City of Culver City
Staff Report
Mike Balkman
Council Chambers
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232
(310) 253-5851
File #: 21-1003, Version: 1 Item #: A-6
CC - (1) Discussion and Consideration of a Support Position for AB 1401 (Friedman) - Residential and Commercial Development: Parking Requirements; and (2) Direction to the City Manager as Deemed Appropriate.
Meeting Date: May 24, 2021
Contact Person/Dept: Shelly Wolfberg/City Manager’s Office Phone Number: (310) 253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X] Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date:
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Assemblymember Laura Friedman’s Office and Meetings and Agendas - City Council (05/20/2021).
Department Approval: John M. Nachbar (05/19/2021)
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council (1) discuss and consider a support position for AB 1401 for residential and commercial development: parking requirements; and (2) provide direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND
At the May 10, 2021 City Council Meeting, Mayor Fisch received consensus to agendize a City Council item to consider supporting AB 1401 (Friedman) (Attachment 1) to be brought back for approval at a future City Council meeting. Assemblymember Friedman’s staff has provided the Author’s Fact Sheet. (Attachment 2)
About AB 1401
Current Law
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its City of Culver City Printed on 5/20/2021Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #: 21-1003, Version: 1 Item #: A-6
general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a land use element, and a conservation element. Existing law also permits variances to be granted from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance for nonresidential development if the variance will be an incentive to the development and the variance will facilitate access to the development by patrons of public transit facilities.
AB 1401 - Amends the Law
SECTION 1. Section 65863.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65863.3. (a) A local government shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (b) When a project provides parking voluntarily, nothing in this section shall preclude a local government from imposing requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles.
(c) Subdivision (a) shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development to provide electric vehicle parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply. (d) For purposes of this section, “public transit” means either of the following:
(1) A high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (Attachment 3)
(2) A major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (Attachment 4)
(e) The Legislature finds and declares that this section addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
As of April 27, 2021, several entities have taken positions on AB 1409, based on the bill’s text dated April 19, 2021.
DISCUSSION
The City Council is requested to discuss and consider whether it wants to support AB 1401 as it is currently written. The City’s Legislative and Policy Platform (LPP) does not provide clear direction to either support or oppose what is recommended in AB 1401. However, among other positions in the City of Culver City Printed on 5/20/2021Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #: 21-1003, Version: 1 Item #: A-6
either support or oppose what is recommended in AB 1401. However, among other positions in the LPP, the LPP supports efforts to (1) protect and/or expand the City’s authority and rights over its affairs; and (2) adopt reasonable environmental regulations aimed at enhancing air and water quality.
Staff requires City Council direction in order to take a position on AB 1401. If the City Council takes a position on this bill, staff will transmit the position letter to the bill’s author and appropriate committee members. Staff will monitor any future amendments to AB 1401 to determine whether they are consistent with the City Council’s direction to continue to submit position letters.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Discussion and direction regarding this matter does not create a fiscal impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2021-05-24__ATT__AB 1401 (Friedman) Legislation
2. 2021-05-24__ATT__AB 1401 (Friedman) Fact Sheet
3. 2021-05-24__ ATT__ Public Resources Code, Section 21155
4. 2021-05-24__ ATT__ Public Resources Code, Section 21064.3 MOTION
That the City Council:
1. Discuss and consider a support position for AB 1401; and
2. Provide direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
City of Culver City Printed on 5/20/2021Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 19, 2021
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 5, 2021
california legislature—20 21–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1401
Introduced by Assembly Member Friedman
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Lee)
(Coauthors: Senators Skinner and Wiener)
February 19, 2021
An act to add Section 65863.3 to the Go vernment Code, relating to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1401, as amended, Friedman. Residential and commercial development: parking requirements.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the de velopment of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a land use element and a conservation element. Existing law also permits variances to be granted from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance for nonresidential development if the v ariance will be an incenti ve to the de velopment and the variance will facilitate access to the development by patrons of public transit facilities.
This bill would prohibit a local government from imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the development is located on a parcel that is within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined. The bill w ould not
97 preclude a local government from imposing requirements when a project provides parking v oluntarily to require spaces for car share v ehicles.
