AB 894: Parking requirements: shared parking.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2023-10-11
Current Status:
Passed
(2023-10-11: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 749, Statutes of 2023.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill requires cities, counties and other local agencies to allow owners of underused parking to share those spaces with the public, other entities, or nearby developments, and to let shared spaces count toward a development’s required parking when the owners submit a written shared parking agreement. Local agencies must approve agreements that include a professional, peer‑reviewed parking analysis, and may allow sharing when sites are on the same or adjoining parcels, within about 2,000 feet walking distance, or farther if a sustained shuttle or similar plan is provided. The law keeps required accessible and electric‑vehicle spaces, does not force private parties to share, requires a feasibility check for projects using new state or public funds, and does not apply to state‑owned land.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, this bill would require a local agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the local agency, and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require a local agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes, among other things, a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a local agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the local agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the local agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or other public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, this bill would require a local agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the local agency, and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require a local agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes, among other things, a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a local agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the local agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the local agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or other public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, this bill would require a local agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the local agency, and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require a local agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes, among other things, a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a local agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the local agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the local agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or other public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, this bill would require a public local agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, public local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the public local agency, and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a public local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require a public local agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes, among other things, a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a public local agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the public local agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the public local agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to public local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a public local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds. development or other public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
ThisWhen an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, this bill would require a public agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, public agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the public agency, and information demonstrating identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a public agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require a public agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes includes, among other things, a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a public agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the public agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the public agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to public agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
This bill would require a public agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, public agencies, or other entities. entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement, as defined, to the public agency, and information demonstrating the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement. The bill would require a public agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreements agreement to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require the entities that are sharing parking to enter into a shared parking agreement, as specified. The bill would require a public agency to accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified, when determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses. The bill would require a public agency to approve the shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified. The bill would require a public agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements if the shared parking agreement does not include this parking analysis. If the public agency is required to decide whether to approve or deny an agreement for specified developments under these provisions, the bill would require the public agency to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement and to hold a public meeting if it receives a request to do so within 14 days of notifying property owners, as provided. The bill would specify that these notification and public meeting requirements would not apply to public agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024. The bill would require a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
This bill would require a public agency, as defined, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking with the public, public agencies, or other entities. The bill would require a public agency to allow parking spaces identified in shared parking arrangements to be counted agreements to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when specified conditions regarding the distance between the entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require the entities that are sharing parking to enter into a shared parking agreement, as specified. The bill would require a public agency to accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified, when determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses. The bill would require a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
This bill would require a public agency, as defined, to allow existing land uses with underutilized parking, as defined, entities with underutilized parking to share the their underutilized parking with the public, a private entity, a public agency, public agencies, or other users. entities. The bill would require a public agency to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including underutilized parking spaces, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments when the parking spaces meet specified conditions regarding the distance of between the spaces from the applicable site. entities that will share the parking are met. The bill would require the entities that are sharing parking to enter into a shared parking agreement, as specified. The bill would require a public agency to accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified, when determining the number of shared parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses. The bill would require a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
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 boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking.
This bill would require a public agency, as defined, to allow existing land uses with underutilized parking, as defined, to share the underutilized parking with the public, a private entity, a public agency, or other users. The bill would require a public agency to allow shared parking to be counted toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development or use, including underutilized parking spaces, when the parking spaces meet specified conditions regarding the distance of the spaces from the applicable site. The bill would require a public agency to accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, as specified, when determining the number of shared parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses. The bill would require a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
By imposing new requirements on local governments when reviewing and approving new developments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a local agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Local agency means any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking agreement means an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of a developments parking spaces are not occupied during the period that the parking is proposed to be shared by another user, group, development, or the public.
(b)When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the local agency and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
(c)In cases where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, all of the following shall apply:
(1)A local agency shall approve a shared parking agreement if it:
(A)Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, sufficient to determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the local agency.
(2)A local agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(A)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(B)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(C)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site, including a demonstrated commitment to sustain such transportation accommodations.
(3)The local agency may require that shared parking agreements be recorded against the parcels that are part of the agreement.
(4)(A)If entities submit a shared parking agreement without the parking analysis described in paragraph (1), the local agency shall decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement, and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination, the local agency shall:
(i)Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
(ii)If the local agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners pursuant to clause (i), the local agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(C)This paragraph shall not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
(5)A local agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement may request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for such approval.
(d)A local agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
(e)A local agency shall not withhold approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the availability of parking spaces for the original proposed uses.
(f)For a development project in which a designated historical resource on a federal, state, or local register of historic places is being converted or adapted, a local agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(g)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(h)This section shall not reduce the percentage of parking spaces that are designated for electric vehicles that would otherwise have applied.
(i)(1)A local agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(A)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
(B)When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the public funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
(2)The public agency providing the most funding for the proposed new development, as set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) or paragraph (1), shall require that the feasibility of shared parking be examined pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)An examination of the feasibility of shared parking shall include, at a minimum, identification of parking facilities on contiguous properties or nearby properties that would not require users to cross a street and then consideration of the apparent availability of those facilities for shared parking.
(j)This section does not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(l)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to give local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
(m)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a local agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Local agency means any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking agreement means an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of a developments parking spaces are not occupied during the period that the parking is proposed to be shared by another user, group, development, or the public.
(b)When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the local agency and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
(c)In cases where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, all of the following shall apply:
(1)A local agency shall approve a shared parking agreement if it:
(A)Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, sufficient to determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the local agency.
(2)A local agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(A)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(B)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(C)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site, including a demonstrated commitment to sustain such transportation accommodations.
(3)The local agency may require that shared parking agreements be recorded against the parcels that are part of the agreement.
(4)(A)If entities submit a shared parking agreement without the parking analysis described in paragraph (1), the local agency shall decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement, and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination, the local agency shall:
(i)Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
(ii)If the local agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners pursuant to clause (i), the local agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(C)This paragraph shall not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
(5)A local agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement may request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for such approval.
(d)A local agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
(e)A local agency shall not withhold approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the availability of parking spaces for the original proposed uses.
(f)For a development project in which a designated historical resource on a federal, state, or local register of historic places is being converted or adapted, a local agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(g)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(h)This section shall not reduce the percentage of parking spaces that are designated for electric vehicles that would otherwise have applied.
(i)(1)A local agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(A)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
(B)When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the public funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
(2)The public agency providing the most funding for the proposed new development, as set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) or paragraph (1), shall require that the feasibility of shared parking be examined pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)An examination of the feasibility of shared parking shall include, at a minimum, identification of parking facilities on contiguous properties or nearby properties that would not require users to cross a street and then consideration of the apparent availability of those facilities for shared parking.
(j)This section does not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(l)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to give local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
(m)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a local agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Local agency means any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking agreement means an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of a developments parking spaces are not occupied during the period that the parking is proposed to be shared by another user, group, development, or the public.
(b)When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the local agency and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
(c)In cases where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, all of the following shall apply:
(1)A local agency shall approve a shared parking agreement if it:
(A)Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, sufficient to determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the local agency.
(2)A local agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(A)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(B)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(C)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site, including a demonstrated commitment to sustain such transportation accommodations.
(3)The local agency may require that shared parking agreements be recorded against the parcels that are part of the agreement.
(4)(A)If entities submit a shared parking agreement without the parking analysis described in paragraph (1), the local agency shall decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement, and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination, the local agency shall:
(i)Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
(ii)If the local agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners pursuant to clause (i), the local agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(C)This paragraph shall not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
(5)A local agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement may request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for such approval.
(d)A local agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
(e)A local agency shall not withhold approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the availability of parking spaces for the original proposed uses.
(f)For a development project in which a designated historical resource on a federal, state, or local register of historic places is being converted or adapted, a local agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(g)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(h)This section shall not reduce the percentage of parking spaces that are designated for electric vehicles that would otherwise have applied.
(i)(1)A local agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(A)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
(B)When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the public funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
(2)The local public agency providing the most funding for the proposed new development, as set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) or paragraph (1), shall require that the feasibility of shared parking be examined pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)An examination of the feasibility of shared parking shall include, at a minimum, identification of parking facilities on contiguous properties or nearby properties that would not require users to cross a street and then consideration of the apparent availability of those facilities for shared parking.
(j)This section does not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(l)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to give local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
(m)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a public local agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Public Local agency means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking agreement means an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of a developments parking spaces are not occupied during the period that the parking is proposed to be shared by another user, group, development, or the public.
(b)When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public local agency automobile parking requirements, a public local agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public local agency and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
(c)In cases where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet public local agency automobile parking requirements, all of the following shall apply:
(1)A public local agency shall approve a shared parking agreement if it:
(A)Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, sufficient to determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the public local agency.
(2)A public local agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(A)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(B)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(C)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site, including a demonstrated commitment to sustain such transportation accommodations.
(3)The public local agency may require that shared parking agreements be recorded against the parcels that are part of the agreement.
(4)(A)If entities submit a shared parking agreement without the parking analysis described in paragraph (1), the public local agency shall decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement, and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination, the public local agency shall:
(i)Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the public local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
(ii)If the public local agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners pursuant to clause (i), the public local agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(C)This paragraph shall not apply to public local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
(5)A public local agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement may request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for such approval.
(d)A public local agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
(e)A public local agency shall not withhold approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the availability of parking spaces for the original proposed uses.
(f)For a development project in which a designated historical resource on a federal, state, or local register of historic places is being converted or adapted, a public local agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(g)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(h)This section shall not reduce the percentage of parking spaces that are designated for electric vehicles that would otherwise have applied.
