates, 1994). Because the plans are voluntary and
not linked to specific new sources of development money,
cities and counties have not embraced them.
A 1998 University of California study reviewed builders'
and local officials' experiences with transit villages and
found several common themes. One recommendation was that
local officials must grant density bonuses in transit
villages.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 779 requires cities and counties to grant a
25% residential density bonus, a 25% commercial density
bonus, and a 15% reduction in parking requirements to
development with a quarter-mile of a public transit
station.
Development projects qualify for the density bonuses and
parking reductions in AB 779 regardless if local officials
have adopted transit village. plans. However, local
officials do not have to grant the bonuses and parking
reduction if they find that the city or county has already
adopted a specific plan that provides a 25% density bonus
or that the density bonus has adverse public health or
safety effects that can't be reduced or avoided.
The residential density bonus increases the number of units
to 25% more than the maximum number of units allowed by the
general plan and zoning ordinance, rounded up to the next
whole unit. The commercial density bonus increases the
amount of square footage to 25% more than the maximum area
allowed by the general plan and zoning ordinance, rounded
up to the next whole floor. Both residential and
commercial builders must comply with local set-back
standards but they can exceed local height limits. The
parking reduction decreases the number of parking places to
15% less than the minimum parking requirement.
AB 779 requires cities and counties to consider these
required density bonuses and the parking reduction to be
ministerial decisions unless the local officials find that
the city or county has already adopted a specific plan that
provides a 25% density bonus or that the density bonus has
adverse public health or safety effects (inadequate water,
sewers, utilities; no pedestrian access to the transit
station) that can't be reduced or avoided. -
If a development project triggers an environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
project must include the required density bonuses and the
parking reduction. The review of project alternatives
under CEQA shall not include reducing the densities or
increasing the parking requirements unless the reduction is
needed to avoid adverse public health or safety effects.
AB 779 includes both rail transit stations and ferry
landings within its definition of public transit station.
rnmmPnta
1. Public dollars private projects Public officials
have spent billions to rebuild and expand California's rail
transit: interurban rail lines, heavy-rail subways, and
light-rail trolleys. The public sector invests in rail
transit as part of a wider strategy to cut congestion and
boost air quality. But unless local land use decisions
attract private investors to build near transit stations,
the public's investment will be wasted. One way to
motivate private builders is to guarantee bigger projects
and presumably better investment returns. The density
bonuses and parking reductions in AB 779 will get their
attention.
2. A few ingredients short of the full recipe Common
sense and good economics suggest that local officials
should welcome developers who want to build near transit
stations. The UC report found good examples of communities
and builders who are doing just that. But a density bonus
is just.one ingredient in a more complete recipe for
developing transit villages. Dedicating funding for plans
and pre-development activities will motivate local
officials to accept the more intense land use demands of
transit villages. Granting travel credits under the
congestion management program will mesh transit villages
with overall transportation planning. Better integrating
transit village plans into the land use laws can avoid
duplicative CEQA reviews. Building state offices in
transit villages will boost private investors' confidence.
Expanding the transit villages' radius from mile to
mile will encourage more development. The Committee may
wish to consider why AB 779 fails to include these other
recommendations.
3. Window to the region Rail transit stations are truly
"windows to the region" that connect transit village
residents and workers with the wider metropolitan area.
When a suburban community persuades the transit district to
build a station but then insists on low density
development, the loss is social as well as fiscal.
Communities with the benefits rail transit stations have a
regional obligation to promote more intense development and
capitalize on the public investment. AS 779 exempts
communities that have already adopted higher densities. It
forces density bonuses on communities that haven't been so
accommodating.
4. Down at the station The CalTrain station in San Mateo
probably qualifies under AS 779, so does the Lafayette BART
station. But the bill doesn't define a "rail station."
Does the place where Sacramento's light-rail train stops at
39th Street fit the bill? What about where N-car stops
along Judah Street in San Francisco? If every trolley stop
is a "rail station," then the resulting -mile concentric
circles may cover entire neighborhoods, not just the
intended nodes. The Committee may wish to consider adding
a definition of "rail station."
5. Since last time After AB 779 failed passage (3-2
vote) on June 21, the Committee granted reconsideration so
that the bill could be heard again on July 5. On June 28,
the author amended the bill and:
Restored the authority for local officials to
negotiate development agreements to implement density
bonuses.
Allowed residential builders to exceed local height
limits.
Identified two situations in which local officials
don't have to approve density bonuses.
