The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06212005 - C24 + t 1 � r I • ••1g.. i t I. Contra Costa • s TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS sr� cou. County FROM: Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Committee DATE: June 21, 2005 SUBJECT: SB 521 (Torlakson) Local Planning & Transit Village Plans SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ADOPT a WATCH position on SB 521 (Torlakson), which would promote higher density development around transit stations by expanding the definition of blight under California Redevelopment Law; 2. SUPPORT the concept of creating transit villages and encourage the state to provide incentives that do not change current provisions of State Redevelopment Law; and 3. AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute a letter to the author and the County's state legislative delegation expressing the County's position. FISCAL IMPACT None from the recommended action. A primary basis for concern regarding SB 521 is due to the potential for long-term general fund revenue loss. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: .RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR E OM ENDATIOW F BOARD COM TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES): Supervisor Mary N. Peipho up rvisor Federal Glover ACTION OF BOARD OND-0q(000_ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER or VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT. L'04 } TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Jim Kennedy (925) 335-1255 orifi: Redevelopment Agency cc: County Administrator ATTESTED /0 0 County Counsel JOHN SWEETEN, CL RK OF THE <10� Community Development BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Board Orders and Greenies\BC!_SB 521 Torlakson 6.21.05.doc 1 BACKGROUND The Board's objectives for legislation in 2005 include seeking support for financial or regulatory incentives for local jurisdictions to incorporate transit-oriented development in their general plans, particularly for areas expected to become rail station sites. S13 521 (Torlakson)is a legislative proposal designed to make it easier for cities and counties to promote development around transit stations by: 1. Facilitating the creation of redevelopment project areas (established pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law) by adding to economic blight conditions, the "lack of high density development within a transit village development district adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq.)"; and 2. Providing for State oversight of the establishment of these transit village redevelopment districts. Despite the laudable objectives of SB 521, the legislation has three major implications that may be inconsistent with this County's interest specifically, and local government generally. They are: 1. The use of redevelopment law to secure access to tax increment financing represents a major expansion of redevelopment powers that were pared back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, particularly with the adoption of AB 1290, the Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993. This County has been one of the leaders in implementing transit—oriented development in blighted areas as currently defined. The Board has also supported the provision of incentives for higher density housing near transit, when those areas are within existing redevelopment project areas or within area that could be designated as redevelopment areas under the current definition of blight. The Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Committee recommends opposing the expansion of tax increment powers as proposed in SB 521 citing the following: a) Changing the definition of blight in a manner that could significantly widen the scope of areas permitted to be redevelopment areas is not supported; b) Alternative legislation that would facilitate the creation of TOD's with tax increment financing authorized outside of Redevelopment Law should be explored, although it is acknowledged that this may require an amendment to the State Constitution. c) The legislation should address the basic structure of local government finance and provide revenues for both infrastructure and services that are necessary to make residential development financially feasible for localities; and d) The proposed introduction of state oversight or approval authority of redevelopment areas provided for in S13 521 sets a precedent that should be rejected. 2. The establish I ment of a new use of tax increment financing will result in the potential additional loss of property tax revenue to the County and other taxing entities. Until the local government fiscal setting (and the fiscal setting of the State of California by reference) has stabilized, this expansion of tax increment financing would be imprudent. Should alternative legislation (and a constitutional amendment) be pursued to establish a new mechanism for tax increment financing the Board may consider its position at that time. Earlier versions of SB 521 included a "use by right" provision that would have precluded cities and counties from exercising local land use discretion, and therefore represent a loss of local planning authority to the State. These provisions have been eliminated from the bill as of May 27, 2005. G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Board Orders and Greenies\BO—SB 521 Torlakson 6.21.05.doc 2 • Contra John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board Costa and CountyAdministration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I Gayle B.Uilkema,District II '•* Mary N.Piepho,District III Mark DeSaulnier,District IV : Federal D.Glover, District V o: i June 21, 2005 Assemblywoman Loni Hancock State Capitol, Room 4126 Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Assemblywoman Hancock: Re: SB 521 (Torlakson) Local Planning and Transit Village Plans The County of Contra Costa has been one of the leading localities within the state with respect to the adoption and implementation of transit village programs. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, adopted in 1983, and the accompanying Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1984, have been used to facilitate one of the most advanced transit-oriented development (TOD) programs in the State. The recently adopted Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan, which is within the Bay Point Redevelopment Area, represents a more recent initiative by this County to.promote TOD. The Board's objectives for legislation in 2005 include seeking support for financial or regulatory incentives for local jurisdictions to incorporate transit-oriented development in their general plans, particularly for areas expected to become rail station sites. SB 521 (Torlakson), is a legislative proposal designed to make it easier for cities and counties to promote .development around transit stations by: 1. Facilitating the creation of redevelopment project areas (established pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law) by adding to economic blight conditions, the "lack of high density P development within a transit village development district adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq.)"; and 2. Providing for State oversight of the establishment of these transit village redevelopment districts. Despite the laudable objectives of SB 521, the legislation has two major implications that may be inconsistent with this County's interest specifically, and local government generally. They are: 1) The use of redevelopment law to secure access to tax increment financing represents a major expansion of redevelopment powers that were pared back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, particularly with the adoption of AB 1290, the Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993. We support transit—oriented development in blighted areas as currently defined, and supported the provision of incentives for higher density housing G:ICDBG-REDEVIredev\LNoble\Personal\Letters\rda.Assemblywoman Hancock.06.05.doc 1 near transit, when those areas are within existing redevelopment project areas or within area that could be designated as redevelopment areas under the current definition of blight. We have concerns regarding the expansion of tax increment powers for the following reasons: a) Changing the definition of blight in a manner that could significantly widen the scope of areas permitted to be redevelopment areas is not supported; b) The legislative should address the basic structure of local government finance and provide revenues for both infrastructure and services that are necessary to make residential development financially feasible for localities; and C) The proposed introduction of state oversight or approval authority of redevelopment areas provided for in SB 521 sets a precedent that should be rejected; and 2) The establishment of a new use of tax increment financing will result in the potential additional loss of property tax revenue to the County and other taxing entities. Until the local government fiscal setting (and the fiscal setting of the State of California by reference) has stabilized, this would be imprudent. We would encourage the proponent of SB 521 to explore alternative legislation that would facilitate the creation of TOD's with tax increment financing authorized outside of California Redevelopment Law. Any pursuit of alternative legislation (and a constitutional amendment) should be need cognizant of the need for local government fiscal stability. We would welcome being part of such a dialogue. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Lefters\rda.Anemblywoman Hancock.06.05.doc 2 The Board of Supervisors Contra John Sweeten Clerk of the Board Costaand County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I Gayle B.Uilkema,District H Mary N.Piepho,District III •; C k.. Mark DeSaulnier,District IV «; -'' j _ Federal D.Glover, District V lam a June 21, 2005 Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla State Capitol, Room 2141 Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Assemblyman Canciamilla: Re: SB 521 (Torlakson) Local Planning and Transit Village Plans The County of Contra Costa.has been one of the leading localities within the state with respect to the adoption and, implementation of transit village programs. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, adopted in 1983, and the accompanying Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1984, have been used to facilitate one of the most advanced transit-oriented development (TCDD) programs in the State. The recently adopted Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan, which is within the Bay Point Redevelopment Area, represents a more recent initiative by this County to promote TOD. The Board's objectives for legislation in 2005 include seeking support for financial or regulatory incentives for local jurisdictions to incorporate transit-oriented development in their general plans, particularly for areas expected to become rail station sites. SB 521 (Torlakson), is a legislative proposal designed to make it easier for cities and counties to promote development around transit stations by: 1 Facilitating the creation of redevelopment project areas (established pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law) by adding to economic blight conditions, the"lack of high density development within a transit village development district adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq.)"; and 2. Providing for State oversight of the establishmen t of these transit village redevelopment districts. Despite the laudable objectives of SB 521, the legislation has two major implications that may be inconsistent with this County's interest specifically, and local government generally. They are: 1) The use of redevelopment law to secure access to tax increment financing represents a major expansion of redevelopment powers that were pared back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, particularly with the adoption of AB 1290, the Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993. We support transit—oriented development in blighted areas as currently defined, and supported the provision of incentives for higher density housing G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Lefters\rda.Assemblyrnan Camciamilla.06.05.doc near transit, when those areas are within existing redevelopment project areas or within area that could be designated as redevelopment areas under the current definition of blight. We have concerns as, the expansion of tax increment powers for the following reasons: a) Changing the definition of blight in a manner that could significantly widen the scope of areas permitted to be redevelopment areas is not supported; b) The legislative should address the basic structure of local government finance and provide revenues for both infrastructure and services that are necessary to make residential development financially feasible for localities; and C) The proposed introduction of state oversight or approval authority of redevelopment areas provided for in SB 521 sets a precedent that should be rejected; and 2) The establishment of a new use of tax increment financing will result in the potential additional loss of property tax revenue to the County and other taxing entities. Until the local government fiscal setting (and the fiscal setting of the State of California by reference) has stabilized, this would be imprudent. We would encourage the proponent of SB 521 to explore alternative legislation that would facilitate the creation of TOD's with tax increment financing authorized outside of California Redevelopment Law. Any pursuit of alternative legislation (and a constitutional amendment) should be need cognizant of the need for local government fiscal stability. We would welcome being part of such a dialogue. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Letters\rda.Assemblyman Camciamilla.06.05.doc 2 s Contra John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board Costa and CountyAdministration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I Gayle B.Uilkema,District II Mary N.Piepho,District III •;' Mark DeSaulnier,District IV ; Federal D.Glover, District V o: ,.. oe o ; COV - June 21, 2005 Senator Tom Torlakson State Capitol, Room 4032 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Torlakson: Re: SB 521 (Torlakson) Local Planning and Transit Village Plans The County of Contra Costa has been one of the leading localities within the state with respect to the adoption and implementation of transit village programs. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, adopted in 1983, and the accompanying Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1984, have been used to facilitate one of the most advanced transit-oriented development (TOD) programs in the State. The recently adopted Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan, which is within the Bay Point Redevelopment Area, represents a more recent initiative by this County to promote TOD. The Board's objectives for legislation in 2005 include- seeking support for financial or regulatory incentives for local jurisdictions to incorporate transit-oriented development in their general plans, particularly for areas expected to become rail station sites. SB 521 (Torlakson), is a legislative proposal designed to make it easier for cities and counties to promote development around transit stations by: 1. Facilitating the creation of redevelopment project areas (established pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law) by adding to economic blight conditions, the "lack of high density development within a transit village development district adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq.)"; and 2. Providing for State oversight of the establishment of these transit village redevelopment districts. Despite the laudable objectives of SB 521, the legislation has two major implications that may be inconsistent with this County's interest specifically, and local government generally. They are: 1) The use of redevelopment law to secure access to tax increment financing represents a major expansion of redevelopment powers that were pared back In the late 1980's and early 1990's, particularly with the adoption of AB 1290, the Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993. We support transit—oriented development in blighted areas as currently defined, and supported the provision of incentives for higher density housing G:ICDBG-REDEVIredevlLNoble\Personal\Letterslyda.Senator Torlakson.06.05.doc 1 near transit, when those areas are within existing redevelopment project areas or within area that could be designated as redevelopment areas under the current definition of blight. We have concerns regarding the expansion of tax increment powers for the following reasons: a) Changing the definition of blight in a manner that could significantly widen the scope of areas permitted to be redevelopment areas is not supported; b) The legislative should address the basic structure of local government finance and provide revenues for both infrastructure and services that are necessary to make residential development financially feasible for localities; and C) The proposed introduction of state oversight or approval authority of redevelopment areas provided for in SB 521 sets a precedent that should be rejected; and 2) The establishment of a new use of tax increment financing will result in the potential additional loss of property tax revenue to the County and other taxing entities. Until the local government fiscal setting (and the fiscal setting of the State of California by reference) has stabilized, this would be imprudent. We would encourage the proponent of SB 521 to explore alternative legislation that would facilitate the creation of TOD's with tax increment financing authorized outside of California Redevelopment Law. Any pursuit of alternative legislation (and a constitutional amendment) should be need cognizant of the need for local government fiscal stability. We would welcome being part of such a dialogue. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Letters\rda.Senator Torlakson.06.05.doc 2 N Contra John Sweeten The Board of SupervisorsClerk of the Board Costaand County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106Coun (925)335-1080 tY Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I -•- L"''-•.,o Gayle B.Uilkema,District II Mary N.Piepho,District III -� Mark DeSaulnier,District IV Federal D.Glover, District V o June 21, 2005 Assemblyman Guy Houston State Capitol, Room 2130 Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Assemblyman Houston: Re: SB 521 (Torlakson) Local Planning and Transit Village Plans The County of Contra Costa has been one of the leading localities within the state with respect to the adoption and implementation of transit village programs. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, adopted in 1983, and the accompanying Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1984, have been used to facilitate one of the most advanced transit-oriented development (TOD) programs in the State. The recently adopted Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan, which is within the Bay Point Redevelopment Area, represents a more recent initiative by this County to promote TOD. The Board's objectives for legislation in 2005 include seeking support for financial or regulatory incentives for local jurisdictions to incorporate transit-oriented development in their general plans, particularly for areas expected to become rail station sites. SB 521 (Torlakson), is a legislative proposal designed to make it easier for cities and counties to promote development around transit stations by: 1. Facilitating the creation of redevelopment project areas (established pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law) by adding to economic blight conditions, the"lack of high density development within a transit village development district adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Planning Act (Government Code Section 65460 et seq.)"; and 2. Providing for State oversight of