BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 744|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 744
Author: Chau (D) and Quirk (D), et al.
AmendedAmended:8/18/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 7-4, 7/7/15
AYES: Beall, Allen, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NOES: Cannella, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-2, 7/15/15
AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara
NOES: Nguyen, Moorlach
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-24, 6/4/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: density bonuses
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill places a cap on the parking ratios that
local governments may impose on some affordable housing
developments upon the request of a developer.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Defines "density bonus" as a density increase over the
otherwise maximum allowable residential density as of the date
AB 744
Page 2
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;
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; and
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
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
AB 744
Page 3
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
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,
inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, 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, the following parking ratios shall
apply for the development:
a) If 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, the ratio
shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. "Unobstructed
access" means a resident is able to walk to the major
transit stop without encountering natural or constructed
AB 744
Page 4
impediments.
b) If the development is a for-rent housing development for
individuals who are 62 years of age or older, the ration
shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. The development
shall have either paratransit service or have unobstructed
access, within one half-mile, to fixed bus route service
that operates at least eight times per day.
c) If the development is a special needs housing
development, the ratio shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per
unit. The development shall have either paratransit
service or have unobstructed access, within one half-mile,
to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight
times per day.
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
seven 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
effect of parking requirements on the cost of market-rate and
subsidized parking and the lower rates of car ownership for
low- and very-low-income individuals, including seniors and
special needs individuals. Any new study shall be paid for by
the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or
city and county shall find that a higher parking ratio is
required based on a parking study completed in conformance
with this subparagraph.
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
AB 744
Page 5
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. This bill
promotes affordable housing by enabling developers to invest in
building more affordable dwelling units instead of spending
funds on parking spaces that may go unused. AB 744 also
encourages building of urban infill, transit-oriented
development, and senior and special-needs housing by providing
benefits to those categories of development. It also ensures
the mobility of residents of these developments by only granting
a benefit to developments in locations that provide residents
with access to alternative forms of transportation, such as
transit and paratransit. Finally, AB 744 provides flexibility
to locals because it allows cities to establish parking
standards suitable for their specific circumstances upon
demonstration that the greater parking requirements are
necessary.
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
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;
AB 744
Page 6
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.
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 seven years and includes certain requirements.
Sustainability goals and transit-oriented development. A key
component of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 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
AB 744
Page 7
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%
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/18/15)
AARP
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Association of Regional Center Agencies
Blaydes & Associates
California Apartment Association
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Bicycle Coalition
AB 744
Page 8
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Economic Summit
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California League of Conservation Voters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State Treasurer, John Chiang
Circulate San Diego
City of Richmond, California
Council of Infill Builders
Councilmember Dominic Farinha, City of Patterson
Councilmember Jake McKenzie, City of Rohnert Park
Councilmember Pam O'Connor, City of Santa Monica
Councilmember Rebecca J. Garcia, City of Watsonville
Councilmember Steve Hansen, City of Sacramento
Councilmember Wendy Thomas, City of Placerville
Councilwoman Michelle Martinez, City of Santa Ana
Domus Development
Donald C. Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School
of Public Affairs
EAH Housing
Eden Housing
Enterprise Community Partners
Greenbelt Alliance
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
Housing California
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Kate Meis, Executive Director, Local Government Commission
LifeSTEPS
LINC Housing
Local Government Commission
Lyft, Inc.
Mayor Ed Lee, City of San Francisco
Mayor Libby Schaaf, City of Oakland
Mayor Pro Tem Jon Harrison, City of Redlands
Mayor Tom Butt, City of Richmond
Mercy Housing California
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Michael Lane, Policy Director, Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
National Community Renaissance
Natural Recourses Defense Council
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
AB 744
Page 9
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Sacramento Housing Alliance
San Diego Housing Federation
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
Southern California Association of NonProfit Housing
Supervisor Leticia Perez, Kern County
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Transform
USGBC California
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Western Center on Law & Poverty
9 individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/18/15)
City of Brentwood
City of Calimesa
City of Camarillo
City of Chino Hills
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Dublin
City of El Centro
City of Encinitas
City of Fortuna
City of Glendale
City of Highland
City of Lakewood
City of Lomita
City of Norwalk
City of Palmdale
City of Rocklin
City of Sacramento
City of San Rafael
City of Seaside
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
County of Los Angeles
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
AB 744
Page 10
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-24, 6/4/15
AYES: Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman,
Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Irwin,
Jones, Kim, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte,
Olsen, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Brown, Nazarian, Perea
Prepared by:Alison Dinmore / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/19/15 20:42:50
**** END ****