6. Double referral Because AB 779 affects the California
Environmental Quality Act, the bill must go back to the
Senate Rules Committee for a possible double-referral to
the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-3
Assembly Floor: 48-30
Support and Opposition (6/29/)
Support State Treasurer Philip Angelides, California
Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, California
Housing Council, California Transit Association, Planning
and Conservation League, City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County, Creative Housing
Associates LLC, Contra Costa Transportation Authority,
Housing Leadership Council, Job-Center Housing Coalition,
San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Santa Clara County Housing
Action Coalition, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group.
opposition California State Association of Counties,
League of California Cities, Cities of Albany, Concord,
Dublin, Glendale, Hayward, Lafayette, Los Angeles, Manteca,
Pincle, Pleasant Hill, San Diego, Victorville. _
Leaque of C
alifornia G i,es
\1 wwwc,161ic.Otg
nrllcr Cities-A ftrttcr Llfe•
July 6, 2000
Please Review ASAP
TO: City Managers of Cities Represented by Members of the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee:
Richard Alarcon
13ruce McPherson Hilda Solis
Deirdre Alpert
Jack O'Connell Cathie Wright
Wesley Cheshro
Richard Rainey
Tom Hayden
Byron Sher
From: Dan Carrigg, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities
Aly Zimmermann, Policy Analyst, League of California Cities
Phone: (916) 658-8219 Fax: (916) 658-8240 zimmera@cacities.org
RE: AB 779 (Torlakson) - League Oppose, Unless Amended
Your help is needed to secure opposition to A13 779 (Torlakson). This legislation will
give a 25% density bonus to any residential or commercial project applicants within one-
quarter mile of a public transit rail station or a ferry dock or landing, regardless of the
general plan or transit village plan of the local government. The development would also
be granted a 15% parking reduction. This is a direct preemption of local land use
authority and an extremely bad precedent for future efforts by the state to remove control
of local land use decisions from local elected officials. Today it's transit stations,
tomorrow it wili be your downtowns. Further, this bill completely ignores the significant
efforts that local governments have already made to increase zoning densities around
transit stations.
The Senate Local Government Committee passed AB 779 on July 5, 2000. The
following Senators voted in favor of the bill: Johnston, Perata, Polanco, and Soto. The
following senators voted in opposition: Johannesscn, Monteith, and Rainey.
AB 779 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality,
which will hear it when the Legislature reconvenes in August. YOUR SENATOR IS
A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. Please make phone calls and send letters of
opposition to the your senators and the Author (Assembly Member Torlakson).
A copy of the Lcague's oppose unless amended letter is attached for your review. Please
note the letter was written before recent amendments were added to the bill to include
ferry docks and landings.
't'hank you
Cnnfcrcncc RcgisirationOffice
Headquarters
SOa111cm Cnlitoi]III brae
Pus; 01(icc Lo?: 1519
1400 Y, Street
602 =asi I lumington Dr.
Suite C
L-,fayeuc, CA 4.4519
Sa.;amauu, CA 9581 14
,
Monrovia
CA 91016
925.2811.211 3
916 65b.8200
,
626.305.1 315
FAX 9)5.2Fa 7Haz
cell nic 11.1 11...
_
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, 4"' Floor
Sncmniento, CA 95514
June 8, 2000
Assembly Member Tom Torlakson
State Capitol, Room 2003
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 779 (Torlakson) Density Bonus: Transit Villages
Notice of Opposition, Unless Amended
Dear Assembly Member Torlakson:
California State Association of Counties
1100 K Street, Suite 101
I regret to inform you that the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties
have taken an Oppose, Unless Amended position on AB 779, as amended April 24, 2000. Although we
understand and support the concept of increasing the use of public transit and encouraging increased
levels of density around transit stations, we believe that this goal is best accomplished through a package
01 state incentives rather than mandates that preempt local land use authority. We have met several
times with both the sponsor of this measure and your staff to discuss our concerns, and continue to be
willing to meet in an effort to seek agreement, however, with this bill set for policy committee hearing in a
few weeks, it is necessary to put our concerns in writing.
This bill requires a city or county to give a 25 percent density bonus and a 15 percent parking reduction to
the developer of any residential, office, retail, research and development, manufacturing and assembly,
medical facilities, or public uses for all projects within one-quarter mile of a public transit station. In short,
this bill proposes to override all local general plans and zoning within one-quarter mile of any existing or
planned rail station in the state. From a local government perspective this one-size fits-all proposal is an
unacceptable invasion of local land use authority by the state. More specifically, below is a list of our
concerns with this proposal:
1) One Size Does Not Fit All; The Legislature has often discovered when attempting to craft legislation
that affects local governments there are a wide variety.of conditions and circumstances among California's
475 cities and 58 counties; this proposed legislation is no different. Many local governments after much
local community involvement and discussion have already zoned increased densities along transit lines,
The City of San Jose is an excellent example of this. For others, the concept of a high density hub around
their rail station may simply not make sense due to the physical location of the rail station. For instance,
the Roseville rail station is located about 10C yards from the Union Pacific roundhouse, a 24-hour per day
operation servicing hundreds of locomotives, where nearby residents already signed petitions complaining
of billowing diesel smoke, revving engines, and train whistles. In Auburn, the rail station is on the edge of
town at the former location of a fruit packing shed; the area is served by several narrow two-lane roads
and is across from the town cemetery and the county administrative center. Thus, it is important to
recoonize that local conditions vary, and argue against a one-size-fits-all approach. Land use decisions
must continue to be made locally so that unique local circumstances and community desires can be
addressed.
