22 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Honorable Steve Glazer California State Senate January 10, 2020 Page 2 fundamentally,however,we are not convinced that low-frequency commuter rail service such as ACE meets the"transit-rich"definition intended by the legislation. Minimum headways for rail transit should be defined, much in the way that they have been for bus service,to ensure the important and valid trip reduction goals of SB50 are met.Not doing so would have a significant impact on our historic downtown,which we aim to preserve. Finally,the amended bill does not address our prior concerns with respect to protection of historic resources, since it relies upon properties being listed on the state or federal register, or location within an existing,adopted historic district,to qualify for protection. We recommend instead that including properties and districts locally identified and designated as historic resources, provided that they meet established criteria such as those included in CEQA or otherwise meeting the state's own criteria for designation would better protect the interests of our city as well as other cities. Again,our historic downtown would be at stake if the language remains unchanged. Ultimately,there needs to be more detail added to the bill so we can fully assess the potential impacts of SB 50. Given that the City of Pleasanton and TVC already has an"oppose unless amended"position and we suggested some changes, I do not see enough within the new amendments to warrant a change in position at this point. Senator Wiener's office has been in discussions with us on ways that they can improve the bill, so I think that it is extremely beneficial to keep an open line of communication with the author,his staff, and of course your representatives. In summary,our immediate, specific questions include: 1. We need additional clarification as to what exactly a city needs to do if they choose to go outside the SB 50 process and set their own course. With such deference to HCD and OPR, it is not clear in the bill what the process is. This relates to density,units to be built, location,etc. 2. On a similar note,is SB 50 creating another path outside of the RHNA or General Plan process? In other words,how does the new SB 50 process interact with what cities are working on now? Some cities are in the process of drafting their General Plans, other cities have submitted their RHNA allocation to HCD,etc. Our"ask"for amendments include: 1. "Major Transit Stop". The definition is confusing and unclear. We recommend including the full definition within the text of the bill and providing the requirement that to qualify as a"Major Transit Stop"it would provide daily hourly service. 2. Historic properties and districts. What we are trying to achieve is protection for our historic resources and consistency in the legislation relating to historic resources. We also want to allow for locally designated resources to be counted and allow for future local