BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 744 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Brian Maienschein, Chair AB 744 (Chau) - As Amended March 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: density bonuses. SUMMARY: Requires a city or 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)Prohibits, upon the request of the developer that receives a density bonus, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a minimum onsite parking requirement on a development that meets any 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 development. AB 744 Page 2 2)Allows a city, county, or city and county to impose a maximum onsite parking requirement for a development. 3)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. 4)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% of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10% of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor. 5)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. 6)Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, then reimbursement shall be made to local agencies and school districts for those costs. EXISTING LAW: 1)Defines "major transit stop" as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus AB 744 Page 3 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. 2)Requires all cities and counties to adopt an ordinance that specifies how they will implement state density bonus law. 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. 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 AB 744 Page 4 households in a CID; b) Two incentives or concessions if the project includes at 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. 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. FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program. COMMENTS: AB 744 Page 5 1)Bill Summary. This bill makes a number of changes to density bonus law and the elimination of parking minimum requirements for certain housing projects. This bill requires a city or county, upon the request of a developer that receives a density bonus, to eliminate the minimum parking requirements for the development, if the development 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 development. The bill is author-sponsored. 2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "AB 32: The California Global Solutions Act of 2006 requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 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 their cars and onto public transit. Cities and counties are required to adopt sustainable communities strategies to show how development will support reduction in GHG emissions. Some cities and counties have adopted policies like eliminating minimum parking requirements for projects that are close to transit and where demand for parking spaces is low. "In some cases, cities and counties apply minimum parking standards to housing development that do 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. AB 744 aligns local land use decisions more closely with the goals of AB 744 Page 6 AB 32 and SB 375 by reducing the parking required for projects that are close to transit or serve individuals who have fewer cars. The bill also provides another incentive to developers to include affordable units in their development in turn for a reduction in parking requirements, where those reductions make sense." 3)Density Bonus. 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. Density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979, but has been changed numerous times since. SB 1818 (Hollingsworth), Chapter 928, Statutes of 2004, made significant changes to the law, including reducing the number of housing units required to be provided at below market rate in order to qualify for a density bonus. Developers are entitled to benefits under the density bonus law when they include as few as one affordable housing unit as part of an otherwise market-rate project. A housing project with only 5% of very low-income housing is entitled to a 20% density bonus, one concession, unlimited waivers from development standards, and reduced parking standards for the entire project. 4)Policy Considerations. The American Planning Association, California Chapter (APA) 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 AB 744 Page 7 issues: a) Whether the bill should include a parking study completed by the developer to support the need for reduced parking; b) Whether the definition of a transit stop is too broad; c) Whether the definition of special needs housing is too broad; and, d) Whether it is clear that to qualify for the reduced parking the project must include affordable units. 5)Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that outdated, one-size-fits all minimum parking requirements increase development costs, and therefore, housing and rental prices, by distorting the market for parking, will instead allow the developer to build to actual parking demand and thereby allow renters and homebuyers to save money on their units. 6)Arguments in Opposition. The League of California Cities writes that density bonus law already offers two tiers of parking incentives to developers: a) Statutory maximums commencing at one parking space per bedroom; and, b) The ability to seek additional concessions to further reduce parking below the maximums, and that the League is unclear why the existing provisions are inadequate. 7)Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Housing and Community Development Committee on April 15, 2015, where it passed with a 6-1 vote. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support American Planning Association, California Chapter (if amended) AB 744 Page 8 California Apartment Association California Housing Consortium Circulate San Diego Council of Infill Builders Domus Development Local Government Commission Opposition League of California Cities (unless amended) Analysis Prepared by:Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 AB 744 Page 9