(i)A public (1)A local agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(1)(A)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development. development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
(2)Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.(B)When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the public funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
(2)The local agency providing the most funding for the proposed new development, as set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) or paragraph (1), shall require that the feasibility of shared parking be examined pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)An examination of the feasibility of shared parking shall include, at a minimum, identification of parking facilities on contiguous properties or nearby properties that would not require users to cross a street and then consideration of the apparent availability of those facilities for shared parking.
(j)This section does not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
(j)(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(k)(l)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to give public local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
(l)(m)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a public agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Public agency means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking agreement means an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of a developments parking spaces are available not occupied during the period that the parking is needed proposed to be shared by another user, group, development, or the public.
(b)A When an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public agency automobile parking requirements, a public agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency and information demonstrating identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
(c)A public agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:(1)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.(2)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.(3)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.(c)In cases where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet public agency automobile parking requirements, all of the following shall apply:
(d)(1)(1)A public agency shall approve a shared parking agreement if it includes it:
(A)Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, sufficient to determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the public agency.
(2)A public agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(A)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(B)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(C)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site, including a demonstrated commitment to sustain such transportation accommodations.
(3)The public agency may require that shared parking agreements be recorded against the parcels that are part of the agreement.
(2)(4)(A)If entities submit a shared parking agreement without the parking analysis described in paragraph (1), the public agency shall decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement, and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonable reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination, the public agency shall:
(i)Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the public agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
(ii)If the public agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners pursuant to clause (i), the public agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(C)This paragraph shall not apply to public agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
(5)A public agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement may request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for such approval.
(e)(d)A public agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
(f)(e)A public agency shall not withhold approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number availability of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. for the original proposed uses.
(g)(f)For a development project in which a designated historical resource on a federal, state, or local register of historic places is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(h)(g)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(h)This section shall not reduce the percentage of parking spaces that are designated for electric vehicles that would otherwise have applied.
(i)A public agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(1)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
(2)Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
(j)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to give public agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
(k)(l)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a public agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Public agency means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking agreement means an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(3)(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of a developments parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is needed by another user, group, development, or the public.
(b)A public agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities. entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency and information demonstrating the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
(c)A public agency shall allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreements agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(1)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(2)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(3)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.
(d)Entities that are sharing parking as provided in this section shall enter into a shared parking agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.(e)When determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses, a public agency shall accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers.(d)(1)A public agency shall approve a shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, sufficient to determine how many parking spaces can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(2)(A)If entities submit a shared parking agreement without the parking analysis described in paragraph (1), the public agency shall decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement, and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonable shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(B)For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination, the public agency shall:
(i)Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the public agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
(ii)If the public agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners pursuant to clause (i), the public agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
(C)This paragraph shall not apply to public agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
(f)(e)A public agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces. shared parking agreement.
(g)(f)A public agency shall not deny withhold approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking.
(h)(g)For a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(i)(h)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(j)(i)A public agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(1)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
(2)Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
(k)(j)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(l)(k)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any parking that a public agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a development agreement.
(2)Entity or entities means a proposed or existing residential or nonresidential development. (3)(2)Public agency means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(4)(3)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of an entitys a developments parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is needed by another user, group, entity, development, or the public.
(b)A public agency shall allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities.
(c)A public agency shall allow parking spaces identified in shared parking arrangements to be counted agreements to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(1)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(2)The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(3)The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.
(d)Entities that are sharing parking as provided in this section shall enter into a shared parking agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(e)When determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses, a public agency shall accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers.
(f)A public agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces.
(g)A public agency shall not deny a shared parking arrangement agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking.
(h)For a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
(i)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(j)A public agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(1)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
(2)Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(l)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
REVISIONS: HeadingLine 2.(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any public agency requirement for parking to be provided, including for a new development, a change of use, a new or existing mitigation parking that a public agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a new or existing development agreement.
(2)Entity or entities means a proposed or existing residential or nonresidential development.
(2)(3)Public agency means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking means parking spaces, lots, or garages that are shared by more than one user, group, or designated land use.(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of the an entitys parking spaces are available during the period that the parking would be needed by the entity wishing to make use of the shared parking. is needed by another user, group, entity, or the public.
(b)A public agency shall allow existing land uses with underutilized parking to share the entities with underutilized parking spaces to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, a private entity, a public agency, public agencies, or other users. entities.
(c)A public agency shall allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including underutilized parking spaces, when the parking meets including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
(1)The shared parking is on the same or contiguous parcels as the applicable site.(1)The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels.
(2)The shared parking and the applicable site sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(3)The shared parking and the applicable site sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.
(d)Entities that are sharing parking as provided in this section shall enter into a shared parking agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
(d)(e)When determining the number of shared parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses, a public agency shall accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers.
(f)A public agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces.
(g)A public agency shall not deny a shared parking arrangement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking.
(e)(h)For a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of off-site offsite shared parking.
(f)A development that uses shared parking to satisfy automobile parking requirements shall provide accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities subject to all of the following:(1)Accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities that are provided off-site shall be provided according to the provisions in Chapter 11A or 11B of the California Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), as applicable.(2)When the shared parking for a use is located on a different site from that use, parking designated for people with disabilities shall be located within the shortest possible distance of an accessible entrance, via an accessible path.(i)This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if subdivision (c) did not apply.
(g)(j)A public agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(1)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
(2)Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
(k)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
(h)(l)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
(a)For the purposes of this section:
(1)Automobile parking requirements means any public agency requirement for parking to be provided, including for a new development, a change of use, a new or existing mitigation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or a new or existing development agreement.
(2)Public agency means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(3)Shared parking means parking spaces, lots, or garages that are shared by more than one user, group, or designated land use.
(4)Underutilized parking means parking where 20 percent or more of the spaces are available during the period that the parking would be needed by the entity wishing to make use of the shared parking.
(b)A public agency shall allow existing land uses with underutilized parking to share the underutilized parking spaces with the public, a private entity, a public agency, or other users.
(c)A public agency shall allow shared parking to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including underutilized parking spaces, when the parking meets any of the following conditions:
(1)The shared parking is on the same or contiguous parcels as the applicable site.
(2)The shared parking and the applicable site are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
(3)The shared parking and the applicable site are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.
(d)When determining the number of shared parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses, a public agency shall accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers.
(e)For a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of off-site shared parking.
(f)A development that uses shared parking to satisfy automobile parking requirements shall provide accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities subject to all of the following:
(1)Accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities that are provided off-site shall be provided according to the provisions in Chapter 11A or 11B of the California Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), as applicable.
(2)When the shared parking for a use is located on a different site from that use, parking designated for people with disabilities shall be located within the shortest possible distance of an accessible entrance, via an accessible path.
(g)A public agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
(1)When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
(2)Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
(h)(1)The Legislature finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking, and public transit. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking as outlined in this section.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not 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 XIIIB 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.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2023 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 749, Statutes of 2023. |
| Oct 11, 2023 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 21, 2023 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. |
| Sep 13, 2023 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 64. Noes 11. Page 3406.). |
| Sep 12, 2023 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Sep 12, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 31. Noes 7. Page 2639.). |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 8, 2023 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Sep 5, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 1, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. |
| Sep 1, 2023 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (September 1). |
| Aug 28, 2023 | In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file. |
| Aug 15, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 14, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Jul 11, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (July 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 22, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING. |
| Jun 21, 2023 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 21). |
| Jun 14, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| May 31, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and HOUSING. |
| May 23, 2023 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 22, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 62. Noes 10. Page 1698.) |
| May 18, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 17, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.) (May 17). |
| Apr 27, 2023 | Coauthors revised. |
| Apr 27, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 24, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. |
| Apr 20, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 19). Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. |
| Apr 20, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 12, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 21, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Mar 2, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and H. & C.D. |
| Feb 15, 2023 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 17. |
| Feb 14, 2023 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2023 | AB 894 Friedman Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 12, 2023 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB894 Friedman et al. By Blakespear | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 1, 2023 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 28, 2023 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 10, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Housing |
Passed |
|
| Jun 21, 2023 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Housing] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| May 22, 2023 | AB 894 Friedman Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 17, 2023 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 26, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development |
Passed |
|
| Apr 19, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Housing and Community Development] | Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| 350 Bay Area Action | ** Support | |
| Active San Gabriel Valley | ** Support | |
| American Planning Association, California Chapter | ** Support | |
| Association of California Cities Orange County | ** Against | |
| Bakersfield | * Support | Aug 28, 2023 |
| California Apartment Association | ** Support | |
| California community builders | ** Support | |
| California Native Plant Society | * Support | Aug 28, 2023 |
| California YIMBY | ** Support | |
| City Of Eastvale | ** Against | |
| City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton | ** Support | |
| CivicWell | ** Support | |
| Council of Infill Builders | ** Support | |
| East Bay for Everyone | ** Support | |
| East Bay YIMBY | ** Support | |
| Grow the Richmond | ** Support | |
| How to ADU | ** Support | |
| Livable California | ** Against | |
| Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers | ** Against | |
| Monterey Bay Economic Partnership | ** Support | |
| Mountain View YIMBY | ** Support | |
| Move LA | ** Support | |
| Napa-Solano for Everyone | ** Support | |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | ** Support | |
| Northern Neighbors | ** Support | |
| Parkade | ** Support | |
| Peninsula for Everyone | ** Support | |
| People For Housing Orange County | ** Support | |
| Progress Noe Valley | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Yimby | ** Support | |
| San Luis Obispo Yimby | ** Support | |
| Santa Cruz Yimby | ** Support | |
| Santa Rosa Yimby | ** Support | |
| Seamless Bay Area | ** Support | |
| South Bay Yimby | ** Support | |
| Southside Forward | ** Support | |
| Streets Are For Everyone | * Support | Aug 28, 2023 |
| Streets for All | ** Support | |
| Streets for People | ** Support | |
| Transform | ** Support | |
| Urban Environmentalists | ** Support | |
| Ventura County YIMBY | ** Support | |
| Yimby Action | ** Support |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 894
Author:(Friedman)
As Amended Ver:September 8, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires local agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency, under specified conditions.
