Assembly Committee on Local Government

AB 710

Page 1

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cameron Smyth, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id: AB 710 (Author:Skinner) – As Amended: Ver: April 25, 2011

SUBJECT: Local planning: infill and transit-oriented development.

SUMMARY: Establishes minimum parking standards for new transit-oriented development. Specifically, this bill:

1)  Prohibits a city, county, or city and county, including a charter city, from requiring a minimum parking standard greater than one parking space per thousand square feet of nonresidential improvements and one parking space per unit of residential improvements for any new development project, including changes of use that incorporate existing building improvements, in transit intensive areas.

2)  Specifies that the minimum parking standards only apply if the proposed project and immediately adjoining properties are not designated for development or redevelopment at a floor area ratio below 0.75.

3)  Allows jurisdictions to require higher minimum standards for new development if it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record, including a parking utilization study completed within the last 24 months, that shows existing publicly available parking that includes all publicly owned on-street and off-street spaces and privately owned off-street spaces accessible to the general public, within ¼ -mile of the project site, but excluding any spaces on exclusively residential streets, have a peak occupancy that exceeds 85% at any point during the study period.

4)  Defines "transit intensive area" as an area that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.

5)  Defines "major transit stop" as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods – a term defined in existing law, but specifies that it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan.

6)  Defines a high-quality transit corridor as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

7)  Specifies that a project is considered to be within ½ -mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25% of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10% of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than ½- mile from the stop or corridor.

8)  Includes findings related to the need to reduce excessive minimum parking standards to support infill and transit-oriented development.

9)  Includes within the definition of "sustainable communities" for purposes of the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) those communities that incentivize infill development.

EXISTING LAW:

1)  Authorizes a city or county to grant a variance from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance in order that some or all of the required parking spaces be located offsite, including locations in other local jurisdictions, or that in-lieu fees or facilities be provided instead of the required parking spaces, if both the following conditions are met:

a)  The variance will be an incentive to, and a benefit for, the nonresidential development; and,

b)  The variance will facilitate access to the nonresidential development by patrons of public transit facilities, particularly guideway facilities."

2)  Defines "major transit stop" as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

3)  Establishes the SGC, consisting of the Director of State Planning and Research, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, the Secretary of California Health and Human Services, and one member of the public to be appointed by the Governor.

4)  Requires the SGC, among other things, to recommend policies and investment strategies and priorities to the Governor, the Legislature, and to appropriate state agencies to encourage the development of sustainable communities, such as those communities that promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1)  According to the Urban Land Institute's Transportation for a New Era: Growing more Sustainable Communities (2009) study "the more that housing, jobs, and services spread out, the harder it becomes to access them without an automobile. Only with more compact development and more transportation options – rapid transit and walkable designs – is it feasible to achieve national goals for economic productivity and environmental sustainability. What’s more, Americans increasingly demand more compact product types. Consumer preference surveys and studies of housing values show that there is an unmet demand for walkable neighborhoods. Transit use is up and voters have repeatedly approved referendums raising taxes or approving bond issues for expanded rapid transit service. But
the supply of affordable compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development products has not kept pace. Studies show that compact development results in fewer miles traveled, reducing fuel consumption and emissions. In areas where housing, employment, shopping, or services are close by – even in low-density places without high-quality transit service – people walk more. Compact development can reduce the cost of public infrastructure and encourage healthy habits such as incorporating walking and biking into daily routines. With transportation options, families save. Each automobile a household maintains costs it, annually, between $5,500 for a small sedan driven 10,000 miles a year to nearly $12,000 for an SUV driven 20,000 miles a year. The compact development model can be adapted to urban, suburban, and rural contexts. New communities can develop in more compact ways, and many existing suburban areas are ready to be revamped into a more concentrated, walkable, and mixed-use “village” form. However, in many communities, development around transit and other likely locations is stymied by zoning restrictions and parking requirements."