The bill would prohibit these provisions from reducing, eliminating, or precluding the enfor cement of any r equirement imposed on a ne w multifamily or nonresidential development to provide electric vehicle parking spaces or parking spaces that ar e accessible to per sons with disabilities, as specified.
By changing the duties of local planning officials, this bill w ould impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill w ould include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of state wide concern rather than a municipal af fair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimb urse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65863.3 is added to the Government line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 65863.3. (a) A local government shall not impose a minimum line 4 automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile line 5 parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other line 6 development if the parcel is located within one-half mile walking line 7 distance of public transit.
line 8 (b) When a project provides parking voluntarily, nothing in this line 9 section shall preclude a local go vernment from imposing line 10 requirements on that v oluntary parking to require spaces for car line 11 share vehicles.
line 12 (c) Subdivision (a) shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the line 13 enforcement of any r equirement imposed on a ne w multifamily line 14 residential or nonr esidential de velopment to pr ovide electric line 15 vehicle parking spaces or parking spaces that ar e accessible to line 16 persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the line 17 development if this section did not apply.
line 18 (c)
97 — 2 — AB 1401
line 1 (d) For purposes of this section, “public transit” means either line 2 of the following:
line 3 (1) A high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) line 4 of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
line 5 (2) A major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the line 6 Public Resources Code.
line 7 (d)
line 8 (e) The Legislature finds and declares that this section addresses line 9 a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that line 10 term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California line 11 Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including line 12 charter cities.
line 13 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 14 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 15 a local agency or school district has the authority to le vy service line 16 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 17 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 18 17556 of the Government Code.
O
97 AB 1401 — 3 —
AB 1401 – Parking Requirements Reform
Summary:
AB 1401 would prohibit a local government from
imposing or enforcing a minimum parking requirement
on developments located near public transit . This
measure would reduce car dependence, lower carbon
emissions, and encourage more housing production near
transit.
Background:
Many cities in California require new residential or
commercial development to provide on-site parking
spaces. Often, apartments must include one or two
parking spots per unit, and commercial properties must
provide one space for every 100-200 square feet
(frequently causing more space to be provided for
parking than for the business itself). These one-size-fits- all mandates are often imposed even in areas that are
close to transit.
Mandatory parking requirements have led to an
oversupply of parking spaces; Los Angeles County alone
has 18.6 million parking spaces, or almost two for every resident. Experts believe that this policy encourages car dependence and discourages mass transit usage,
increasing vehicle miles traveled. California needs to
reduce vehicle miles traveled by 15% in order to meet its SB 32 climate goals, even in a scenario with full vehicle electrification.
Mandatory parking requirements also worsen
California’s severe housing shortage by raising the cost of housing production. On average, a garage costs
$24,000-$34,000 per space to build, a cost that is passed on to households regardless of whether they own a car.
Additionally, on-site parking takes up space that could otherwise be used for additional apartment units.
In recent years, California has instituted some
incremental reforms to parking mandates. AB 744
(2015) limits local parking requirements to 0.5 spaces
per bedroom for housing near transit that uses the state density bonus program or is 100% affordable to lower-
income households. Projects that are streamlined under
SB 35 (2017) are exempt from parking requirements if
the project is near transit or within a historic district, and may not be required to provide more than one space per
housing unit in all other areas. Additionally, San Diego and Oakland have eliminated parking minimums near
transit, while San Francisco has eliminated them
citywide.
However, these harmful parking mandates remain in
place in most cities, requiring bolder action to address California’s climate, transportation, and housing
challenges. AB 1401 does not prohibit property owners
from building on-site parking. Rather, it would give them the flexibility to decide on their own how much on-site parking to provide, instead of requiring them to comply with a one-size-fits-all mandate.
AB 1401 (as amended on April 19, 2021):
Prohibits a local government from imposing or
enforcing a minimum parking requirement on
residential, commercial, or other development if
he project is within one-half mile walking
distance of public transit (either a major transit
stop or a location along a high-quality transit
corridor); and
Requires new multifamily or nonresidential
projects to continue to provide electric vehicle
parking spaces and parking spaces that are
accessible to persons with disabilities.
