BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: AB 904 HEARING: 7/3/12
AUTHOR: Skinner FISCAL: No
VERSION: 6/27/12 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Lui
SUSTAINABLE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS ACT OF 2012
Sets minimum parking requirements 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.
The third priority supports new development that uses land
efficiently, is adjacent to developed areas, is planned for
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- 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, Nu�ez & 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 904 enacts the "Sustainable Minimum Parking
Requirements Act of 2012," and contains legislative
declarations in support of its provisions.
Starting January 1, 2014, for transit intensive areas, AB
904 prohibits a city, county, or city and county, including
a charter city, from requiring a minimum parking standard
greater than:
Two spaces per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential
projects of 20,000 square feet or less on a single
property.
One space per unit for non-income-restricted
residential projects.
of a space per unit for projects that include
projects that include both income-restricted and
non-income restricted units, and meets standards
pursuant to density bonus law.
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 3
of a space per unit for units that must remain
affordable for at least 55 years or the term remaining
on the recorded affordable housing covenants.
The bill provides that its provisions must not be construed
to limit any local agency's authority to regulate parking
through exactions, fees, conditions of approval or other
valid exercise of its police power. The bill declares that
it can't be construed to set a project's maximum number of
spaces.
AB 904's minimum parking requirements do not apply to any
property that meets any of the following criteria:
The property and immediately adjoining properties
are restricted to development or redevelopment at a
floor area ratio of below 0.75.
Includes a parcel or parcels 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 the recorded affordable
housing covenants. Ownership units must be made
available at affordable housing costs for at least 45
years.
Is located on a parcel where the owner withdrew
rental units from rental or lease pursuant to the
Ellis Act.
Includes a parcel or parcels subject to a specific
plan, station area plan, zoning ordinance, or other
form of local land-use control that provides for
minimum off-street parking requirements for
residential, commercial, and mixed-use new
construction and reuse projects that are lower than
the minimum off-street parking requirements in the
same jurisdiction for the same uses outside the
transit-intensive area.
The bill defines a "transit intensive area" as an area that
is within -mile of a major transit stop or within mile
of the center line of a high-quality transit corridor.
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 4
The bill declares that a project is within -mile of a
major transit stop or within mile of the center line of a
high-quality transit corridor if:
All of the parcel within the property have no more
than 25% of their area farther than -mile of the
transit stop or mile of the center line of a
corridor; and ,
Not more than 10% of the residential units or 100
units (whichever is less) are more than mile from
the stop or within mile of the corridor's center
line.
AB 904 defines "high-quality transit corridor" as a
corridor with fixed route bus service with service
intervals less than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
The bill exempts a city, county, or city and county located
in a transit intensive area from the minimum off-street
parking requirements if it makes at least one of the
following written findings, specific to that transit
intensive area, based on objective criteria and evidence:
The transit-intensive area does not currently have
or cannot reasonably expect to have sufficient
walkability to justify reduced off-street parking
requirements.
The transit-intensive area does not currently have
or cannot reasonably expect to have a sufficient level
of transit service or bike access to provide for
viable alternatives to the car for a significant
proportion of the trips generated by new development.
The minimum parking requirements would reduce the
number of low-income housing units produced in that
transit-intensive area through density bonus programs.
The transit-intensive area will be adversely
affected by a reduction in minimum off-street parking
requirements.
AB 904 requires a city or county that exempts
transit-intensive areas from minimum parking requirements
and maintains existing local minimum parking requirements
must be through resolution adopted by its legislative body
within that transit area.
The bill provides that multiple transit intensive areas may
be exempted from minimum parking requirements by a single
resolution, provided that the resolution includes at least
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 5
one of the findings applied to each transit-intensive area
to be exempted.
AB 904 authorizes a city and county to evaluate and approve
projects pursuant to the minimum parking requirements
before January 1, 2014. After January 1, 2014, but before
a city or county's adoption of a resolution to exempt a
property, the bill provides that development projects must
not be subject to minimum off-street parking requirements
higher than this statute.
AB 904 prohibits this statute from applying to any city or
county that does not have a transit-intensive area.
The bill declares that because the need to address infill
development and parking requirements is a matter of
statewide concern, not a municipal affair, the bill's
provisions apply to all cities, including charter cities.
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 904 leaves
local standard parking requirements in place everywhere
except in transit intensive areas. The bill does not
prevent developers from building more parking; it only set
the minimum number of spaces per unit. Further, AB 904
allows a city or county to opt-out of the minimum parking
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 6
requirements if it makes a specified finding. 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
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). It is unclear if
regulating parking standards rises to a matter of statewide
concern.
3. Unintended consequences . In 1976, the Legislature
passed the California Coastal Act to provide long-term
protection to the state's coast. The Act requires each
local government within the coastal zone to develop a local
coastal program (LCP), which serves as the land use
planning document for the development and protection of the
coastal resources. Once the LCP is certified by the
Coastal Commission (Commission), the local government gains
the permitting authority over most new coastal development.
