BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 744 Hearing Date: 6/30/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Chau |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |6/23/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Alison Dinmore |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: density bonuses
DIGEST: 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 it meets
specified criteria.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Defines "density bonus" as a density increase over the
otherwise maximum allowable residential density as of the date
of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city
and county.
2)Requires all cities and counties to adopt an ordinance that
specifies how they will implement state density bonus law.
3)Requires a city, county, or city and county to grant one
density bonus and incentives or concessions when an applicant
for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a
housing development, excluding any units permitted by the
density bonus awarded, that will provide for at least any one
of the following:
a) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development
for lower income households;
AB 744 (Chau) Page 2 of ?
b) Five percent of the total units of a housing development
for very low-income households;
c) A senior citizen housing development or a mobilehome
park that limits residency based upon age requirements for
housing for older persons;
d) Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common
interest development (CID) for persons and families of
moderate income, provided all the units in the development
are offered to the public for purchase.
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
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.
1)Defines "major transit stop" as 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
AB 744 (Chau) Page 3 of ?
major bus routes with a frequency-of-service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.
This bill:
1)Provides that when a developer agrees to include the maximum
number of very low- or low-income units under Density Bonus
Law within one-half mile of a major transit stop and with
unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the
development, then upon the request of the developer a city,
county, or city and county shall not impose a parking ratio
that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom.
2)Provides that if a development is 100% affordable to lower
income families then upon the request of a developer, a city,
county, or city and county, shall 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" and there is unobstructed access to
the major transit stop from the development. "Unobstructed
access" means a resident is able to walk to the major
transit stop without encountering natural or constructed
impediments.
b) The development is a for-rent housing development for
individuals who are 62 years of age or older.
c) The development is a special needs housing development.
1)Provides that this bill does not preclude a city, county, or
city and county from reducing or eliminating a parking
requirement for developments of any type or location.
2)Allows a city, county, or city and county that conducted an
area-wide or jurisdiction-wide parking study within the last
five years by an independent consultant to impose a higher
vehicular parking ratio than the one for 1) and 2) above, but
does not exceed the standard under Density Bonus Law. The
study must be based on substantial evidence and include, but
not be limited to, an analysis of parking availability,
differing levels of transit access, walkability access to
transit services, the potential for shared parking, and the
AB 744 (Chau) Page 4 of ?
effect of parking requirements on the cost of market-rate and
subsidized parking.
3)Requires the city, county, or city and county which has
completed a parking study and imposes a higher standard than
1) and 2) above to make findings supporting the need for a
higher parking ratio.
COMMENTS:
Purpose of the bill. In some cases, cities and counties apply
minimum parking standards to affordable housing developments
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. An
in-depth analysis of parking utilization at 68 affordable
housing developments throughout the Bay Area by Transform's
GreenTrip program found substantial overdevelopment of
residential parking, at an extremely high cost.
This bill would allow a developer that is requesting a density
bonus and including 100% affordable units in the development to
also request that the city or county eliminate the minimum
parking requirements for the development. This bill promotes
affordable housing by enabling developers to invest in building
more affordable dwelling units instead of spending public
subsidies on unneeded parking spaces. It also reduces
construction costs and encourages building of urban infill,
transit-oriented development, and senior and special needs
housing while preserving a city's right to establish parking
standards suitable for their specific circumstances.
Background of Density Bonus Law. Given California's high land
and construction costs for housing, it is extremely difficult
for the private market to provide housing units that are
affordable to low- and even moderate-income households. Public
subsidy is often required to fill the financial gap on
affordable units. Density Bonus Law, however, allows public
subsidies to be reduced or even eliminated by allowing a
developer to include more total units in a project than would
otherwise be allowed by the zoning in order to spread the cost
of the affordable units over the project as a whole. The idea
is to cover at least some of the affordability gap with
AB 744 (Chau) Page 5 of ?
regulatory incentives rather than additional subsidy.
Under existing law, if a developer agrees to construct a housing
development and meets a specified percentage of affordable
units, the city or county must provide all of the following
benefits: a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waiver of
any development standards that prevent the developer from
utilizing the density bonus or incentives, and reduced parking
standards.
While a local government is not required to provide financial
assistance or fee waivers, the incentives a local government
must grant include any of the following:
1)A reduction in site development standards;
2)A modification of zoning code requirements (including a
reduction in setbacks, square footage requirements, or parking
spaces, or architectural design requirements that exceed the
minimum building standards);
3)Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing
project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses
will reduce the cost of the housing development, and if such
non-residential uses are compatible with the project; or
4)Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in
identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost
reductions.
