BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                     AB 744


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 27, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          AB  
          744 (Chau) - As Amended March 26, 2015


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Housing and Community          |Vote:|6 - 1        |
          |Committee:   |Development                    |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |Local Government               |     |7 - 2        |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          Yes


          SUMMARY:


          This bill requires a city or county, upon the request of a  
          developer that receives a density bonus, to eliminate the  
          minimum onsite parking requirements on the development that is  








                                                                     AB 744


                                                                    Page  2





          within one-half mile of a major transit stop, is a senior  
          housing development, or is a special needs housing development. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          Minor, non-reimbursable costs to cities and counties.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose. According to the author, "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 32 (The California Global  
            Solutions Act of 2006) and SB 375 (Steinberg, Chapter 728,  
            Statutes of 2008) 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."


          2)Background. The density bonus law is designed 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.  
          








                                                                     AB 744


                                                                    Page  3





            The density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979, but has  
            been changed numerous times.  In 2004, the Legislature made  
            significant changes to the law, including reducing the number  
            of housing units required at below market rate in order to  
            qualify for a density bonus.  Currently, developers are  
            entitled to benefits under the density bonus law when they  
            include one or more affordable housing unit(s) as part of an  
            otherwise market-rate project. A housing project with 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.  

          3)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.


          4)Arguments in Opposition.  The League of California Cities  
            writes that the 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.


          


          Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081













                                                                     AB 744


                                                                    Page  4