BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       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 (Nez),  
          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