Senate Amendments
- Narrow the bill's application to local agencies only, by removing references to the state or any state agency, board, or commission.
- Define "shared parking agreement," require an entity that wishes to share underutilized parking pursuant to the bill's provisions to submit a shared parking agreement to the local agency, and require a local agency to approve a shared parking agreement under specified conditions that include the provision of long-term parking spaces and the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the local agency.
- Allow a local agency to require that shared parking agreements be recorded against the parcels that are part of the agreement.
- Require, if entities submit a shared parking agreement without a parking analysis as specified in the bill, the local agency to decide whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared to fulfill parking requirements.
- Require, for shared parking agreements for developments of 10 residential units or more, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination specified in 4), above, the local agency to do the following:
- Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
- If the local agency receives a request to hold a public meeting within 14 days of notifying property owners, the local agency shall hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared to fulfill parking requirements.
- Provide that the requirements in 4) and 5), above, shall not apply to local agencies that enact an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
- Allow a local agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement to request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for such approval.
- Clarify that the bill shall not reduce the percentage of parking spaces that are designated for electric vehicles that would otherwise have applied.
- Clarify that a local agency, private landowner, or lessor shall examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new spaces to be built in the following circumstances:
- When state funds are used on a new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
- When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
- Require the local agency providing the most funding for a proposed new development to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements, and require the examination to include identification of parking facilities on contiguous properties or nearby properties that would not require users to cross a street, as specified.
- Clarify that the bill does not apply to land owned or leased by the state
- Clarify that nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to give local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
- Make additional technical, clarifying and conforming changes.
COMMENTS
Cities and counties generally establish parking standards that capture various types of facilities and uses. Parking standards are commonly indexed to conditions related to the building or facility they are associated with. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurants may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms present at the facility.
In 2019, CARB staff reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found that, for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60% of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30%, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.
Developing new parking spaces requires a significant dedication of land and resources. A typical parking space measures from eight to 10 feet wide and 18-20 feet long. Off-street parking also requires driveways and access lanes for circulation within the parking lot. As a result, off-street parking typically requires 300 square feet (compact, urban off-street parking) to 400 square feet (full-size, urban off-street parking) of land per parking space. This means that 100 to 150 parking spaces requires one acre of land. In urban areas where land is expensive or unavailable, the cost of constructing an aboveground or belowground parking structure is considerable. A 2018 report by the United States Government Accountability Office found that urban affordable housing projects in California and Arizona that include parking structures were associated with a per-unit cost increase of about $56,000 per unit. A more recent study analyzed the regional parking structure construction costs per parking space in major metropolitan areas. The study found that the average cost of construction for a parking space in a parking structure is $26,653 in Los Angeles and $30,316 in San Francisco.
According to the Author
"Currently, some jurisdictions either prohibit shared parking, allow shared parking only in certain narrow circumstances, or make no clear accommodation to allow parking owners or managers to share underutilized parking with other land uses. Many jurisdictions do allow shared parking to count toward meeting public agency parking requirements.
"Without action, some public agencies will continue to require new parking spaces where existing parking can be shared more effectively. Unnecessary parking consumes land and resources that could be better used to support more housing, jobs, services, and open space. It also encourages more single-occupant vehicle use which contradicts the legislature's climate and equity goals."
Arguments in Support
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, sponsor of this bill, writes, "AB 894 responds to recent research on parking supply. Recent assessments have found a surprising abundance of parking in the most populous California regions, even where there are perceptions that parking is inadequate. A 2015 study of Los Angeles County parking found that there are more than 1.5 parking spaces for every resident in the County, including children. SPUR coordinated a 2022 Bay Area Parking Census which found 15 million parking spaces in the 9-county area - 2.4 spaces for every car. What is often lacking is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively…By requiring jurisdictions to allow excess parking to be shared and counted toward parking requirements, AB 894 will reduce circumstances where costly and space-intensive new parking construction is mandated, particularly when nearby existing parking is readily available for use."
Arguments in Opposition
The Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) write, "ACC-OC regrets to inform you that we oppose AB 894. This bill would require a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share parking with the public or other entities. Additionally, the bill would further require a public agency to allow shared parking space agreements to count toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or existing development. Lastly, AB 894 would require the examination of the feasibility of shared parking agreements when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds. ACC-OC believes that cities, not the state, are best suited for making local land use decisions. As AB 894 seeks to take away local decision-making authority over developments in a local jurisdiction, ACC-OC opposes AB 894."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicates that any costs associated with this bill would be minor and absorbable. (General Fund)
- Unknown local mandated costs. While the bill could impose new costs on local agencies to revise planning requirements to allow for the use of shared parking agreements to count toward meeting parking requirements, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)
VOTES:
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-2-0
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Pacheco, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Wilson
NO: Dixon, Waldron
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-0-2
YES: Wicks, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Ward
ABS, ABST OR NV: Joe Patterson, Sanchez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-3-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Mathis
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-10-8
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NO: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Quirk-Silva
UPDATED
VERSION: September 8, 2023
CONSULTANT: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0001948
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 894 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 894
Author: Friedman (D), et al.
Amended: 9/8/23 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/23
AYES: Caballero, Blakespear, Dahle, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-2, 7/10/23
AYES: Wiener, Blakespear, Caballero, Cortese, McGuire, Padilla, Skinner, Umberg, Wahab
NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-10, 5/22/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Parking requirements: shared parking
SOURCE: CivicWell
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
DIGEST:
This bill requires local agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/23 require a public agency that is the largest source of funding for a project, as specified, to evaluate the feasibility of shared parking.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Allows each city and county to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
- Requires each city or county to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city or county and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties.
- Sets specified percentage requirements of available parking spaces for new developments for persons with disabilities, electric vehicles, and other specific purposes.
This bill:
- Requires, when an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency and information demonstrating the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
- Requires, in cases where where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency to:
- Approve a shared parking agreement if it:
- Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies, as specified.
- Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the public agency.
- Approve a shared parking agreement if it:
- Requires a local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, as specified.
- Requires a local agency to approve a shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies, as specified.
- Provides that if no parking analysis is included, the local agency is required to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements. For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 units or larger, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination the local agency must:
- Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
- If requested, hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
- Provides that the requirements in 7) do not apply to a local agency that has enacted an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
- Prohibits a local agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
- Prohibits a local agency from withholding approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available for the original proposed uses.
- Requires a local agency to allow a development project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted.
- Requires a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility, as specified, of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
- When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the public funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
- Requires the public agency that provides the most funding to a project to require that the feasibility study be performed.
- Provides that this bill does not:
- Reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
- Require parking be offered without cost or at reduced cost to the user.
- Give local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
- Apply to land owned or leased by the state.
- Defines its terms and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
Parking standards. Cities and counties generally establish requirements for a minimum amount of parking developers must provide for a given facility or use, known as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the building or facility with which they are associated. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurant parking may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms.
However, research has documented various harms associated with parking minimums outside the housing context. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation:
Parking requirements have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts, in particular the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat island effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt increases stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher pollution levels in freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal parking lots can seep into groundwater and freshwater systems, which contributes to pollution and decreases the health of these ecosystems. Because it encourages automobile usage, parking also hinders the effectiveness and usage of alternative forms of transit (public transportation, biking, etc.), increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
To spur greater use of underutilizined parking, and to make it easier for entities to meet minimum parking requirements, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) wants to require local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting parking requirements.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build new parking. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect evidence on the benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources. This bill requires that jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and avoids wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
- Home rule. Local officials are elected to represent the interests of all their constituents and to look broadly at how new development might impact their community. For example, concerns over the encroachment of wildfire may prompt some local governments to impose parking requirements to ensure streets are open for evacuation and emergency response. Some local agencies have developed policies for multiple entities to share parking spaces and count those parking spaces when determining whether a development meets minimum parking requirements. For example, the City of San Diego has a form available on its website for entities that want to request all or a portion of parking to be permitted off-site subject to certain restrictions. Regardless of the decisions local officials have made regarding shared parking agreements, AB 894 requires all local agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces. Should the Legislature require all public entities to accept these shared parking agreements?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicates that any costs associated with this bill would be minor and absorbable. (General Fund)
- Unknown local mandated costs. While this bill could impose new costs on local agencies to revise planning requirements to allow for the use of shared parking agreements to count toward meeting parking requirements, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/23)
CivicWell (co-source)
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (co-source)
350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California YIMBY
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
How to ADU
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View YIMBY
Move LA
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Seamless Bay Area
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/23)
Association of California Cities – Orange County
City of Eastvale
Livable California
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-10, 5/22/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NOES: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Quirk-Silva
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
9/11/23 17:50:55
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 894 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 894
Author: Friedman (D), et al.
Amended: 9/1/23 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/23
AYES: Caballero, Blakespear, Dahle, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto
SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-2, 7/10/23
AYES: Wiener, Blakespear, Caballero, Cortese, McGuire, Padilla, Skinner, Umberg, Wahab
NOES: Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-10, 5/22/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Parking requirements: shared parking
SOURCE: CivicWell
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association
DIGEST:
This bill requires local agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Allows each city and county to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
- Requires each city or county to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city or county and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties.
- Sets specified percentage requirements of available parking spaces for new developments for persons with disabilities, electric vehicles, and other specific purposes.
This bill:
- Requires, when an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency and information demonstrating the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
- Requires, in cases where where an entity is entering into a shared parking agreement and proposes to use the shared parking spaces to meet local agency automobile parking requirements, a local agency to:
- Approve a shared parking agreement if it:
- Includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies, as specified.
- Secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the public agency.
- Approve a shared parking agreement if it:
- Requires a local agency to allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, as specified.
- Requires a local agency to approve a shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies, as specified.
