Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06272000 - C30 Contra TO: BOARD Off` SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AI CP CouriLy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. DATE: June 27, 2000 SUBJECT: AB 779 (Torl.akson) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPT position of support of AB 779 (Torlakson) with amendments, and AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute a .letter to State Legislative Delegation. FISCAL, IMPACT None BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AB 779 would amend the Transit Village Planning Act of 1994 (Government Code Section 65460 et seq. ) to require localities to grant density bonuses to applicants developing residential, commercial, or mixed use projects within one quarter mile of a transit station. The density bonus is set forth as 25% above the general plan zoning maximum for residential uses, at least 25% above maximum square footage allowed in general plan/zoning for mixed use and commercial density bonus, with the stipulation that the density bonus be calculated at a higher level in order to complete a full building story. The bill also provides for a 1.5% parking reduction from the localities minimum requirements . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE *� RECCtMNDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD PCtIv1ITTEE .. PROVE OTHER i -- SIG " (S) ACTION OF BOARD ON ;,,,, � o APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER See the attached letters . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _.XZ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - -- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES : ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES Or THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON .THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Jim Kennedy, 335 . 1255 Orifi. Community Development Department ATTESTED June 27, 2000 Cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Redevelopment Agency COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR B , DEPUTY Ws\Personal\Hoard Orders and Greenies\AB779Torlakson.doc ,17 Contra Costa County has been in the forefront of implementing transit-- oriented development programs with its Pleasant Hill BART program, and the emerging Bay Point/Pittsburg program. As the Board is aware, however, undertaking higher intensity uses near transit, and in infill setting can be a permitting challenge. The likelihood of encountering neighborhood issues is significant . AB 779 is prescriptive, i . e . , localities "shall provide" density bonuses and reduced parking standards . In order to maintain local discretion it is recommended that the language of the bill should be permissive, i . e. , "may" provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements . An alternative would be to provide an exemption to areas with an adopted Specific Plan (or similar plan) that conforms to the definition of a "transit village plan" as set forth in the statutes, on the premise that the locally adopted plans already reflect a higher intensity land use pattern without the need for density bonus treatment . To do otherwise could jeopardize the ability of localities to comply with CEQA requirements, and/or undermine carefully crafted compromises with local neighborhood interests . Staff also suggests the land use categories in the proposal be more precisely defined, along the lines of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan . W:\Personal\Board orders and Greenies\AB779Torlakson.doc The f�r �08rt� Of Supervisors �J1.J�Contra G� L� G� � �� Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board County Administration wCounty Building Costaand V Administrator 651 Rine Street, Room 106 (925 335-1300 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Bonn Gioia.1 st District Gayle Uilkema,2nd district - .;.., Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Joe Canciamilla,5th District June 27, 2000 Senator Richard Rainey State Capitol Room 4090 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Rainey: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I write in support of AB 779 with amendments. Contra Costa County has been on the cutting edge of planning/implementation of Transit Villages with its Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, and the emerging Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan. AB 779 would amend the Transit Village Planning Act Government Code Section 65460 et seq) to require localities to grant bonuses to applicants developing residential, commercial or mixed use projects within a quarter mile of a transit station. As this Board is acutely aware, based on experience, undertaking higher intensity uses near transit, in infill setting can be a permitting challenge. The likelihood of encountering neighborhood issues is significant. AB 779 is prescriptive, i.e., localities "shall provide" density bonuses and reduced parking standards. In order to maintain local discretion it is recommended that the language of the bill be permissive, i.e., "may" provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements. An alternative would be to provide an exemption to areas with an adopted Specific Plan (or similar plan) that conforms to the definition of a "transit village plan" as set forth in the statutes, on the premise that the locally adopted plans already reflect a higher intensity land use pattern without the need for density bonus treatment. To do otherwise could jeopardize the ability of localities to comply with CBQA requirements, and/or undermine carefully crafted compromises with local neighborhood interests. Staff also suggests the land use categories in the proposal be more precisely defined, along the lines