the establishment of these transit village redevelopment districts. Despite the laudable objectives of SB 521, the legislation has two major implications that may be inconsistent with this County's interest specifically, and local government generally. They are: 1) The use of redevelopment law to secure access to tax increment financing represents a major expansion of redevelopment powers that were pared back in the late 1980's and early-1990's, particularly with the adoption of AB 1290, the Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993. We support transit—oriented development in blighted areas as currently defined, and supported the provision of incentives for higher density housing G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Letters\rda.Assemblyman Houston.06.05.doc 1 near transit, when those areas are within existing redevelopment project areas or within area that could be designated as redevelopment areas under the current definition of blight. We have concerns regarding the expansion of tax increment powers for the following reasons: a) Changing the definition of blight in a manner that could significantly widen the scope of areas permitted to be redevelopment areas is not supported; b) The legislative should address the basic structure of local government finance and provide revenues for both infrastructure and services that are necessary to make residential development financially feasible for localities; and 0 C) The proposed introduction of state oversight or approval authority of redevelopment areas provided for in SB 521 sets a precedent that should be rejected; and 2) The establishment of a new use of tax increment financing will result in the potential additional loss of property tax revenue to the County and other taxing entities. Until the local government fiscal setting (and the fiscal setting of the State of California by reference) has stabilized, this would be imprudent. We would encourage the proponent of SB 521 to explore alternative legislation that would facilitate the creation of TOD's with tax increment financing authorized outside of California Redevelopment Law. Any pursuit of alternative legislation (and a constitutional amendment) should be need cognizant of the need for local government fiscal stability. We would welcome being part of such a dialogue. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Letters\rda.Assemblyman Houston.06.05.doc 2 Contra John Sweeten The Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street�Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District I Gayle B.Uilkema,District II *,r Mary N.Piepho,District III •;' Mark DeSaulnier,District IV ; Federal D.Glover, District V June 21, 2005 Senator Don Perata State Capitol, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Perata: Re: SB 521 (Torlakson) Local Planning and Transit Village Plans The County of Contra Costa has been one of the leading localities within the state with respect to the adoption and implementation of transit village programs. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, adopted in 1983, and the accompanying Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1984, have been used to facilitate one of the most advanced transit-oriented development (TOD) programs in the State. The recently adopted Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station Area Specific Plan, which is within the Bay Point Redevelopment Area, represents a more recent initiative by this County to promote TOD. The Board's objectives for legislation in 2005 include seeking support for financial or regulatory incentives for local jurisdictions to incorporate transit-oriented development in their general plans, particularly for areas expected to become rail station sites. SB 521 (Torlakson), is a legislative proposal designed to make it easier for cities and counties to promote development around transit stations by: 1. Facilitating the creation of redevelopment project areas (established pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law) by adding to economic blight conditions, the"lack of high density development within a transit village development district adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Planning Act(Government Code Section 65460 et seq.)"; and 2. Providing for State oversight of the establishment of these transit village redevelopment districts. Despite the laudable objectives of SB 521, the legislation has two major implications that may be inconsistent with this County's interest specifically, and local government generally. They are: 1) The use of redevelopment law to secure access to tax increment financing represents a major expansion of redevelopment powers that were pared back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, particularly with the adoption of AB 1290, the Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993. We support transit—oriented development in blighted areas as currently defined, and supported the provision of incentives for higher density housing G:ICDBG-REDEV\redevlLNoble\Personal\Letterslyda.Senator Peratc.06.05.doc 1 near transit, when those areas are within existing redevelopment project areas or within area that could be designated as redevelopment areas under the current definition of blight. We have concerns regarding the expansion of tax increment powers for the following reasons: a) Changing the definition of blight in a manner that could significantly widen the scope of areas permitted to be redevelopment areas is not supported; b) The legislative should address the basic structure of local government finance and provide revenues for both infrastructure and services that are necessary to make residential development financially feasible for localities; and c) The proposed introduction of state oversight or approval authority of redevelopment areas provided for in SB 521 sets a precedent that should be rejected; and 2) The establishment of a new use of tax increment financing will result in the potential additional loss of property tax revenue to the County and other taxing entities. Until the local government fiscal setting (and the fiscal setting of the State of California by reference) has stabilized, this would be imprudent. We would encourage the proponent of SB 521 to explore alternative legislation that would facilitate the creation of TOD's with tax increment financing authorized outside of California Redevelopment Law. Any pursuit of alternative legislation (and a constitutional amendment)should be need cognizant of the need for local government fiscal stability. We would welcome being part of such a dialogue. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors G:\CDBG-REDEV\redev\LNoble\Personal\Lefters\rda.Senator Peratc.06.05.doc 2