BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 744
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ed Chau, Chair
AB 744
(Chau) - As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: density bonuses
SUMMARY: Requires a city, county, or city and county, upon the
request of a developer that receives a density bonus, to
eliminate the minimum parking requirements for the development,
if it meets specified criteria. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a city, county, or city and county, upon the request
of a developer that receives a density bonus, to eliminate the
minimum parking requirements for the development, if it meets
one of the following criteria:
a) The development is located within one-half mile of a
"major transit stop";
b) The development is a senior citizen housing development;
or
c) The development is a special needs housing development.
AB 744
Page 2
1)Allows a city, county, or city and county to impose maximum
onsite parking requirements for a development.
2)Defines a "major transit stop" to mean a site containing an
existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by
either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of
two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods, includes a major transit stop
that is included in the applicable regional transportation
plan.
3)Specifies that a project is considered to be within one-half
mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor
if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent
of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or
corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential
units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are
farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.
4)Clarifies that, when calculating density bonus amounts, all
calculations that result in fractional numbers must be rounded
up including but not limited to maximum allowable density,
total affordable units, and the total amount of the density
bonus.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Defines "major transit stop" as a site containing an existing
rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus
or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more
major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods (Public Resources Code Section 21064.3).
2)Requires all cities and counties to adopt an ordinance that
AB 744
Page 3
specifies how they will implement state density bonus law
(Government Code Section 65915).
3)Requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an
applicant for a housing development of five or more units
seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at
least any one of the following:
a) Ten percent of the total units for lower income
households;
b) Five percent of the total units of a housing for very
low income households;
c) A senior citizen housing development or mobilehome park;
and,
d) Ten percent of the units in a common-interest
development (CID) for moderate-income households.
(Government Code Section 65915)
1)Requires cities and counties to provide an applicant for a
density bonus concessions and incentives based on the number
of below market-rate units included in the project as follows:
a) One incentive or concession if the project includes at
least 10% of the total units for low-income households, 5%
for very low-income households, or 10% for moderate-income
households in a CID;
b) Two incentives or concessions if the project includes at
AB 744
Page 4
least 20% of the total units for low-income households, 10%
for very low-income households, or 20% for moderate-income
households in a CID; and
c) Three incentives or concessions if the project includes
at least 30% of the total units for low-income households,
15% for very low-income households, or 30% for
moderate-income households in a CID.
(Government Code Section 65915)
2)Provides that, upon the developer's request, the local
government may not require parking standards greater than the
following (the developer may, however request additional
parking incentives or concessions):
a) Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space;
b) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces; and
c) Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
(Government Code Section 65915)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Background :
According to the Urban Land Institute's Transportation for a
New Era: Growing more Sustainable Communities (2009) study "the
more that housing, jobs, and services spread out, the harder it
becomes to access them without an automobile. Only with more
compact development and more transportation options - rapid
AB 744
Page 5
transit and walkable designs - is it feasible to achieve
national goals for economic productivity and environmental
sustainability. What's more, Americans increasingly demand more
compact product types. Consumer preference surveys and studies
of housing values show that there is an unmet demand for
walkable neighborhoods. Transit use is up and voters have
repeatedly approved referendums raising taxes or approving bond
issues for expanded rapid transit service. But the supply of
affordable compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development
products has not kept pace. Studies show that compact
development results in fewer miles traveled, reducing fuel
consumption and emissions. In areas where housing, employment,
shopping, or services are close by - even in low-density places
without high-quality transit service - people walk more.
Compact development can reduce the cost of public infrastructure
and encourage healthy habits such as incorporating walking and
biking into daily routines. With transportation options,
families save. Each automobile a household maintains costs it,
annually, between $5,500 for a small sedan driven 10,000 miles a
year to nearly $12,000 for an SUV driven 20,000 miles a year.
The compact development model can be adapted to urban, suburban,
and rural contexts. New communities can develop in more compact
ways, and many existing suburban areas are ready to be revamped
into a more concentrated, walkable, and mixed-use "village"
form. However, in many communities, development around transit
and other likely locations is stymied by zoning restrictions and
parking requirements."
Sustainable development goals:
California has taken steps over the last several years to
establish programs and policies to help incentivize regional and
local planning efforts. AB 32: The California Global Solutions
Act of 2006 requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 375 (Steinberg) (2008)
supports the state's climate action goals to reduce GHG
emissions through coordinated transportation and land use
planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. A key
component of reducing GHG emissions is moving people out of
AB 744
Page 6
their cars and onto public transit. Cities and counties are
required to adopt sustainable community strategies (SCS) to show
how development will support reduction in GHG emissions.
In some cases, cities and counties apply minimum parking
standards to housing developments that may not reflect the
demand from tenants for parking. These projects may be close to
transit stations or home to seniors or individuals with special
needs who drive less frequently and have fewer vehicles.
Parking spaces, which sometimes go unused, can significantly
increase the cost of construction. Certain types of parking,
podium or subterranean, can increase parking costs by 6% or more
relative to other types of parking. In cases where projects are
100% affordable or include affordable units, parking spaces
needlessly drive up the cost of the project.
To help address California's affordable housing shortage, the
Legislature enacted density bonus law to encourage the
development of more affordable units. Under current law, a city
or county must grant a density bonus, concessions and
incentives, prescribed parking requirements, as well as waivers
of development standards upon a developer's request when the
developer includes a certain percentage of affordable housing in
a housing development project.
Purpose of this bill :
According to the author, AB 744 aligns local land use decisions
more closely with the goals of AB 32 and SB 375 by reducing the
parking required for housing developments that include
affordable units and are close to transit or are home to seniors
or special needs individuals. Much of California's existing
parking requirements are based on low-density and single-purpose
land use designations. Parking is costly to build and maintain
and can increase the cost of projects in existing development
areas.
AB 744
Page 7
Support if amended :
The American Planning Association: California Chapter has a
support on AB 744. According to APA, "generally, the narrower
focus from the previous parking minimum legislation is
appreciated and APA shares the author's goal to encourage infill
housing by not overburdening development near active transit or
other parking options. However, APA does have questions and
concerns about the precise qualifying terms and the supportive
service component included in the bill." APA's concerns include
the following issues 1) whether the bill should include a
parking study completed by the developer to support the need for
reduced parking, 2) whether the definition of a transit stop is
too broad, 3) whether the definition of special needs housing is
too broad, and 4) whether it is clear that to qualify for the
reduced parking the project must include affordable units.
Staff comments :
The author has indicated the intent of the bill is that only
developers that include affordable units should be able to
request that a local government eliminate the minimum parking
requirement. The committee may wish to consider asking the
author to clarify this provision.
Double referred : This bill was also referred to the Local
Government Committee where it will be heard should it pass out
of this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 744
Page 8
American Planning Association (Support if Amended)
California Housing Consortium
Circulate San Diego
Domus Development
Local Government Commission
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085