- Provides that if no parking analysis is included, the local agency is required to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements. For shared parking agreements for developments of 10 units or larger, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making the determination the local agency must:
- Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the local agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
- If requested, hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
- Provides that the requirements in 7) do not apply to a local agency that has enacted an ordinance that provides for shared parking agreements, including ordinances enacted before January 1, 2024.
- Prohibits a local agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
- Prohibits a local agency from withholding approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available for the original proposed uses.
- Requires a local agency to allow a development project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted.
- Requires a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility, as specified, of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed, in either of the following circumstances:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024.
- When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the public funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
- Provides that this bill does not:
- Reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
- Require parking be offered without cost or at reduced cost to the user.
- Give local agencies a right to compel private parties to enter into a shared parking agreement.
- Apply to land owned or leased by the state.
- Defines its terms and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
Parking standards. Cities and counties generally establish requirements for a minimum amount of parking developers must provide for a given facility or use, known as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the building or facility with which they are associated. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurant parking may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms.
However, research has documented various harms associated with parking minimums outside the housing context. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation:
Parking requirements have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts, in particular the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat island effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt increases stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher pollution levels in freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal parking lots can seep into groundwater and freshwater systems, which contributes to pollution and decreases the health of these ecosystems. Because it encourages automobile usage, parking also hinders the effectiveness and usage of alternative forms of transit (public transportation, biking, etc.), increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
To spur greater use of underutilizined parking, and to make it easier for entities to meet minimum parking requirements, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) wants to require local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting parking requirements.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build new parking. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect evidence on the benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources. This bill requires that jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and avoids wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
- Home rule. Local officials are elected to represent the interests of all their constituents and to look broadly at how new development might impact their community. For example, concerns over the encroachment of wildfire may prompt some local governments to impose parking requirements to ensure streets are open for evacuation and emergency response. Some local agencies have developed policies for multiple entities to share parking spaces and count those parking spaces when determining whether a development meets minimum parking requirements. For example, the City of San Diego has a form available on its website for entities that want to request all or a portion of parking to be permitted off-site subject to certain restrictions. Regardless of the decisions local officials have made regarding shared parking agreements, AB 894 requires all local agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces. Should the Legislature require all public entities to accept these shared parking agreements?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicates that any costs associated with this bill would be minor and absorbable. (General Fund)
- Unknown local mandated costs. While this bill could impose new costs on local agencies to revise planning requirements to allow for the use of shared parking agreements to count toward meeting parking requirements, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)
CivicWell (co-source)
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (co-source)
350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California YIMBY
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
How to ADU
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View YIMBY
Move LA
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Seamless Bay Area
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)
Association of California Cities – Orange County
City of Eastvale
Livable California
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-10, 5/22/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NOES: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Quirk-Silva
Prepared by: Jonathan Peterson / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
9/4/23 9:19:25
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 894 (Friedman) - Parking requirements: shared parking
Version: August 15, 2023 | Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 7 - 0, HOUSING 9 - 2 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: September 1, 2023 | Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
Bill Summary:
AB 894 would require public agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on September 1, 2023
Fiscal Impact:
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicates that any costs associated with this bill would be minor and absorbable. (General Fund)
- Unknown local mandated costs. While the bill could impose new costs on local agencies to revise planning requirements to allow for the use of shared parking agreements to count toward meeting parking requirements, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)
Author Amendments:
- Specify that the bill’s requirements apply to local agencies, rather than public agencies (thereby excluding the state or any state agency, board, or commission).
- Require a local agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of spaces to be built in the following circumstances:
- When state funds are used on a new development and the funding availability is announced after June 30, 2024
- When public funds are being used to develop a parking structure or surface parking and the funding has not been awarded as of June 30, 2024.
- Require the local agency providing the most funding for a proposed new development to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements, and require the examination to include identification of parking facilities on contiguous properties or nearby properties that would not require users to cross a street, and consideration of availability of those facilities for shared parking.
- Explicitly specify that the bill does not apply to land owned or leased by the state.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 894 (Friedman) - Parking requirements: shared parking
Version: August 15, 2023 | Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 7 - 0, HOUSING 9 - 2 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 28, 2023 | Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
Bill Summary:
AB 894 would require public agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Fiscal Impact:
- The Department of General Services (DGS) estimates costs of approximately $250,000 in 2024-25 to conduct feasibility studies regarding the use of shared parking agreements instead of constructing new parking spaces for five specified projects. Ongoing costs are unknown and would depend upon the number of projects constructed in a given year that require additional parking. DGS estimates that each parking study would cost approximately $50,000. (General Fund)
- The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) indicates that any costs associated with this bill would be minor and absorbable. (General Fund)
- Unknown local mandated costs. While the bill could impose new costs on local agencies to revise planning requirements to allow for the use of shared parking agreements to count toward meeting parking requirements, these costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)
Background:
Cities and counties use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. Through this authority, cities and counties also establish a minimum amount of parking that developers must provide for both residential and nonresidential buildings, which are referred to as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the building or facility with which they are associated. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurants may be linked to the total number of seats, while hotels and residential units may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms.
Local minimum parking standards exist to ensure that various land uses have sufficient on-site parking. However, these standards can result in an excess of on-site parking. For example, in 2019 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) conducted a limited review of minimum parking requirements, and found that, while most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization rate ranged from 56 to 72 percent at each development, suggesting that minimum parking requirements create an oversupply of parking. The utilization of these spaces was even lower during off-peak times, such as mid-day at an apartment building and after business hours at an office building.
Proposed Law:
This bill would, among other things, do the following:
- Require a public agency, including state entities, cities, counties, special districts and other political subdivisions, when an entity receiving parking is not using that parking to meet public automobile parking requirements, to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency and information identifying the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
- Require entities sharing parking pursuant to an agreement to be located on the same or contiguous parcels, and require the sites sharing parking to be separated by no more than 2,000 feet walking distance, or longer if there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and the site.
- Require a public agency to approve a shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies sufficient to determine the number of parking spaces that can be shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements, and it secures long-term provision of parking spaces or affords the opportunity for periodic review and approval by the public agency.
- Authorize the public agency to require shared parking agreements to be recorded against parcels that are part of the agreement.
- If no parking analysis is included with the shared parking agreement, and a local agency has not enacted an ordinance providing for shared parking agreements, the local agency may decide whether to approve or deny the agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that may be reasonably shared between uses.
- Require a public agency, for proposed developments of 10 or more residential units, or 18,000 square feet or more, before making a determination, to do the following:
- Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed shared parking agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting on the agreement.
- Hold a public meeting on the agreement, if requested, to approve or deny the agreement and determine the number of spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
- Authorize a local agency approving a project proposing to use a shared parking agreement to request and confirm reasonable verification that shared parking agreements have been or will be secured as a condition for approval.
- Prohibit a public agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
- Prohibit a public agency from withholding approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the availability of parking spaces for the original proposes uses.
- Require a public agency to allow a development project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking in which a designated historical resource on a federal, state or local register of historical places is being converted or adapted.
- Clarify that the bill does not do any of the following:
- Reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
- Reduce the percentage of parking spaces designated for electric vehicles.
- Require parking to be offered without cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
- Give public agencies the right to compel private parties to enter into shared parking agreements.
- Require a public agency, private landowner, or lessee to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new spaces constructed when state funds are used on a proposed development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
Related Legislation:
AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva), which is currently pending on the Senate Floor, would prohibit a public agency from increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided the project does not cause the residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the applicable zoning regulations.
AB 2097 (Friedman) Chap. 459/2022, prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial, and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
Staff Comments:
This bill includes a provision that requires a public agency, including state entities, to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new spaces constructed when state funds are used on a proposed development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds. DGS indicates that this provision would require feasibility studies for five projects in the next year, at a total estimated cost of approximately $250,000. Costs for future feasibility studies for new projects that include a parking component are not known at this time, and would depend upon DGS client departments’ future projects. DGS also notes a concern that entering into shared parking agreements and making parking available in state facilities for non-state use could create complications if state agencies are required to provide access to controlled lots or garages reserved for employees or an agency’s vehicles, and could impinge on paid monthly subscribers’ ability to park during core working hours.
The bill’s mandated local costs would not be subject to state reimbursement because local agencies have the authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees as necessary to cover administrative costs. Existing law authorizes planning and zoning fees to “include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations.” Case law and previous decisions by the Commission on State Mandates support the position that local governments’ planning costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning mandates.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Scott Wiener, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 894 Hearing Date: 7/10/2023
Author: | Friedman | ||
Version: | 6/22/2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Aiyana Cortez | ||
SUBJECT: Parking requirements: shared parking
DIGEST: This bill requires public agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires each city or county to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city or county and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties.
- Enables the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances that establish requirements for off-street parking and loading.
- Sets specified percentage requirements of available parking spaces for new developments for persons with disabilities, electric vehicles, and other specific purposes.
This bill:
- Defines “automobile parking requirements” as any parking that a public agency requires an entity to provide, as specified.
- Defines “public agency” as the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
- Defines “shared parking agreement” as an agreement that outlines the terms under which underutilized parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
- Defines “underutilized parking” as parking where 20% or more of a development’s parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is needed by another user, group, development, or the public.
- Requires a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency and information demonstrating the benefits of the proposed shared parking agreement.
- Requires a public agency, if no shared parking ordinance exists before January 1, 2024, to:
- Allow parking spaces identified in a shared parking agreement to count toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, as specified.
- Approve a shared parking agreement if it includes a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies, as specified. If no parking analysis is included, the public agency is required to:
- Notify all property owners within 300 feet of the shared parking spaces of the proposed agreement, including that the property owner has 14 days to request a public meeting before the public agency decides whether to approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
- If requested, hold a public meeting on the shared parking agreement to approve or deny the shared parking agreement and determine the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between uses to fulfill parking requirements.
- Prohibits a public agency from requiring the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the shared parking agreement.
- Prohibits a public agency from withholding approval of a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking.
- Requires a public agency to allow a development project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted.
