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