of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. We have attached excerpts from that Specific Plan as examples. I Finally, we would ask that the legislature revisit the original premise of AB 779, which was to provide a financial incentive to localities to undertake Transit Villages. The use of incentives in tandem with the planning approach may prove more effective than the planning approach alone. Sincerely, Donna er Chair Cc: County Administrator Community Development Redevelopment Agency Via Redevelopment Heim, Noack, Kelly, & Spahn W.tpersonal/letterslAB 778 Senator Ralney.doc 3,1 7-c The Board of Supervisors Contra (ti�hll Batchelor t,ilErh 01111E Board Costa �r,d County Administration Building County Adm.;nistrator 651 Pine Street, Roam 105 (925)335-1900 Martinez, California 54553-1293 County John Glola,1st District Gayle Uilkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSsulnier,4th District Joe Canclarrillia,5th District r. v:- June 27, 2000 Senator don Perata State Capitol Room 4061 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Perata. On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors l write in support of AB 779 with amendments. Contra Costa County has been on the cutting edge of planning/implementation of Transit Villages with its Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, and the emerging Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan. AB 779 would amend the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq) to require localities to grant bonuses to applicants developing residential, commercial or mixed use projects within a quarter mile of a transit station. As this Board is acutely aware, based on experience, undertaking higher intensity uses near transit, in infill setting can be a permitting challenge. The likelihood of encountering neighborhood issues is significant. AB 779 is prescriptive, i.e., localities "shall provide" density bonuses and reduced parking standards. In order to maintain local discretion it is recommended that the language of the bill be permissive, i.e., "may" provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements. An alternative would be to provide an exemption to areas with an adopted Specific Plan (or similar plan) that conforms to the definition of a "transit village plan" as set forth in the statutes, on the premise that the locally adopted plans already reflect a higher intensity land use pattern without the need for density bonus treatment. To do otherwise could jeopardize the ability of localities to comply with CEQA requirements, and/or undermine carefully crafted compromises with local neighborhood interests. Staff also suggests the land use categories in the proposal be more precisely defined, along the lines of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. We have attached excerpts from that Specific Plan as examples. I Finally, we would ask that the legislature revisit the original premise of AB 779, which was to provide a financial incentive to localities to undertake Transit Villages. The use of incentives in tandem with the planning approach may prove more effective than the planning approach alone. Sincerely, Donna G Chair Cc. County Administrator Community Development Redevelopment Agency Via Redevelopment Heim, Noack, Kelly, &Spahn W:/personal/letters/AB 779 Senator Perata.doc The Board of Supervisors �,/4J�tI C.t Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board Costa County Administration wilding snd County A�mmissrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County moi 'nt �+ (925)335-1900 John Gioia. 1st district 4.J l.�l� !`Y Gayle Ullkenna,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSaulnler,4th District Joe Canciamilla,5th District ztn:""• ., rt June 27, 2000 Assemblywoman Lynn Leach State Capitol Room 3132 Sacramento, CA 95614 Clear Assemblywoman Leach: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I write in support of AB 779 with amendments. Contra Costa County has been on the cutting edge of planning/implementation of Transit Villages with its Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, and the emerging Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan. AB 779 would amend the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq) to require localities to grant bonuses to applicants developing residential, commercial or mixed use projects within a quarter mile of a transit station. As this Board is acutely aware, based on experience, undertaking higher intensity uses near transit, in infill setting can be a permitting challenge. The likelihood of encountering neighborhood issues is significant. AB 779 is prescriptive, i.e., localities "shall provide" density bonuses and reduced parking standards. In order to maintain local discretion it is recommended that the language of the bill be permissive, i.e., "may" provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements. An alternative would be to provide an exemption to areas with an adopted Specific Plan (or similar plan) that conforms to the definition of a "transit village plan" as set forth in the statutes, on the premise that the locally adopted plans already reflect a higher intensity land use pattern without the need for density bonus treatment. To do otherwise could jeopardize the ability of localities to comply with CEQA requirements, and/or undermine carefully crafted compromises with local neighborhood interests. Staff also suggests the land use categories in the proposal be more precisely defined, along the lines of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. We have attached excerpts from that Specific Plan as examples. '. e) ` Finally, we would ask that the legislature revisit the original premise of AB 779, which was to provide a financial incentive to localities to undertake Transit Villages. The