- Clarifies that it does not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
- Clarifies that it does not require parking be offered without cost or at reduced cost to the user.
COMMENTS:
- Author’s statement. “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build new parking. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect evidence on the benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources. This bill requires that jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and avoids wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
- Planning and zoning. Every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all areas covered by the plan. A general plan must include specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. Cities and counties must provide a path to appeal a decision to the planning commission and/or the city council or county board of supervisors. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local planning commission and public notice, and may require additional approvals.
Local governments enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations. Cities and counties generally establish requirements for a minimum amount of parking developers must provide for a given facility or use, known as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the building or facility with which they are associated.
- Parking requirements. In 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60% of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30%, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.
CARB also conducted a limited review of minimum parking requirements and found parking requirements often result in an over-supply of parking. In reviewing 10 developments in Southern California, CARB noted that while most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization at these sites ranged from 56% to 72% at each development.
Both CARB reviews suggest the minimum requirements are too high, creating an unnecessary oversupply of parking. In response, the Legislature has enacted several policies limiting minimum parking requirements. Last year, AB 2097 (Friedman) prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
- Impacts of parking minimums. Although challenging to quantify, parking minimums are thought to encourage automobile use. For example, researchers from the University of California found data from affordable housing lotteries in San Francisco provided a unique setting that effectively randomized housing assignments for housing lottery applicants. The study found “a building’s parking ratio not only influences car ownership, vehicle travel and public transport use, but has a stronger effect than public transport accessibility. Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most US cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking. In buildings with no on-site parking, only 38% of households own a car. In buildings with at least one parking space per unit, more than 81% of households own automobiles.”
A number of sources have documented the harms associated with imposing parking requirements. Of particular interest given California’s housing challenges is parking requirements can increase the cost of building homes and make some projects infeasible, whether financially due to the cost of constructing parking or physically due to capacity limitations of some sites. A recent study by Santa Clara University found the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent. Others note parking requirements can reduce the number of buildable units on a site by taking up space that could be devoted to housing.
According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “Parking requirements have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts, in particular the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat island effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt increases stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher pollution levels in freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal parking lots can seep into groundwater and freshwater systems, which contributes to pollution and decreases the health of these ecosystems. Because it encourages automobile usage, parking also hinders the effectiveness and usage of alternative forms of transit (i.e., public transportation, biking, etc.), increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Reducing parking as a barrier. To spur greater use of underutilized parking, and to make it easier for entities to meet minimum parking requirements, this bill requires local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting parking requirements. This bill also provides for public input in instances where peer-review parking analyses are not provided and local ordinances on shared parking are not already in place at the time of enactment.
- Double-referral. This bill passed out of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on June 21 on a 7-0 vote.
Related Legislation:
AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva & Friedman, 2023) — prohibits a public agency from increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided the project does not cause the residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the applicable zoning regulations. This bill is being heard concurrently in this committee.
AB 2097 (Friedman, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022) — prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
SB 1067 (Portantino, 2022) — would have prohibited a city or county from imposing or enforcing minimum parking requirements on housing development projects located within one-half mile of public transit. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1401 (Friedman, 2021) —was substantially similar to AB 2097. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
July 5, 2023.)
SUPPORT:
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) (Sponsor)
350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California YIMBY
City of Bakersfield
CivicWell
Council Member Zach Hilton, City of Gilroy
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
How to ADU
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View YIMBY
Move LA
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Seamless Bay Area
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
OPPOSITION:
Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC)
City of Eastvale
Livable California
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: | AB 894 | Hearing Date: | 6/21/23 |
Author: | Friedman | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 4/20/23 | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Peterson | ||
Parking requirements: shared parking
Requires public agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
Planning and Zoning Law. State law provides additional powers and duties to cities and counties regarding land use. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all areas covered by the plan. A general plan must include specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself. Cities and counties must provide a path to appeal a decision to the planning commission and/or the city council or county board of supervisors. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local planning commission and public notice, and may require additional approvals.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
Parking standards. Cities and counties generally establish requirements for a minimum amount of parking developers must provide for a given facility or use, known as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the building or facility with which they are associated. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurant parking may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms.
In 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60% of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30%, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.
CARB also conducted a limited review of minimum parking requirements and found parking requirements often result in an over-supply of parking. In reviewing 10 developments in Southern California, CARB noted that while most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization at these sites ranged from 56% to 72% at each development.
Both CARB reviews suggest the minimum requirements are too high, creating an unnecessary oversupply of parking. In response, the Legislature has enacted several policies limiting minimum parking requirements. Last year, AB 2097 (Friedman) prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
Research on parking and its impacts. Although challenging to quantify, parking minimums are thought to encourage automobile use. For example, in a recent journal article, (What do Residential Lotteries Show us About Transportation Choices?), researchers from the University of California found data from affordable housing lotteries in San Francisco provided a unique setting that effectively randomized housing assignments for housing lottery applicants. The study found “a building’s parking ratio not only influences car ownership, vehicle travel and public transport use, but has a stronger effect than public transport accessibility. Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most US cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking… In buildings with no on-site parking, only 38% of households own a car. In buildings with at least one parking space per unit, more than 81% of households own automobiles.”
A number of sources have documented the harms associated with imposing parking requirements. Of particular interest given California’s housing challenges is parking requirements can increase the cost of building homes and make some projects infeasible, whether financially due to the cost of constructing parking or physically due to capacity limitations of some sites. For example, the City and County of San Francisco eliminated parking minimums in 2018. According to the San Francisco Planning Department:
“San Francisco eliminated mandatory parking requirements in 2018, recognizing that these requirements can lead to an oversupply of parking spaces that encourages car dependence, discourages mass transit usage, and increases the cost of housing. According to estimates by SF Planning Department, at the time parking minimums were eliminated, minimum parking rules added as much as $50,000 to the cost of the housing unit. They undermined pedestrian safety, requiring dangerous driveways to be built in some of the most densely populated, walkable areas of the City. Parking minimums also contributed to traffic congestion, encouraging residents to own private cars, instead of taking transit, walking, or biking.”
A recent study by Santa Clara University found the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent. Others note parking requirements can reduce the number of buildable units on a site by taking up space that could be devoted to housing.
Research has documented other harms associated with parking minimums outside the housing context. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation:
“Parking requirements have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts, in particular the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat island effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt increases stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher pollution levels in freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal parking lots can seep into groundwater and freshwater systems, which contributes to pollution and decreases the health of these ecosystems. Because it encourages automobile usage, parking also hinders the effectiveness and usage of alternative forms of transit (public transportation, biking, etc.), increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
To spur greater use of underutilizined parking, and to make it easier for entities to meet minimum parking requirements, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) wants to require local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting parking requirements.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 894 requires a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities. Underutilized parking means parking where 20% or more of a development’s parking spaces are available during the period the parking is needed by another user, group, development, or the public.
A public agency must allow parking spaces identified in shared parking agreements to count toward meeting any parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be built as part of developments under any of the following conditions:
- The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels;
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route; or
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.
Entities wanting to share parking must enter into a shared parking agreement outlining the terms under which parking will be shared.
When determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses, a public agency must accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers.
Public agencies cannot require the curing of preexisting deficits of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces. An agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. For a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
The measure provides its provisions cannot be used to reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a development to provide parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
Public agencies, private landowners, or lessors must examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development;
- Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
AB 894 provides it must not be interpreted to require parking be offered at no or reduced cost.
AB 894 makes findings and declarations to further its intent, and defines its terms.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build new parking.
“Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect evidence on the benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources. This bill requires that jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and avoids wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
2. Home rule. Local officials are elected to represent the interests of all their constituents and to look broadly at how new development might impact their community. For example, concerns over the encroachment of wildfire may prompt some local governments to impose parking requirements to ensure streets are open for evacuation and emergency response. Some public agencies have developed policies for multiple entities to share parking spaces and count those parking spaces when determining whether a development meets minimum parking requirements. For example, the City of San Diego has a form available on its website for entities that want to request all or a portion of parking to be permitted off-site subject to certain restrictions. Regardless of the decisions local officials have made regarding shared parking agreements, AB 894 requires all public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces. It also requires all public agencies to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be built when the project uses public funds. Should the Legislature require all public entities to adopt shared parking agreement policies?
3. Who makes the call? AB 894 requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces based on a shared parking agreement. While the measure requires entities sharing parking to enter into an agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared, it does not require those entities to submit their agreement to the relevant public agency, or receive its approval. However, some provisions appear to provide public agencies with the power to approve or deny these agreements. For example, AB 894 says a public agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement because it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. It also provides, when determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared, a public agency must accept certain types of parking analyses. It is unclear whether AB 894 intends to allow local agencies to decide whether to approve or modify these agreements, or simply accept them. The Committee may wish to clarify whether public agencies should have to approve these agreements, or simply be notified of their existence.
4. In the public eye. Shared parking agreements could have impacts on other business and properties that surround parking lots not subject to the agreement. However, AB 894 does not provide a process for the public to weigh in on an agreement before a public agency approves. Without a notice requirement or a public meeting, they won’t find out about the changes until the agreement goes into effect. On the other hand, a shared parking agreement does not affect the parking spaces available to parties not subject to the agreement. The Committee may wish to consider whether shared parking agreements should be subject to greater public scrutiny.
5. An alternative approach. To clarify the role public agencies play in approving shared parking agreements, and give the public an opportunity to weigh in on these agreements, the Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to:
- Require a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency.
- Require public agencies to accept shared parking agreements that include a parking analysis using certain peer-reviewed methodologies.
- For shared parking agreements that do not include a peer-reviewed parking analysis, require the public agency to notify nearby property owners of the proposed agreement, and hold a public meeting if a property owner requests it. In these cases, the public agency could decide whether to approve the agreement, and determine the number of spaces that can counted towards minimum parking requirements.
- Provide these requirements do not apply to shared parking agreements entered into before January 1, 2024.
- Define shared parking agreements.
6. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 894 imposes new duties on local officials, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. AB 894 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions.
7. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or an issue of statewide concern. AB 894 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern.
8. Related legislation. AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva & Friedman) prohibits a public agency from increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided the project does not cause the residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the applicable zoning regulations. The bill is also scheduled for the Committee’s June 21st meeting.
9. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a double-referral of AB 894: first, to the Governance and Finance Committee to consider its impact on local governments, and second to the Housing Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-2
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 6-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 12-3
Assembly Floor: 62-10
Support and Opposition
(6/9/23)
Support:
Civicwell (formally the Local Government Commission) (Sponsor)
Spur (Sponsor)
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Yimby
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay Yimby
Grow the Richmond
How to Adu
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View Yimby
Move LA
Napa-solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco Yimby
San Luis Obispo Yimby
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Seamless Bay Area
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action
Opposition: City of Eastvale
New Livable California Dba Livable California
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: | AB 894 | Hearing Date: | 6/14/23 |
Author: | Friedman | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 4/20/23 | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Peterson | ||
Parking requirements: shared parking
Requires public agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.
Planning and Zoning Law. State law provides additional powers and duties to cities and counties regarding land use. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general plan must include specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself. Cities and counties must provide a path to appeal a decision to the planning commission and/or the city council or county board of supervisors. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a conditional use permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local planning commission and public notice, and may require additional approvals.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
Parking standards. Cities and counties generally establish requirements for a minimum amount of parking that developers must provide for a given facility or use, known as parking minimums or parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to the building or facility with which they are associated. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurant parking may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms.
In 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found that for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60 percent of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30 percent, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.
CARB also conducted a limited review of minimum parking requirements and found that parking requirements often result in an over-supply of parking. In reviewing 10 developments in Southern California, CARB noted that while most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization at these sites ranged from 56 percent to 72 percent at each development.
Both CARB reviews suggest the minimum requirements are too high, creating an unnecessary oversupply of parking.
AB 2097 (Friedman, 2022) prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
Research on parking and its impacts. Although challenging to quantify, parking minimums are thought to encourage automobile use. For example, in a recent journal article, What do Residential Lotteries Show us About Transportation Choices?), researchers from the University of California found that data from affordable housing lotteries in San Francisco provided a unique setting that effectively randomized housing assignments for housing lottery applicants. The study found “that a building’s parking ratio not only influences car ownership, vehicle travel and public transport use, but has a stronger effect than public transport accessibility. Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most US cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking… In buildings with no on-site parking, only 38% of households own a car. In buildings with at least one parking space per unit, more than 81% of households own automobiles.”
A number of sources have documented the harms associated with imposing parking requirements. Of particular interest given California’s housing challenges is parking requirements can increase the cost of building homes and make some projects infeasible, whether financially due to the cost of constructing parking or physically due to capacity limitations of some sites. For example, the City and County of San Francisco eliminated parking minimums in 2018. According to the San Francisco Planning Department:
“San Francisco eliminated mandatory parking requirements in 2018, recognizing that these requirements can lead to an oversupply of parking spaces that encourages car dependence, discourages mass transit usage, and increases the cost of housing. According to estimates by SF Planning Department, at the time parking minimums were eliminated, minimum parking rules added as much as $50,000 to the cost of the housing unit. They undermined pedestrian safety, requiring dangerous driveways to be built in some of the most densely populated, walkable areas of the City. Parking minimums also contributed to traffic congestion, encouraging residents to own private cars, instead of taking transit, walking, or biking.”
A recent study by Santa Clara University found the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent. Others note parking requirements can reduce the number of buildable units on a site by taking up space that could be devoted to housing.
Research has documented other harms associated with parking minimums outside the housing context. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation:
“Parking requirements have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts, in particular the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat island effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt increases stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher pollution levels in freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal parking lots can seep into groundwater and freshwater systems, which contributes to pollution and decreases the health of these ecosystems. Because it encourages automobile usage, parking also hinders the effectiveness and usage of alternative forms of transit (public transportation, biking, etc.), increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
To spur greater use of underutilizined parking, and to make it easier for entities to meet minimum parking requirements, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) wants to require local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be shared with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting parking requirements.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 894 requires a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities. Underutilized parking means parking where 20% or more of a development’s parking spaces are available during the period the parking is needed by another user, group, development, or the public.
A public agency must allow parking spaces identified in shared parking agreements to count toward meeting any parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be built as part of developments under any of the following conditions:
- The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels;
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route; or
- The sites of the entities that will share the parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and site.
Entities wanting to share parking must enter into a shared parking agreement outlining the terms under which parking will be shared.
When determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses, a public agency must accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers.
Public agencies cannot require the curing of preexisting deficits of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces. An agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. For a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
The measure provides its provisions cannot be used to reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a development to provide parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
Public agencies, private landowners, or lessors must examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development;
- Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
AB 894 provides it must not be interpreted to require that parking be offered at no or reduced cost.
AB 894 makes findings and declarations to further its intent, and defines its terms.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build new parking.
“Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect evidence on the benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources. This bill requires that jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and avoids wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
2. Home rule. Local officials are elected to represent the interests of all their constituents and to look broadly at how new development might impact their community. For example, concerns over the encroachment of wildfire may prompt some local governments to impose parking requirements to ensure that streets are open for evacuation and emergency response. Some local agencies have developed policies for multiple entities to share parking spaces and count those parking spaces when determining whether a development meets minimum parking requirements. For example, the City of San Diego has a form available on its website for entities that want to request all or a portion of parking to be permitted off-site subject to certain restrictions. Other local agencies may have decided not to implement similar policies. Regardless of the decisions that local officials have made regarding shared parking agreements, AB 894 requires all local agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces. It also requires all local agencies to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be built when the project uses public funds. Should the Legislature require all public entities to adopt shared parking agreement policies?
3. Who makes the call? AB 894 requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces based on a shared parking agreement. While the measure requires entities sharing parking to enter into an agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared, it does not require those entities to submit their agreement to the relevant public agency, or receive its approval. However, some provisions appear to provide local agencies with the power to approve or deny these agreements. For example, AB 894 says a public agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement because it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. It also provides that, when determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared, a public agency must accept certain types of parking analyses. The Committee may wish to make the following amendments to clarify the process for public entities to approve shared parking agreements:
- Require a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the public agency for consideration.
- Clarify that, upon receipt of a shared parking agreement, a public agency may approve or deny the shared parking agreement.
- Allow a public agency to determine the number of spaces that can reasonably be shared between different uses, but must accept specified parking analyses.
- Define shared parking agreements.
4. In the public eye. Shared parking agreements could have impacts on other business and properties that surround parking lots not subject to the agreement. AB 894 does not provide a process for the public to weigh in on an agreement before a local agency approves it. However, surrounding property owners may be affected by shifting parking patterns at nearby properties. Without a notice requirement or a public meeting, they won’t find out about the changes until the agreement goes into effect. On the other hand, a shared parking agreement does not affect the parking spaces available to parties not subject to the agreement. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to include a public process for nearby property owners to weigh in on potential shared parking agreements.
5. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 894 imposes new duties on local officials, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. AB 894 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions.
6. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or an issue of statewide concern. AB 894 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern.
7. Related legislation. AB 1308 prohibits a public agency from increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence, provided the project does not cause the residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by the applicable zoning regulations. The bill is currently pending in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
8. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a double-referral of AB 894: first, to the Committee on Governance and Finance to consider its impact on local governments, and second to the Committee on Housing.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-2
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 6-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 12-3
Assembly Floor: 62-10
Support and Opposition
(6/9/23)
Support:
Civicwell (Sponsor)
Spur (Sponsor)
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
350 Bay Area Action
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Yimby
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay Yimby
Grow the Richmond
How to Adu
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco Yimby
San Luis Obispo Yimby
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action
Opposition: City of Eastvale
New Livable California Dba Livable California
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 894
Author:(Friedman)
As Amended Ver:April 20, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires public agencies to allow proposed and existing developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Major Provisions
- Requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies or other entities.
- Requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces, and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under specified conditions.
- Requires a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed in either of the following circumstances:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
- Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
COMMENTS
This bill requires public agencies to allow new and existing developments and uses to share underutilized parking with nearby developments and uses, and count that parking toward those entity's minimum automobile-parking requirements. This bill also allows new developments to share parking in lots and garages that will be constructed. This bill requires public agencies to use a specified parking analysis to determine the number of parking spaces that may be shared and counted toward an entity's minimum automobile-parking requirement.
Cities and counties generally establish parking standards that capture various types of facilities and uses. Parking standards are commonly indexed to conditions related to the building or facility they are associated with. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurants may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms present at the facility.
In 2019, CARB staff reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found that, for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60% of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30%, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.
Developing new parking spaces requires a significant dedication of land and resources. A typical parking space measures from eight to 10 feet wide and 18-20 feet long. Off-street parking also requires driveways and access lanes for circulation within the parking lot. As a result, off-street parking typically requires 300 square feet (compact, urban off-street parking) to 400 square feet (full-size, urban off-street parking) of land per parking space. This means that 100 to 150 parking spaces requires one acre of land. In urban areas where land is expensive or unavailable, the cost of constructing an aboveground or belowground parking structure is considerable. A 2018 report by the United States Government Accountability Office found that urban affordable housing projects in California and Arizona that include parking structures were associated with a per-unit cost increase of about $56,000 per unit. A more recent study analyzed the regional parking structure construction costs per parking space in major metropolitan areas. The study found that the average cost of construction for a parking space in a parking structure is $26,653 in Los Angeles and $30,316 in San Francisco.
According to the Author
"Currently, some jurisdictions either prohibit shared parking, allow shared parking only in certain narrow circumstances, or make no clear accommodation to allow parking owners or managers to share underutilized parking with other land uses. Many jurisdictions do allow shared parking to count toward meeting public agency parking requirements.