Cost of parking spaces. Transform's GreenTrip program analyzed
parking utilization at 68 affordable-housing developments
throughout the Bay Area and found substantial overdevelopment of
residential parking, at an extremely high cost. Surveying the
buildings' parking lots at night when residents would be
expected to be sleeping (with their cars in the on-site spaces),
the study found that 31% of the 9,387 spaces were empty. The
cost to construct those spaces amounted to approximately $139
million. The average construction cost per space, excluding
land cost, in a parking structure in the United States is
$24,000 for aboveground parking and $34,000 for underground
parking. Certain types of parking - podium or subterranean -
can increase parking costs by 6% or more relative to other types
of parking.
AB 744 (Chau) Page 6 of ?
Developments that are available only to low-income persons
generally receive Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to
finance the project. To compete for LIHTC, projects need to
meet scoring criteria, including proximity to transit. While
senior or special-needs projects are not required to meet the
standard that they are within one-half mile of major transit,
they will need to meet the transit requirements of the LIHTC.
This bill would require cities and counties to waive costly
minimum parking requirements upon request from of a developer,
in cases where a development serves low-income persons. The
development must be within one-half mile of a major transit
stop, serve only persons over 62 years old, or serve persons
with special needs.
Parking study/bill exception. This bill provides that a city or
county may impose a higher standard of parking than what is
otherwise permitted under this section based upon substantial
evidence found in an area- or jurisdiction-wide parking study.
The study must be conducted by an independent consultant within
the last five years and includes certain requirements.
Sustainability goals and transit-oriented development. AB 32
(Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) requires California to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
SB 375 (Steinberg, Chapter 728, Statutes 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 by requiring cities and counties
to adopt sustainable communities strategies to show how
development will support reduction in GHG emissions. A key
component of reducing GHG is to move people out of their cars
and into public transit. To encourage use of transit, some
cities and counties have adopted policies like eliminating
minimum parking requirements for projects that are close to
transit where demand for parking spaces is low. They recognize
that parking requirements prevent infill redevelopment on small
lots where it is difficult and costly to fit both a new building
and the required parking. They also see that parking
requirements prevent new uses for older buildings that lack the
required parking spaces.
Arguably, cities and counties that place minimum parking
requirements for developments near transit may not reflect the
demand for parking. This is particularly likely in 100%
AB 744 (Chau) Page 7 of ?
affordable developments within one-half mile of a transit stop,
a seniors-only development, or a development that serves
special-needs individuals. In fact, a review of developments
funded through the Department of Housing and Community
Development's Transit-Oriented Development Implementation
Program (TOD program) showed that lower income households drive
25-30% fewer miles when living within one-half mile of transit
than those living in non-TOD areas.
Opposition. Opponents state that while some housing projects
serving unique populations may need less parking, minimum levels
of parking should remain intact as these populations still often
have cars. Many seniors do not give up their cars at 62 years
of age and many low-income persons require their cars to get to
work. Additionally, adequate parking should be available for
guests and service providers. Opponents argue that Density
Bonus Law already offers two tiers of parking incentives to
developers: 1) statutory maximums commencing at one parking
space per bedroom, and 2) the ability to seek additional
concessions to further reduce parking below the maximums.
Double-referred. This bill is also referred to the Senate
Governance and Finance Committee.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 52-34
Appr: 12-4
LGov: 7-2
H&CD: 6-1
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 24, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
American Planning Association (Support if Amended)
Association of Regional Center Agencies
Blaydes & Associates American Planning Association (Support if
Amended)
AB 744 (Chau) Page 8 of ?
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Apartment Association
California Bicycle Coalition
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Economic Summit
California Housing Consortium
California League of Conservation Voters
California State Treasurer, John Chiang
Circulate San Diego
City of Richmond, California
Council of Infill Builders
Domus Development
Donald C. Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School
of Public Affairs
Eden Housing
EAH Housing
Enterprise Community Partners
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
Housing California
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
John Chiang, California State Treasurer
LifeSTEPS
LINC Housing
Local Government Commission
Lyft, Inc.
Mayor Ed Lee, City of San Francisco
Mercy Housing California
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Michael Lane, Policy Director, Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
National Community Renaissance
Natural Recourses Defense Council
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Rebecca J. Garcia, Councilmember, City of Watsonville
Sacramento Housing Alliance
San Diego County Bike Coalition
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Transform
9 individuals
OPPOSITION:
City of Camarillo
City of Encinitas
AB 744 (Chau) Page 9 of ?
City of Glendale
City of Lakewood
County of Los Angeles
League of California Cities
-- END --