2) Conflicts With Original Concept of Density Bonus Law: No Affordable Housing Existing density
bonus law is a tool designed to address a developer's profit margin when considering affordable housing,
not a proposal to increase density for density's sake. Developers have argued that if they are going to
produce more affordable housing, then they need to be allowed to build to increased densities so that
these projects "pencil-out." Existing law responds to that issue by granting a developer a 25 percent
density bonus; in return, the developer must restrict 20% of the units at affordable rents. In short, the
increased density is a mechanism to help the developer spread out costs. Therefore, there is a direct
nexus between increased density and the development of affordable units.
This proposal abandons that approach, and entitles any developer to a density bonus for any type of
residential or commercial development within a quarter mile of a rail station. No matter what the project, a
developer is entitled to 25 percent more. No matter what the project, the developer is entitled to a 15
percent parking reduction. If the developer is building housing unlike existing density bonus law there
is no requirement that some of the units are affordable; therefore, many developers will most likely use
this exemption and not seek to provide affordable units near rail stations. Why do it, when they can
make more profit with market-rate project? Density bonuses should not be given to developers who do
not want to produce the necessary affordable housing.
3) No Clear Transit Nexus With Commercial and Manufacturing Development: Keeping in mind that
the original concept of a density bonus was to help a developer subsidize the cost of affordable housing, it
does not make policy sense to across-the-board require that any commercial or manufacturing
development (office, retail, research and development, manufacturing and assembly, medical facilities, or
public uses) automatically is entitled to a density bonus and a parking reduction. For instance, there may
be no transit nexus with a particular commercial use and a rail station one quarter mile away; the rail
station could be on the other side of the tracks and a freeway from the affected site, with no easy way to
get to it, but the developer could still claim a "bonus" because it's within 1320 ft. as the crow flies of a rail
station. Densitv bonuses for manufacturing facilities may also not make sense. Many manufacturing
facilities are machine-intensive rather than employee-intensive. Also, automatically increasing a building's
height may be a prot•lam in areas around airports or it may interfere with the historical or architectural
integrity of other existing development in the area. If an office building is 12 stories, why should a
developer automatically be entitled to three more? The elected local government should be making these
decisions and weighing the policy tradeoffs of specific projects.
4) Mandatory Parking Reductions: A one-size-fits-all parking reduction also fails to meet the unique
needs of our many communifies. Some communities already offer parking reductions for certain types of
development; others do not. Again, with 475 cities and 58 counties, situations vary. A destination
commuter station may require more parking, not less; a community that seeks to develop a thriving
commercial hub may require more parking, not less. Reducing parking may make an area less attractive
to market housing and commercial space. The businesses may wish to ensure adequate parking for
patrons. Existing parking requirements have been determined in these communities after much local
discussion, and represent an attempt to balance local interests. How is it that the state knows better what
parking levels are best for each one of these individual communities?
5) Questionable CEQA Exemption: Give Developers What They Want, Let Community Deal With
Impacts: This bill states that even if significant impacts of increased density or parking issues are
identified in the CEQA process, the community is prohibited from addressing them by either reducing
density or increasing parking. Why should residents of existing housing have to struggle to park, their cars
in front of their own houses when a large commercial business locates nearby and claims both a 25
percent increase in square footage and a 15 percent Parking reduction?
6) Ignores Those Communities That Have Already Done The Right Thing; There is no recognition in
this bill for those communities that have already increased housing densities along rail lines or have made
parking reductions available. A community that has zoned for high density housing near a rail station is
provided no recognition for their efforts. A community that has reduced parking is provided no recognition
for their efforts. This bill only provides an exemption when a community provides an identical density
bonus programs locally. Therefore, communities that are zoned at thirty units per acre are treated
identical to those that are zoned at four units per acre.
The above issues highlight the major aspects of our opposition to this measure.
As an alternative, we would strongly encourage you to take an incentive approach, such as that you've
taken in your AB 2048 which our organizations support by offering property tax incentives for projects
that address imbalances in housing supplies. AB 779's approach ignores that many local governments
have already taken steps to up-zone areas around transit stations, and many also offer reduced parking,
in accordance with local needs and preferences. Many cities and counties have already undertaken such
efforts, therefore, it makes no sense for the Legislature to interfere with the land use planning with a
broad-brush effort to override all local zoning in these areas.
As we have stated in the past, to both the sponsor and your staff, we are willing to discuss ways the state
can encourage greater intensification of development around rail stations, but the current proposal is not
an acceptable approach.
If you have any questions, or if we can be of any assistance, please call Daniel Carrigg, of the League, at
916/658-8222, or DeAnn Baker, of CSAC, at 9161327-7500.
ncer y, Sincerely,
Daniel arrigg DeAnn Baker c
Legis live Represe alive Legislative Representative
League of California Cities California State Association of Counties
cc: Members and Consultant, Senate Local Government Committee
Members and Consultant, Senate Environmental Quality Committee
Mike Gotch, Legislative Secretary, Governor's Office