BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: AB 710 HEARING: 7/6/11
AUTHOR: Skinner FISCAL: No
VERSION: 6/29/11 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Detwiler
INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY ACT OF 2011
Limits local parking requirements for development in
transit intensive areas.
Background and Existing Law
Cities and counties must adopt general plans with seven
specified elements, including a land use element that
contains standards for population density and building
intensity. Most local land use decisions must be
consistent with these general plans. All cities and
counties' decisions on subdivisions and public works
projects must be consistent with their general plans.
General law cities and counties' zoning ordinances and
conditional use permits must be consistent with their
general plans. However, except for the City of Los
Angeles's zoning ordinance (AB 283, V. Thomas, 1978),
charter cities' zoning ordinances and conditional use
permits don't have to be consistent with their general
plans.
When local officials approve development projects, they can
require the applicants to dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees
to offset the projects' effects. The exactions or impact
fees must be reasonably related to the need for public
facilities and the type of the development project. In
other words, there must be a nexus between the development
and the conditions that local officials impose.
The Planning and Zoning Law declares three state planning
priorities:
Promote infill development.
Protect environmental and agricultural resources.
Encourage efficient development patterns.
That third priority supports new development that uses land
efficiently, is adjacent to developed areas, is planned for
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 2
new growth, is served by adequate transportation, and
minimizes taxpayers' continuing costs (AB 857, Wiggins,
2002).
California has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
(AB 32, Nuñez & Pavley, 2006). Reducing vehicle emissions
involves multiple strategies, including clean technology as
well as reducing the amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Among the ways to reduce vehicle miles is better
coordination of transportation and land use plans and
increasing the density in existing areas and new
development projects. To those ends, the Legislature
linked transportation planning and land use planning by
state, regional, and local agencies. Metropolitan planning
organizations and their constituent cities and counties are
preparing sustainable communities strategies (SB 375,
Steinberg, 2008).
Relying on real estate studies, infill builders argue that
when cities and counties impose their standard parking
requirements on development projects located near transit
routes and stops, the results include higher developer
costs and lower densities. Some case studies show that
reducing parking standards can increase land values and
property tax revenues.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 710 enacts the "Infill Development and
Sustainable Community Act of 2011," and contains
legislative declarations in support of its provisions.
For new development projects in transit intensive areas, AB
710 prohibits cities and counties from requiring a minimum
parking standard greater than:
One space per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential
improvements, and
One space per residential unit.
The bill allows cities and counties to require higher
minimum parking standards if they find that existing
publicly available parking within a mile has a peak
occupancy exceeding 85%. These findings require a parking
utilization study completed within the last 24 months that
reviews publicly owned on-street and off-street parking and
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 3
privately owned off-street parking that's publicly
accessible, excluding spaces on exclusively residential
streets.
The bill's prohibition does not apply if the proposed
project:
And adjoining properties are restricted to
development at a floor area ratio below 0.75;
Is located on a parcel with dwelling units with
rents that are restricted by recorded covenants or
ordinances to levels affordable to low or moderate
income persons and families where the units will be
destroyed or removed. However, this exception does
not apply if the proposed development includes an
equal number of units that will be affordable in the
same proportions as the former units. In that case,
rental units must remain affordable for at least 55
years or the term remaining on recorded affordable
housing covenants. Ownership units must be subject to
the same equity sharing agreement as currently applies
to ownership units in density bonus development
projects; or
Is located on a parcel where the owner withdrew
rental units from rental or lease pursuant to the
Ellis Act.
AB 710 defines a "transit intensive area" as an area that
is within a mile of:
An existing major transit stop, as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act.
A planned major transit stop, as shown on a
regional transportation plan.
A high-quality transit corridor.
The bill declares that a project is within this -mile
standard if:
All of the parcels have not more than 25% of their
area more than a -mile of the transit stop or transit
corridor; and
Not more than 10% of the residential units or 100
units (whichever is less) are more than miles from
the transit stop or corridor.