Under AB 904, it is unclear whether a local government,
that is located in a transit-intensive area and has an LCP,
will address competing parking requirements. The Committee
may wish to consider amending the bill to allow local
governments to opt out of the bill's requirements if it
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 7
makes a finding, based on objective criteria and evidence,
that the bill's minimum requirements would adversely affect
public access to the shoreline.
4. Numbered spaces . Nearly everyone recognizes that lower
parking standards help builders. That's why the density
bonus law allows a developer to demand lower parking
standards when building more housing, including affordable
units, than usually allowed (SB 1818, Hollingsworth, 2004).
Opponents argue that AB 904's parking standards are
unworkable and that it may muddy the waters for density
bonus law. The Committee may wish to consider whether AB
904's intricate conditions will dilute the bill's policy
goals, substituting legislative prescription for local
adaptation.
5. Parallel park(ing) . AB 904 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 fee 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 904's standards as the "new normal."
6. New vs. existing . In response to cries for local
flexibility, the author introduced language that exempts a
city or county in a transit-intensive area from the bill's
minimum parking requirements. While opponents argue that
the opt-out language is subjective and invites litigation,
each of the four findings is broad enough to reflect the
most common reasons why a city or county may seek an
exemption. Asking a city or county to provide evidence on
how it will be adversely affected by reduced off-street
parking standards invites local jurisdictions to deliberate
current parking standards and nudges them to confront
infill planning. However, one of the bill's exemptions may
benefit from further clarity. One exemption is that a city
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 8
or county must find that the transit-intensive area does
not have sufficient viable alternatives to the car for a
significant proportion of the trips generated by new
development. To be consistent with the bill's intent for
increased infill, the Committee may wish to consider
amending AB 904 to strike out "new" and allow development
to refer to existing, rehabilitated, or reused development.
7. Finding a space . Was there any basis for the bill's
specified parking minimums? Many cities already have
minimum parking requirements of two spaces for 1,000 square
feet for non-residential property, or have a parking demand
that is lower than two spaces. For example, a May 2012
City of Sacramento zoning-parking update shows that
Sacramento parking demand is actually 1.18 of a space per
1,000 square feet. Parking in mixed-commercial
communities, like the Sunset Strip, Westwood, Brentwood
Village, and Melrose Avenue in West Los Angeles, ranges
from 1.2 spaces to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Currently, San Francisco, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and
Pinole all have parking requirements less than 2 spaces in
central areas, while Oakland and San Jose have no parking
requirements for retail in their downtowns.
8. Gut and amend . AB 904 contains similar provisions of
AB 710 (Skinner), which was heard in this committee on July
6, 2011 on a 7-0 vote. AB 710 failed passage on the Senate
Floor on a 18-19 vote.
Assembly Actions
Not relevant to the June 27 version of the bill.
Support and Opposition (6/28/12)
Support : Affirmed Housing Group; A.G. Spanos Companies;
Alan Pryor
AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc.; Bridge Housing; Brookfield
Homes; California Association of Housing Authorities;
California Housing Consortium; California Infill Builders
Federation; California League of Conservation Voters;
Central City Association of Los Angeles; Center for
AB 904 -- 6/27/12 -- Page 9
Creative Land Recycling; Center for Sustainable
Neighborhoods ; Cities of Berkeley, Davis, San Bernardino,
City and County of San Francisco; Cornell University; DMB
Pacific Ventures; Domus Development; Downtown Sacramento
Partnership; EAH Housing; Elizabeth Peterson Group (EPG),
Inc.; Global Green USA; The John Stewart Company; Life
Skills Training and Educational Program (LifeSTEPS); Local
Government Commission; Move LA; North American Realty; The
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California;
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Planning and
Conservation League; Related California; Sierra Club
California; Township Nine; Transform; United State Green
Building Council, California; The West Third Street
Business Association; 4 individuals.
Opposition :
American Planning Association, California Chapter;
Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC);
California Contract Cities Association; California Public
Parking Association; California State Association of
Counties; California Business Properties Association;
Cities of Alhambra, Beverly Hills, Ceres, Chowchilla,
Corona, Culver City, Danville, Diamond Bar, Encinitas,
Fontana, Fowler, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Gilroy, Hayward,
Hesperia, Inglewood, La Ca�ada Flintridge, La Palma,
Lafayette, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Lakewood, Long Beach,
Los Altos, Merced, Mission Viejo, Montclair, Murrieta,
Norwalk, Ontario, Palo Alto, Paramount, Rancho Cucamonga,
Rancho Cordova, Rosemead, San Clemente, Santa Clara, San
Mateo, Selma, Shasta Lake, South San Francisco, Torrance,
Turlock, Upland, Vacaville, and Vista; Council of
Engineering Companies of California; League of California
Cities; League of California Cities - Desert Mountain
Division; League of CA Cities - Redwood Empire Division;
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors; San Diego County
Division; San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce;
Southwest California Legislative Council; Towns of Apple
Valley and Colma.