use of incentives in tandem with the planning approach may prove more effective than the planning approach alone. Sincerely, Donna Gerber Chair Cc: County Administrator Community development Redevelopment Agency Via Redevelopment Heim, Noack, Kelly, & Spahn WJpersonallletters/A8 779 Assemblywoman Leach.doc The Board of Supervisors �(��1�1"c� Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building Costa CountyAaministrator 651 Pine Street. Room 106 (925)335-1900 aNlornia 54553-1293 County John Gioia,1st District Gayle Uilkema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District Mark DeSsuinier,4th District ; Joe Canciamllle,5th District ' r . June 27, 2000 Assemblywoman Dion Aroner State Capitol PO Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Assemblywoman Aroner: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I write in support of AB 779 with amendments. Contra Costa County has been on the cutting edge of planning/implementation of Transit Villages with its Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, and the emerging Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan. AB 779 would amend the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq) to require localities to grant bonuses to applicants developing residential, commercial or mixed use projects within a quarter mile of a transit station. As this Board is acutely aware, based on experience, undertaking higher intensity uses near transit, in infill setting can be a permitting challenge. The likelihood of encountering neighborhood issues is significant. AB 779 is prescriptive, i.e., localities "shall provide" density bonuses and reduced parking standards. In order to maintain local discretion it is recommended that the language of the bill be permissive, i.e., "may" provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements. An alternative would be to provide an exemption to areas with an adopted Specific Plan (or similar plan) that conforms to the definition of a "transit village plan" as set forth in the statutes, on the premise that the locally adopted plans already reflect a higher intensity land use pattern without the need for density bonus treatment. To do otherwise could jeopardize the ability of localities to comply with CEQA requirements, and/or undermine carefully crafted compromises with local neighborhood interests. Staff also suggests the land use categories in the proposal be more precisely defined, along the lines of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. We have attached excerpts from that Specific Plan as examples. I Finally, we would ask that the legislature revisit the original premise of Ali 779, which was to provide a financial incentive to localities to undertake Transit Villages. The use of incentives in tandem with the planning approach may prove more effective than the planning approach alone. Sincerely, Donna Ge er Chair Cc: County Administrator Community Development Redevelopment Agency Via Redevelopment Heim, Noack, Kelly, & Spahn W:/personal/letters/Ag 779 Assemblywoman Aroner.doc I The Board of Supervisors Contra Phil and County Administration Building County ACmsnrstrator (925)335-1900 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 9455301293 County John Gioia,1st District Gayle Uilkema,2nd District , Donne Gerber,3rd District ',t Mark Deseulnier,4th District ; Joe Canclarnills,5th District �r June 27, 2000 Assemblyman Tom Torlakson State Capitol PO Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Assemblyman Torlakson: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I write in support of AB 779 with amendments. Contra Costa County has been on the cutting edge of planning/implementation of Transit Villages with its Pleasant Hili BART Station Area Specific Plan, and the emerging Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan. AB 779 would amend the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 88480 at seq) to require localities to grant bonuses to applicants developing residential, commercial or mixed use projects within a quarter mile of a transit station. As this Board is acutely aware, based on experience, undertaking higher intensity uses near transit, in infill setting can be a permitting challenge. The likelihood of encountering neighborhood issues is significant. AB 779 is prescriptive, i.e., localities "shall provide" density bonuses and reduced parking standards. In order to maintain local discretion it is recommended that the language of the bill be permissive, i.e., "may" provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements. An alternative would be to provide an exemption to areas with an adopted Specific Plan (or similar plan) that conforms to the definition of a "transit village plan" as set forth in the statutes; on the premise that the locally adopted plans already reflect a higher intensity land use pattern without the need for density bonus treatment. To da otherwise could jeopardize the ability of localities to comply with CEQA requirements, and/or undermine carefully crafted compromises with local neighborhood interests. Staff also suggests the land use categories in the proposal be more precisely defined, along the lines of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. We have attached excerpts from that Specific Plan as examples. i Finally, we would ask that the legislature revisit the original premise of AB 779, which was to provide a financial incentive to localities to undertake Transit Villages. The use of incentives in tandem with the planning approach may prove more effective than the planning approach alone. Sincerely, Donna G er Chair Cc: County Administrator Community Development Redevelopment Agency Via Redevelopment Heim, Noack, Kelly, & Spahn Mpersonalfletters/AS 779 Assemblyman Toriakson.doc