AB 710 defines a "high-quality transit corridor" as a
corridor with fixed route bus service with service
intervals less than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 4
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . Less is more. By reducing their
standard parking requirements, public officials can promote
housing affordability and encourage residential densities,
especially near transit hubs and corridors. Working from
real estate case studies, infill builders say that
requiring less space for parking boosts residential
densities while lowering their development costs. Lower
costs can translate into higher profits and less expensive
housing. While some cities and counties are starting to
accept this argument, many local officials still rely on
parking standards with origins that date back decades. In
light of the significant federal, state, and local
investments in building and operating high-quality transit
services, the Legislature needs to step in and lower the
regulatory barriers to denser development. AB 710 leaves
local standard parking requirements in place everywhere
except in transit intensive areas. It's time to get a
private land use return on the public's transit
investments.
2. Community control, not state intrusion . With rare
exceptions, California leaves land use decisions up to
locally elected city councils and county boards of
supervisors. Who knows local circumstances better than the
local officials picked by their constituents to promote
community values? The state preempts local discretion over
land use only in limited situations. Cities and counties
have lost their land use permit powers in four regions to
protect natural resources that have statewide importance:
the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission,
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the California Coastal
Commission, and the Delta Protection Commission. The
Legislature has limited (or even preempted) local land use
regulations for specific uses: manufactured housing in
residential zones (AB 3735, Bornstein, 1994), second units
in residential zones (AB 1866, Wright, 2002), amateur radio
station antenna structures (AB 1228, Dutton, 2003), solar
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 5
energy systems (AB 2473, Wolk, 2004), wireless
telecommunications collocation facilities (SB 1627, Kehoe,
2006), small wind energy systems (AB 45, Blakeslee, 2009).
State law also regulates certain land uses' proximity to
specific sites: development on active earthquake faults (SB
5, Alquist, 1975), tobacco ads on billboards near schools
(AB 752, Migden, 1997), and medical marijuana sales near
schools (AB 2650, Buchanan, 2010). But mundane local
parking standards hardly rise to those levels. Sacramento
should stay out of local communities' need to control their
quality of life.
3. Gentrification worries . Nearly everyone recognizes
that lower parking standards help builders. That's why the
density bonus law allows a developer demand lower parking
standards when building more housing, including affordable
units, than usually allowed (SB 1818, Hollingsworth, 2004).
Affordable housing advocates point out the quid pro quo
nature of the density bonus law; to get lower parking
standards, the builder must produce affordable housing as
part of the increased density. In contrast, AB 710 insists
on lower parking standards without the quid pro quo for
affordable housing. As a result, affordable housing
advocates worry about gentrification; builders will tear
down affordable apartments near transit hubs and corridors,
so they can build more market-rate housing. The bill
provides two specific protections against gentrification.
Lower parking standards don't apply: (a) if a builder tears
down rent-controlled housing, unless the builder provides
income-restricted replacement housing in the same
proportions, or (b) if the project involves rental units
covered by the Ellis Act. Housing advocates want
additional detailed protections for very low and low income
households. Conversely, some advocates for apartment
owners want to ease the bill's current restrictions. The
Committee may wish to consider whether enacting intricate
conditions and formulas into AB 710 will dilute the bill's
policy goals, substituting legislative prescription for
local adaptation.
4. Hubs and spokes . In communities without major transit
stops or high-quality bus service, AB 710 won't have any
impact. However, by limiting local parking standards
within a mile of transit stops and corridors, the bill
affects large areas in metropolitan regions. The
prohibitions in AB 710 affect about 500 acres around every
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 6
existing and planned major transit stop, plus mile-wide
swaths (a half-mile on each side of key bus lines). When
combined, those areas of state preemption remove local
control over parking standards from communities that enjoy
better transit services. Practically speaking, where do
these provisions apply in transit rich communities like
Berkeley, Concord, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Sacramento, and
San Diego? The Committee may wish to consider narrowing
the definition of a transit corridor to a mile on each
side of the bus line, for a total width of mile.
