BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 744
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
744 (Chau)
As Amended March 26, 2015
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Housing |6-1 |Chau, Steinorth, |Beth Gaines |
| | |Burke, Chiu, Lopez, | |
| | |Mullin | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Local |7-2 |Gonzalez, Alejo, |Maienschein, |
|Government | |Chiu, Cooley, |Waldron |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Linder | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |12-4 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
AB 744
Page 2
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
AB 744
Page 3
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% 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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, the fiscal impact is minor, non-reimbursable costs to
cities and counties.
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 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 -
AB 744
Page 4
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 (Núñez),
Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006: The California Global Solutions Act
of 2006 requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter
728, Statutes of 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 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
AB 744
Page 5
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, this bill 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. The average construction cost per space,
excluding land cost, in a parking structure in the United States
is about $24,000 for aboveground parking and $34,000 for
underground parking.
Analysis Prepared by:
Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN:
0000655
AB 744
Page 6