BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 715
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
715 (Daly)
As Amended May 20, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Education |7-0 |O'Donnell, Chávez, | |
| | |Kim, McCarty, | |
| | |Santiago, Thurmond, | |
| | |Weber | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Specifies that for the purpose of calculating developer
fees levied by school districts for the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities, a walkway that is not
considered "assessable space" can be covered or uncovered, and a
detached accessory structure includes a detached bike storage
locker.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
AB 715
Page 2
COMMENTS: Background. Prior to the enactment of SB 50 (L.
Greene), Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998, which established the
School Facility Program (SFP), developers were assessed a
mitigation fee of $1.50 per square foot of livable space for each
newly constructed house. This fee provided a share of the funds
needed for the construction of schools to accommodate new pupils
expected to be served as a result of the new development. In
addition to this fee, local governments also had the authority,
confirmed by the courts through litigation popularly known as the
Mira, Hart and Murrieta line of cases, to require developers to
pay for additional school-related expenses as identified in local
environmental impact reports.
SB 50 established the current SFP and changed the method for
determining the share of school construction costs that developers
would pay, which provided consistency in the amount of fees
developers pay to build schools to accommodate new developments.
SB 50 suspended the threat of lawsuits and the ability of local
governments to deny new developments on the basis of inadequate
schools.
SB 50 established three levels of fees. Level I is the mitigation
fee based on the square footage of a residential or commercial
structure. SB 50 increased the pre-SB 50 fee from $1.50 to $1.93
per square foot with an inflation adjustment every two years
according to the class B construction index as determined by the
State Allocation Board, the body that allocates state bond funds
and oversees the administration of the SFP, at its January
meeting. The fee is currently at $3.36 per square foot for
residential construction and $0.54 per square foot for
commercial/industrial construction, and is assessed if the
district conducts a Justification Study that establishes the
connection between the development coming into the district and
the assessment of fees to pay for the cost of the facilities
needed to house future students. Levels II and III are based on
availability of state bond funds. The developer fee amounts are
based on the state grant levels for Level II and twice the state
AB 715
Page 3
grant levels for Level III.
Assessable space. SB 50 defined "assessable space" for
residential construction as all of the square footage within the
perimeter of a residential structure. SB 50 excluded any carport,
walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached
accessory structure, or similar area. Staff notes that current
law specifies what is "assessable," not what is "livable" versus
"nonliveable." Staff also notes that current law does not specify
what is assessable as the perimeter within an "apartment unit" but
the perimeter of a "residential structure."
What does this bill do? This bill, sponsored by the California
Apartment Association, makes changes to the areas that are
excluded in the calculation of the fees by specifying that a
walkway can be covered or uncovered and that a detached accessory
structure includes a detached bike storage locker.
"Assessable space" is determined by a city or county building
department and the fee must be determined and paid to a school
district before a building permit is issued. According to the
author's office, the intent of this bill is not to expand excluded
areas, but to provide some level of clarification and consistency.
Because the law is not specific, building departments throughout
the state have different interpretations of what is assessable.
Walkways. Current law specifies that what is assessable includes
the area "within" the perimeter of a residential building. It is
up to city or county building departments to determine which areas
"within" the perimeters are counted, commonly in accordance with
California building standards practices. While walkways outside
an exterior wall or a door are not counted, a hallway or walkway
inside a residential structure is counted. According to the
author, this bill is intended to clarify that walkways may be
AB 715
Page 4
covered or uncovered and is not intended to affect hallways inside
the perimeter of a residential building.
Detached bike storage lockers. Under current law, a detached
accessory structure is not counted as assessable space. This bill
clarifies that a detached accessory structure includes a detached
bike storage locker. Therefore, a detached bike storage locker
would be treated in the same way a detached accessory structure is
treated and would be assessed or not assessed consistently.
Arguments in support. The California Apartment Association
states, "Advances in apartment design and construction have
created confusion for local jurisdictions regarding what is
considered 'assessable space' under state statute. As
environmental consciousness and bike ridership have increased,
many new apartment structures have added detached bike storage
lockers and other types of storage, which are separate from the
apartment unit. Similarly, many developers have put covers on
walkways to accommodate tenants and those with disabilities. AB
715 would make it clear that covered walkways and detached bike
lockers and storage are exempt from assessment, just as 'walkways'
and 'detached accessory structures' are today in current law."
Arguments in opposition. The Orange County Department of
Education (OCDE) continues to have concerns with this bill and
shares information regarding a recent dispute. The OCDE states,
"Prior to this bill being introduced, there was disagreement about
how livable space should be defined in a development in a part of
the City of Santa Ana that is in the Tustin Unified School
District [USD]. The developer in this case challenged the payment
of fees on internal hallways that the developer deemed to be
'non-livable space.' An appeal to the City's Planning Commission
found for the school district. What is at stake is no small
amount of developer fee revenue. In all, developers in this
portion of the district have challenged the internal hallway fees
which total $930,343,000. Should AB 715 have been in law when
AB 715
Page 5
these fees had been levied, the fee revenue, which serves as a
part of the local school construction match in Tustin USD, would
have been reduced by almost $1 million."
Financing school facilities. SB 50 not only standardized the
amount and levels of developer fees, the bill also established a
funding program that relies on a partnership between the state,
through state bond funds; local communities, through local bond
funds; and developers, through developer fees. The last statewide
bond was passed in November 2006. Funds for the construction of
new schools and the modernization of existing facilities were
exhausted in 2012. The Governor, in his 2015 to 2016 budget,
proposes to decrease the level of state funding substantially and
increase local contributions by adjusting the tax rates for local
bonds and modifying developer fees by consolidating the three
levels into one fee at a level between Level II and Level III,
subject to local negotiation. School districts argue that with
the lack of state bond funds, now is not the time to adjust the
fees.
Analysis Prepared by:
Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0000494