5. Parks and parking . AB 710 has a historical parallel.
Almost 30 years ago, home builders complained that some
cities used excessive local standards when imposing
parkland dedications or in-lieu fees conditions on
residential subdivisions. The Legislature responded by
capping Quimby Act park dedications at three acres for each
1,000 new residents. However, if local officials can show
that the amount of parkland in surrounding areas exceeds
that standard, they can use a higher standard, but not more
than five acres for each 1,000 new residents (AB 1785,
Foran, 1982). Although city councils opposed the 1982
Foran bill as an intrusion into their home rule
prerogatives, they adapted quickly to the new state
standards. Three decades later, hardly anyone remembers
the controversy. Similarly, local officials will come to
accept AB 710's standards as the "new normal."
6. Conforming amendments ? AB 710's provisions for
affordable housing are similar, but not identical, to the
requirements that apply to redevelopment agencies. If a
builder tears down affordable housing, AB 710 requires the
construction of an equal number of units . Redevelopment
law requires the construction of an equal number of
bedrooms (Health & Safety Code §33413 Ýf]). AB 710
requires the replacement units to remain affordable to
renters for at least 55 years and requires an equity
sharing agreement for the ownership replacement units.
Redevelopment law requires rental replacement units to
remain affordable for at least 55 years and ownership
replacement units to remain affordable for at least 45
years (Health & Safety Code §33334.2 Ýf]Ý1]ÝA] & ÝB]). The
Committee may wish to consider amendments that conform AB
710's affordable housing requirements to the existing
requirements in redevelopment law.
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 7
Assembly Actions
Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee: 7-0
Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 17-0
Assembly Floor: 76-0
Support and Opposition (6/30/11)
Support : California Infill Builders Association; Alameda
Transportation Commission; AMCAL Multi-Housing Inc.;
American Institute of Architects, California Council; A.G.
Spanos Companies; Brookfield Homes; California Apartment
Association; California Building Industry Association;
California Housing Consortium; California League of
Conservation Voters; California ReLeaf; Cities of El Monte,
Pittsburgh, San Bernardino; Civic Enterprise Development,
LLC; CIM Group, Inc.; Codding Enterprises; Community
Dynamics; Creative Housing Associates; David Taylor
Interest; Domus Development; Fulcrum Properties; Greenbelt
Alliance; JMA Ventures, LLC; Local Government Commission;
Metropolitan Transportation Commission; Mogavero Notestine
Associates; Natural Resources Defense Council; Newport
Partners, LLC; Non-Profit Housing Assoc. of Northern
California; Policy in Motion; Related Companies; San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District; San Francisco
Planning and Urban Research Association; TMG Partners;
Township Nine; TRANSFORM; United States Green Building
Council.
Opposition : Association of California Cities-Orange
County; BOCA; Bus Riders Union; California Affordable
Housing Law Project; California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation; Cities of Concord, Encinitas, Lafayette,
Lakewood, Moreno Valley; Coalition for Economic Survival;
Contra Costa County; Contra Costa Transportation Authority;
Green LA Coalition; Hollywood Community Housing
Corporation; Housing California; Housing Long Beach; Korean
Youth & Community Center; International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades, District Council 36; Kennedy Commission;
LA Voice PICO; LAANE; League of California Cities;
Neighborhood Based CDC Coalition; People Organized for
Westside Renewal; Public Advocates; Public Counsel Law
Center; Search to Involve Pilipino Americans; Strategic
AB 710 -- 6/29/11 -- Page 8
Actions for a Just Economy; Southern California Association
of Nonprofit Housing; T.R.U.S.T. South LA; Venice Community
Housing Corporation; Watts/Century Latino Organization.