Support:
California YIMBY (co-sponsor)
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research
Association (SPUR) (co-sponsor)
Abundant Housing LA (co-sponsor)
Council of Infill Builders (co-sponsor)
Contact:
Jim Metropulos
Office of Assemblymember Laura Friedman
916.319.2043
[email protected]
State of CaliforniaPUBLIC RESOURCES CODESection 2115521155. (a) This chapter applies only to a transit priority project that is consistentwith the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policiesspecified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or analternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant tosubparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of theGovernment Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determinationthat the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would,if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.(b) For purposes of this chapter, a transit priority project shall (1) contain at least50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage and, if the projectcontains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio ofnot less than 0.75; (2) provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling unitsper acre; and (3) be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transitcorridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is as definedin Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes majortransit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. Forpurposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixedroute bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commutehours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stopor high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if notmore than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in theproject are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.(Added by Stats. 2008, Ch. 728, Sec. 14. Effective January 1, 2009.) State of CaliforniaPUBLIC RESOURCES CODE Section 21064.3 21064.3. “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:(a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) 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. (Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 631, Sec. 2. (AB 1560) Effective January 1, 2020.)
CITY OF CULVER CITY
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
CITY HALL Tel. (310) 253-6000
FAX (310) 253-6010
ALEX FISCH
MAYOR
DANIEL LEE
VICE MAYOR
COUNCIL MEMBERS
GÖRAN ERIKSSON
YASMINE-IMANI MCMORRIN
ALBERT VERA
May 26, 2021
The Honorable Laura Friedman
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento CA 95814
Support for AB 1401 Residential and commercial development: parking requirements.
Dear Chair Friedman:
On behalf of the City of Culver City, I write to express our strong support for your Assembly Bill 1401 to eliminate local minimum parking requirements for both residential and commercial buildings.
Culver City is a five-square-mile, urban community of 39,000 residents surrounded by the City of Los Angeles. Developers have recently built numerous large mixed-use, commercial, and residential developments here, and many more are under construction. The area surrounding our Metro Expo Line transit hub is rapidly growing into a thriving urban destination for working, living, shopping, and dining. Major corporations such as Apple and Amazon quickly absorb new commercial real estate space here and new residential units here are rapidly leased. New developments here have been required to include a significant number of parking spaces, even though they may be adjacent to high-quality rail and bus lines or within walking or biking distance of job centers.
As Culver City completes our General Plan Update, which will be the vision and guiding principles for our future, we see the opportunity of AB 1401. By reducing the over-building of parking, AB 1401 would reduce traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, reduce the cost of housing to renters and homeowners, and improve the prospects of small neighborhood businesses who have fought to survive during the pandemic.
On-site parking reduces the housing supply by taking up space that could otherwise be used for additional apartments. Providing on-site parking is also very expensive, costing $30,000 to $75,000 per space to build. This cost is passed on to renters and home buyers, regardless of whether they own a car. In fact, a recent study by Santa Clara University, researchers found that the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent.1
In response to the pandemic and the closure of restaurants and small shops, local governments including the City of Culver City have allowed businesses to expand into on-site and street parking spaces to allow for safe outdoor dining and shopping. These new and more productive
1 Gabbe, C. J., & Pierce, G. (2017). Hidden Costs and Deadweight Losses: Bundled Parking and Residential Rents in the Metropolitan United States. Housing Policy Debate, 27(2), 217–229.
Friedman
May 26, 2021
uses of parking spaces have shown us the way forward to create more inviting and sustainable neighborhoods and allow small businesses to survive and in some cases thrive. This bill would remove arbitrary restrictions that prevent small businesses from using their property for its most productive use.
AB 1401 will prevent the wasteful overproduction of parking spaces and reduce car dependency and carbon emissions. It will also encourage greater transit usage and more housing and business growth near transit, helping to create revitalized and pedestrian-friendly commercial corridors and downtowns throughout California.
This bill does not prohibit property owners from building on-site parking. Rather, it gives them the flexibility to decide on their own how much on-site parking to provide, instead of requiring compliance with a one-size-fits-all mandate.
Thank you for your leadership in addressing climate change and promoting sustainable transportation, affordable housing and livable communities with this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Alex Fisch
Mayor
cc: The Honorable Sydney Kamlager, Member of the State Senate The Honorable Isaac Bryan
The Honorable Members of the City Council
John M. Nachbar, City Manager