"Without action, some public agencies will continue to require new parking spaces where existing parking can be shared more effectively. Unnecessary parking consumes land and resources that could be better used to support more housing, jobs, services, and open space. It also encourages more single-occupant vehicle use which contradicts the legislature's climate and equity goals."
Arguments in Support
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association writes in support, "AB 894 responds to recent research on parking supply. Recent assessments have found a surprising abundance of parking in the most populous California regions, even where there are perceptions that parking is inadequate. A 2015 study of Los Angeles County parking found that there are more than 1.5 parking spaces for every resident in the County, including children. SPUR coordinated a 2022 Bay Area Parking Census which found 15 million parking spaces in the 9-county area - 2.4 spaces for every car. What is often lacking is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively."
Arguments in Opposition
The City of Eastvale writes in opposition, "Nothing in current law prohibits a local agency from permitting shared parking agreements between business entities, public agencies, and developers. Decisions like these should be left at the local level so that agreements can be crafted in a way that reflects the unique characteristics of each community."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no state costs. Local costs are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.
VOTES
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-2-0
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Pacheco, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Wilson
NO: Dixon, Waldron
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-0-2
YES: Wicks, Wendy Carrillo, Gabriel, Kalra, Quirk-Silva, Ward
ABS, ABST OR NV: Joe Patterson, Sanchez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-3-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Weber, Ortega
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Mathis
UPDATED
VERSION: April 20, 2023
CONSULTANT: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0000406
Date of Hearing: May 17, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 894
Author:(Friedman) – As Amended Ver:April 20, 2023
Policy Committee: | Local Government | Vote: | 6 - 2 |
Housing and Community Development | 6 - 0 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires a public agency to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement imposed by the agency for a new or existing development or use.
Specifically, this bill:
- Defines “underutilized parking” to mean parking where 20% or more of an entity’s parking spaces are available during the period the parking is needed by another use, group, entity, or the public.
- Requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies, or other entities.
- Requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use under any of the following conditions:
- The entities sharing parking are located on the same or contiguous parcels.
- The sites of the entities sharing parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
- The sites of the entities sharing parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and the site.
- Requires entities sharing parking to enter into a shared parking agreement.
- Provides a public agency cannot require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces.
- Provides a public agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the developments sharing the underutilized parking.
- Requires a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces to be constructed when state funds are being used on a proposed new development or before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
- Specifies this bill not be interpreted to require parking be offered without a cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No state costs. Local costs are not reimbursable by the state because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. The author intends this bill to help address the oversupply of parking. According to the author:
Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated policies to reflect evidence of shared parking benefits and increasing tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources.
This bill requires that jurisdictions acknowledge shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development, avoiding wasteful excessive parking development and its associated contributions to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.
- Background. Local minimum parking standards are to ensure land uses have sufficient parking on site. Observers note, however, these standards can result in an oversupply of on-site parking. For example, in analyzing 10 developments in Southern California, the California Air Resources Board noted, while most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization rate ranged from 56% to 72% at each development. The utilization of these spaces was even lower during off-peak times, such as during the day at an apartment building and at night at an office building.
This bill requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies, or other entities. Additionally, the bill requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting the project’s minimum parking requirements, as long as the entities in the shared parking arrangement are close to each other or there is a shuttle service between the uses. This bill also requires development projects to study the utilization of a shared parking arrangement before they are able to use state funds or when public funds are being used to build a parking structure or surface parking lot.
- Arguments in Support. According to the California Apartment Association, in support of the bill:
Unnecessary parking consumes land and resources that could be better used to support more housing, jobs, services, and open space. It also encourages more single-occupant vehicle use which directly contradicts state climate and equity goals. By requiring that public agencies allow excess parking to be shared and counted toward parking requirements, [this bill] will reduce circumstances where costly and space-intensive new parking construction is mandated, particularly when nearby existing parking is readily available for use.
- Arguments in Opposition. The City of Eastvale, in Riverside County, writes in opposition:
Nothing in current law prohibits a local agency from permitting shared parking agreements between business entities, public agencies, and developers. Decisions like these should be left at the local level so that agreements can be crafted in a way that reflects the unique characteristics of each community.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Buffy Wicks, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 894 (
Author:Friedman) – As Amended Ver:April 20, 2023
SUBJECT: Parking requirements: shared parking
SUMMARY: Requires public agencies to allow proposed and existing developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency. Specifically, this bill:
- Defines “underutilized parking” to mean parking where 20 percent or more of an entity’s parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is needed by another use, group, entity, or the public.
- Requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies, or other entities.
- Requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use under any of the following conditions:
- The entities that will share the parking are located on the same or contiguous parcels;
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route; or
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and the site.
- Requires entities that are sharing parking as provided in the bill to enter into a shared parking agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared.
- Provides that a public agency cannot require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces.
- Provides that a public agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the developments sharing the underutilized parking.
- Requires local agencies to allow a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted to meet the minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
- Specifies that this bill does not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the requirement for new development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
- Requires a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed in either of the following circumstances:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development; or
- Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
- Specifies that nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without a cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires each city or county to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city or county and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties (Government Code Section 65300 – 65404).
- Enables the legislative body of any county or city to adopt ordinances that establish requirements for off-street parking and loading. (GC 65850(d))
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Author’s Statement: According to the author, “Assessments recently quantified the number of parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it easier than ever to share existing parking resources. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated policies to reflect evidence of shared parking benefits and increasing tools that make it easy to manage shared parking resources.
“This bill requires that jurisdictions acknowledge shared parking as a legitimate strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development, avoiding wasteful excessive parking development and its associated contributions to congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
Planning for Parking: The California Constitution provides cities and counties the authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This provision, commonly called the police power, gives cities and counties broad authority to regulate land use and other matters, provided that the local policy is “not in conflict with general laws.”
Cities and counties use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. Through this authority, cities and counties may also establish parking requirements for nonresidential and residential buildings. While in recent years, some cities have used this authority to set maximum parking standards, historically, cities and counties have used this authority to set standards for the minimum amount of parking a development project must provide. Such standards are commonly indexed to conditions related to the building or facility they are associated with. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurants may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms present at the facility. For residential uses, a typical parking standard is two parking spaces per household. For nonresidential construction, an average of one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space.[1]
Parking Space: Developing new parking spaces requires a significant dedication of land and resources. A typical parking space measures from 8 to 10 feet wide and 18-20 feet long. Off-street parking also requires driveways and access lanes for circulation within the parking lot. As a result, off-street parking typically requires 300 square feet (compact, urban off-street parking) to 400 square feet (full-size, urban off-street parking) of land per parking space.[2] On sites with limited development capacity, for every two to four parking spaces provided there is room for one less housing unit or room for up to 10 fewer office workers.
Sites with limited space also require structured parking. The cost of constructing such parking is considerable. A 2018 report by the United States Government Accountability Office found that urban affordable housing projects in California and Arizona that included parking structures were associated with a cost increase of about $56,000 per unit.[3] A more recent study analyzed the regional parking structure construction costs per parking space in major metropolitan areas. The study found that the average cost of construction for a parking space in a parking structure is $26,653 in Los Angeles and $30,316 in San Francisco.[4] While underground parking can free up developable space for residential and non-residential uses, it is even more expensive to build.
Addressing the Oversupply of Parking: Local minimum parking standards are designed to ensure land uses have sufficient parking on site. But in doing so, they have also resulted in an oversupply of on-site parking. For example, in analyzing ten developments in Southern California, the California Air Resources Board noted that while most sites built exactly the minimum parking required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization at these sites ranged from 56 percent to 72 percent at each development.[5] The utilization of these spaces is even lower during off-peak times – for example, during the day at an apartment building and at night for an office building.
This bill is intended to help address the oversupply of parking. It would require public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies, or other entities. Additionally, it requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting the project’s minimum parking requirements, as long as the entities in the shared parking arrangement are proximal to each other there is a shuttle service between the uses. It also requires projects to study the utilization of a shared parking arrangement before they are able to use state funds or when public funds are being used to build a parking structure or surface parking lot.
Arguments in Support: Supporters of the bill argue that it would help improve the utilization of the state’s limited land, which will have multiple benefits. According to the American Planning Association, California Chapter, “To meet the state’s ambitious climate and housing goals, several strategies will need to be explored both at the state and local level. And as research has shown, unused parking exists throughout California, particularly as the pandemic has shifted behavioral patterns related to online retail and work from home options that have created an additional parking surplus. Allowing shared parking options to avoid creating unnecessary new parking is one strategy to support better land use policies, mitigate impacts to development costs, and create more sustainable communities.”
Arguments in Opposition: None on file.
Related Legislation:
AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva) of the current legislative session prohibits a public agency from increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence provided that the project does not cause the residence to exceed any maximum size imposed by the zoning. AB 1308 passed out of this Committee and the Assembly Committee on Local Government and is pending in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
AB 2097 (Friedman), Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022: Prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
SB 1067 (Portantino) of 2022 would have prohibited a city or county from imposing or enforcing minimum parking requirements on housing development projects located within one-half mile of public transit. SB 1067 was held in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
AB 1401 (Friedman) of 2021 was substantially similar to AB 2097. AB 1401 was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Double Referred: This bill is double referred. It was heard in the Assembly Committee on Local Government and passed on a vote of 6-2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
SPUR (Sponsor)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California YIMBY
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
CivicWell
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
How to ADU
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors SF
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
Streets are For Everyone (SAFE)
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action
YIMBY SLO
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
See page 18: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/CARB_Technical_Analysis_EV_Charging_Nonresidential_CALGreen_2019_2020_Intervening_Code.pdf ↑
Litman, Todd. Parking Management Best Practices. (Routledge, 2018) 50-51. ↑
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Improved Data and Oversight. (2018) 30-31. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694668.pdf ↑
Litman, Todd. “Comprehensive Parking Supply, Cost and Pricing Analysis” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2023) 15-16. https://www.vtpi.org/pscp.pdf ↑
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Impacts_of_Parking_Pricing_Based_on_a_Review_of_the_Empirical_Literature_Policy_Brief.pdf ↑
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 894 (
Author:Friedman) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2023
SUBJECT: Parking requirements: shared parking
SUMMARY: : Requires public agencies to allow proposed and existing developments to count underutilized and shared parking spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, other public agencies or other entities.