2)  When cities build transit-oriented development (TOD), a major goal is to make it easier for people to walk or bicycle in the district, while still accommodating drivers who visit, work, or live in the area. Well-placed and appropriate quantities of parking are vital. On-street parking is critical for retail in a TOD to provide convenient, short-term parking for customers, protect pedestrians from traffic, and reduce parking spaces needed in garages or lots. Putting parking lots or garages behind buildings or in the center of the block makes the streetscape more attractive and is safer for pedestrians. Ground-floor retail or residential entrances, instead of parking lots or garages, should line the street. Some cities will waive parking requirements with in-lieu fees that the city uses to construct shared parking in appropriate locations through a parking district or Business Improvement District.

Urban planners typically set the minimum parking requirements for every land use to satisfy the peak demand for free parking. As a result, parking is free for 99% of automobile trips in the United States. Minimum parking requirements increase the supply and reduce the price- but not the cost - of parking. They bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase the prices of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking. Cars have many external costs, but the external cost of parking in cities may be greater than all the other external costs combined. Some off street parking requirements are done by number of units some are done by number of bedrooms. Some cities and counties even require certain number of spaces for visitors.

High parking requirements encourage one mode of transportation over others while restricting developers’ profits and neglecting the market for housing units without parking. Buyers and renters pay a price for parking, whether they see it or not. The amount of new housing that can be built is sometimes restricted by the requirement of space for parking.
A number of stakeholders play a role in the development process, including developers, lenders, the city, neighborhood groups, housing activists, and buyers and renters. Their respective motivations influence the process, driving toward an outcome that finds the least resistance from the total set of all interested parties.

Most of the parking standards that are used in urban areas and even in fairly dense small towns were developed for outlying areas where there’s no use nearby where parking could be shared. So a lot of the parking standards are much higher than they need to be, and that drives the cost of housing up. TOD supporters argue we need parking regulations that acknowledge the possibility of using transit and shared parking.

3)  California has taken steps over the last several years to establish programs and policies to help incentivize regional and local planning efforts. One of the most notable is requiring a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions through coordinating regional transportation and land use plans [SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008]. In response to these policies communities throughout California have designed plans to: encourage denser, mixed-use development in order to create more walkable, transit friendly places. However, there is still much that can be done to remove barriers and incentivize new development in these special planning areas.
AB 710 seeks to address one barrier, highlighted by multiple studies, which is the standard requirement for parking units that is applied across the board. AB 710 attempts to remove this barrier by promoting a policy that reduces the minimum amount of parking a local jurisdiction may require for projects within this very narrow set of planning areas, thereby allowing market conditions to dictate the parking needs associated with development in these areas.

4)  Western Center on Law & Poverty and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation have expressed concern that AB 710 may have serious unintended consequences for affordable housing, but have not taken a position on the bill and are working with the author to address their concerns. They point out that the bill may undercut provisions of the state's density bonus law, which provides incentives to developers of market-rate housing to include affordable units in their projects. The two organizations note that they have long been proponents of smart growth and improved access to public transit for their low-income clients, but believe that AB 710 addresses one part of the problem out of context with a whole host of other concerns, including environmental justice issues.

5)  Support arguments: Supporters argue that AB 710 provides a significant incentive to housing and commercial developers to pursue needed infill and TOD projects. According to the supporters, increases in public transportation options and the development of more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods reduce the demand for parking. Relaxing minimum parking requirements allows developers to be more creative and efficient in supplying housing, especially in inner city areas.
Opposition arguments: Opponents argue that AB 710's one-size-fits-all approach impedes local discretion in land use decision-making and ignores the fact that every community is different and has different needs. Opponents feel that decisions about parking are best left to the discretion of local governments, who are in a much better position to determine how much parking their community requires.

6)  This bill was heard in the Housing and Community Development Committee on
April 27, 2011, and passed with a 7-0 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

CA Infill Builders Association [SPONSOR]

A.G. Spanos Companies

City of San Bernardino

Civic Enterprise Development LLC

Codding Enterprises

Creative Housing Associates

Domus Development

JMA Ventures, LLC

Natural Resources Defense Council

Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern CA

Policy in Motion

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association

TMG Partners

Township Nine at the River District

Transform

Concerns

CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

Cities of Concord and Lakewood

Analysis Prepared by: Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958