- Requires public agencies to allow shared parking arrangements to be counted toward meeting any automobile parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including, but not limited to, shared parking in underutilized spaces, and in parking lots and garages that will be constructed as part of the development or developments under any of the following conditions:
- The entities that will share the parking are located on the same or contiguous parcels.
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route.
- The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other accommodations to move between the parking and the site.
- Requires entities that are sharing parking as provided in the bill to enter into a shared parking agreement that outlines the terms under which parking will be shared between the entities that are a party to the agreement.
- Requires that public agencies accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies developed by a professional planning association such as the methodology established by the Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping Centers when determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different uses.
- Provides that a public agency shall not require the curing of any preexisting deficit of the number of parking spaces as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces.
- Provides that a public agency shall not deny a shared parking arrangement between entities solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing the underutilized parking.
- Requires local agencies to allow a development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted to meet the minimum parking requirements through the use of offsite shared parking.
- Provides that nothing in the bill shall reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of a requirement for a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
- Requires a public agency, private landowner, or lessor to examine the feasibility of shared parking arrangements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that will be constructed in either of the following circumstances:
- When state funds are being used on a proposed new development.
- Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
- Specifies that nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to require that parking be offered without a cost or at a reduced cost to the user.
- Defines the following terms:
- “Automobile parking requirements” means any parking that a public agency requires an entity to provide, including, but not limited to, parking imposed via ordinance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or a development agreement.
- “Entity” or “entities” means a proposed or existing residential or nonresidential development.
- “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
- “Underutilized parking” means parking where 20 percent or more of an entity’s parking spaces are available during the period that the parking is needed by another use, group, entity, or the public.
- Finds and declares that sharing parking can help preserve land, lower the cost of housing, and allow more compact land use that promotes walking, biking and public transit. Therefore the bill shall be interpreted in favor of rules and guidelines that support shared parking.
- Finds and declares that preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, the bill applies to all cities, including charter cities.
- Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill, 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 bill.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires each city or county to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city or county and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities and counties (Government Code § 65300 – 65404).
- Establishes the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) within the Department of General Services, and requires CBSC to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (Health and Safety Code §18930).
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS:
- Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Currently, some jurisdictions either prohibit shared parking, allow shared parking only in certain narrow circumstances, or make no clear accommodation to allow parking owners or managers to share underutilized parking with other land uses. Many jurisdictions do allow shared parking to count toward meeting public agency parking requirements.
“Without action, some public agencies will continue to require new parking spaces where existing parking can be shared more effectively. Unnecessary parking consumes land and resources that could be better used to support more housing, jobs, services, and open space. It also encourages more single-occupant vehicle use which contradicts the legislature's climate and equity goals.”
- Bill Summary. This bill requires public agencies to allow new and existing developments and uses to share underutilized parking with nearby developments and uses, and count that parking toward those entity’s minimum automobile-parking requirements. This bill also allows new developments to share parking in lots and garages that will be constructed. This bill requires public agencies to use a specified parking analysis to determine the number of parking spaces that may be shared and counted toward an entity’s minimum automobile-parking requirement.
This bill is sponsored by the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR).
- Background. The California Constitution provides cities and counties the authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This provision, (commonly called the police power) gives cities and counties broad authority to regulate land use and other matters, provided that the local policy is “not in conflict with general laws.”
Cities and counties use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development, such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and others. Through this authority, cities and counties also establish minimum numbers of required vehicle parking spaces for nonresidential and residential buildings.
- Local Parking Standards. Cities and counties generally establish parking standards that capture various types of facilities and uses. Parking standards are commonly indexed to conditions related to the building or facility they are associated with. For example, shopping centers may have parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurants may be linked to the total number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms present at the facility.
In 2019, CARB staff reviewed over 200 municipal codes and found that, for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that approximately 60 percent of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by an average of 30 percent, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.[1]
- Parking Space. Developing new parking spaces requires a significant dedication of land and resources. A typical parking space measures from 8 to 10 feet wide and 18-20 feet long. Off-street parking also requires driveways and access lanes for circulation within the parking lot. As a result, off-street parking typically requires 300 square feet (compact, urban off-street parking) to 400 square feet (full-size, urban off-street parking) of land per parking space. This means that 100 to 150 parking spaces requires 1 acre of land.[2] In urban areas where land is expensive or unavailable, the cost of constructing an aboveground or belowground parking structure is considerable. A 2018 report by the United States Government Accountability Office found that urban affordable housing projects in California and Arizona that include parking structures were associated with a per-unit cost increase of about $56,000 per unit.[3] A more recent study analyzed the regional parking structure construction costs per parking space in major metropolitan areas. The study found that the average cost of construction for a parking space in a parking structure is $26,653 in Los Angeles and $30,316 in San Francisco.[4]
- Eliminating Local Parking Requirements. There is a significant body of academic research regarding the potential impact minimum parking ratios have on car ownership, Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), use of public transit, and transportation trends generally. However, while significant research exists, the impacts of parking ratios on VMT and car ownership are difficult to quantify due to the potential for residents to self-select and move to developments based on their existing circumstances or preferences. For example, a person that cannot afford, or wishes to forego, car ownership may choose to live in a development that does not include parking and is adjacent to transit. Conversely, an individual with little interest in transit may choose a development with ample parking spaces. This reality has made it difficult to prove whether increased parking standards induce more driving.
A recent journal article from the University of California found that data from affordable housing lotteries in San Francisco provided a unique setting that effectively randomized housing assignments for housing lottery applicants. The research found that lottery applicants applied indiscriminately for available affordable units without respect to attributes such as the amount of off-street parking available for any particular unit. This created a setting that allowed researchers to analyze whether individuals essentially “assigned” a home with more or less parking influenced their propensity for car ownership and their driving frequency.
The study found “that a building’s parking ratio not only influences car ownership, vehicle travel and public transport use, but has a stronger effect than public transport accessibility. Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most US cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking.” Specifically, the study found, “In buildings with no on-site parking, only 38 percent of households own a car. In buildings with at least one parking space per unit, more than 81 percent of households own automobiles.” [5]
- State and Federal Parking Requirements. The state does not establish minimum requirements related to the number of vehicle parking spaces that must be provided for new developments; however, state regulations include requirements relative to the type of vehicle parking that must be provided as a percent of the total parking required per development. For example, the California Green Building Code requires 10 percent of parking spaces at residential developments and six percent of parking spaces at nonresidential developments to be EV parking spaces. State and federal law additionally require cities and counties to ensure that a specified percentage of vehicle parking spaces at new developments are accessible to persons with disabilities.
- Policy Consideration. Some of the terminology and phrasing in the bill makes it unclear when existing developments can share parking with new developments and uses, and when new developments can develop less parking when they are sharing parking with another new development. The Committee may wish to consider clarifying some of the terminology in the bill.
- Committee Amendments. In order to address the policy consideration noted above, The Committee may wish to consider the following amendments.
- Remove the proposed definition of “entity” or “entities”
- Replace “shared parking arrangement” with “shared parking agreement.”
- Delete erroneous reference to “new multifamily” residential development in provisions related to spaces for persons with disabilities.
- Replace the term “entity” and “entity’s” with “development” and “development’s” in 65863.1 (a)(4)
Due to timing constraints, these amendments should be adopted in the Housing and Community Development Committee.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2097 (Friedman) Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022, prohibited public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
SB 1067 (Portantino) of 2022 would have prohibited a city or county from imposing or enforcing minimum parking requirements on housing development projects located within one-half mile of public transit. SB 1067 was held in the Appropriations Committee.
AB 1401(Friedman) of 2021 was substantially similar to AB 2097. AB 1401 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee
- Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Housing and Community Development Committee.
- Arguments in Support. SPUR, writes in support, “AB 894 responds to recent research on parking supply. Recent assessments have found a surprising abundance of parking in the most populous California regions, even where there are perceptions that parking is inadequate. A 2015 study of Los Angeles County parking found that there are more than 1.5 parking spaces for every resident in the County, including children. SPUR coordinated a 2022 Bay Area Parking Census which found 15 million parking spaces in the 9-county area - 2.4 spaces for every car. What is often lacking is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that allow existing parking to be shared more effectively.”
- Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
SPUR [SPONSOR]
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Yimby
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
Civicwell (formally the Local Government Commission)
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay Yimby
Grow the Richmond
How to Adu
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors Sf
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco Yimby
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Streets Are For Everyone
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action
Yimby Slo
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Hank Brady / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
California Air Resources Board. EV Charging Infrastructure: Nonresidential Building Standards. 2019/2020 Intervening Code Cycle: CARB Staff Technical and Cost Analysis. (2019) 11-12. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/CARB_Technical_Analysis_EV_Charging_Nonresidential_CALGreen_2019_2020_Intervening_Code.pdf ↑
Litman, Todd. Parking Management Best Practices. (Routledge, 2018) 50-51. ↑
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Improved Data and Oversight. (2018) 30-31. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694668.pdf ↑
Litman, Todd. “Comprehensive Parking Supply, Cost and Pricing Analysis” Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2023) 15-16. https://www.vtpi.org/pscp.pdf ↑
Millard-Ball, Adam, Jeremy West, Nazanin Rezaei, and Garima Desai. “What Do Residential Lotteries Show Us about Transportation Choices?” Urban Studies 59, no. 2 (March 14, 2021): 434–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098021995139. ↑
Discussed in Hearing
27SEC
Assembly Floor
3MIN
Senate Floor
3MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
7MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Housing
10MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance
28SEC
Assembly Floor
1MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations
2MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development
Bill Author
