BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 744
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
744 (Chau and Quirk)
As Amended August 18, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 4, 2015) |SENATE: |22-15 | (August 31, |
| |52-24 | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: H. & C.D.
SUMMARY: Requires a local government, upon the request of a
developer that receives a density bonus, to reduce the minimum
parking requirements for a housing development, if it meets
specified criteria. Specifically, this bill:
1)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 reduce the minimum parking
requirements for the development, as follows:
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.
AB 744
Page 2
b) If the development is a for-rent housing development for
individuals who are 62 years of age or older, the ratio
shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. The development must
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 must 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.
2)Provides that when a developer agrees to include the maximum
number of very low- or low-income units under Density Bonus
Law, and the development is 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.
3)Requires the above specified parking ratios to be inclusive of
handicapped and guest parking.
4)Defines "unobstructed access" as a resident being able to
access the transit stop without encountering natural or
constructed impediments.
5)Defines a "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.
AB 744
Page 3
6)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.
7)Allows a city, county, or city and county that conducted an
area-wide or jurisdiction-wide parking study within the last
seven years to impose a higher vehicular parking ratio that
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, the effect
of parking requirements on the cost of market-rate and
subsidized development, and the lower rates of car ownership
for very low- and low- income individuals, including seniors
and special needs individuals. Any new study shall be paid
for by the city, county, or city and county.
8)Requires the city, county, or city and county which has
completed a parking study and imposes a higher standard to
make findings supporting the need for the higher parking
ratio.
9)Provides that no reimbursement is required pursuant to
California Constitution Article XIII B, Section 6, because a
local agency or school district has the authority to levy
service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for
the program or level of service mandated by this bill.
The Senate amendments:
1)Strike the requirement that a local government, upon the
request of a developer that receives a density bonus,
eliminate minimum parking requirements for specified
categories of 100% affordable projects near transit, and
instead provide reduced parking ratios for these projects.
AB 744
Page 4
2)Provide that the parking ratios are inclusive of handicapped
and guest parking.
3)Require projects to have unobstructed access to transit, and
defines unobstructed access as when a resident is able to
access the transit stop without encountering natural or
constructed impediments.
4)Require seniors only or special needs projects to have either
paratransit service or be located within one-half mile of
fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per
day.
5)Require seniors only projects to comply with specified
existing laws regarding senior housing.
6)Increase the duration of the parking study to seven years and
make changes to the parking study criteria.
7)Provide that no reimbursement is required pursuant to
California Constitution Article XIII B, Section 6, because a
local agency or school district has the authority to levy
service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for
the program or level of service mandated by this bill.
8)Make technical, clarifying changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS: Background: California is facing a housing
affordability crisis on many fronts. According to the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development, California
AB 744
Page 5
has six of the most expensive rental markets in the country.
Nationwide, rents in 2014 grew the fastest in the San Jose and
San Francisco metropolitan areas, increasing by 14.4% and 13.5%,
respectively. Between 2006 and 2011, rents increased throughout
the state by an average of 10%. Lower-income households
represent a majority of renter households. Out of 5.1 million
renters in California, 60% are in lower-income households, while
one in four renter households are in the extremely low-income.
One in two renters in California pay in excess of 30% of their
income towards housing and one in four renters pay half of their
income towards housing.
The funding sources to support construction of affordable
housing have drastically diminished over the last five years.
The dissolution of redevelopment agencies eliminated up to $1
billion in funding that was available for affordable housing
construction. The last statewide housing bond was approved in
2008 and the proceeds of those bonds have been exhausted.
Density Bonus Law: 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. This bill
would amend density bonus law to allow developers that agree to
either include a percentage of affordable units or where the
development is 100% affordable to lower income families and
individuals to request a city or county reduce parking ratios.
Cost of parking spaces: Affordable housing is expensive to
build in California due to both the amount of subsidy needed to
make the housing affordable and the cost of local regulatory
requirements. 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
AB 744
Page 6
special needs who drive less frequently and have fewer vehicles.
Parking spaces, which sometimes go unused, can significantly
increase the cost of construction. 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: This bill would allow a city or county to impose
a higher parking ratio than those outlined in this bill if the
city has conducted a study within the last seven years that
includes substantial evidence that supports the need for a
higher parking ratio. The city could only increase the parking
ratio to the existing standard that is allowed under Density
Bonus Law. This provision was included to address concerns
raised by local governments who argued they needed a means to
increase parking beyond the requirements of this bill.
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 to show how development will support
reduction in GHG emissions.
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 projects that
are close to transit and serve individuals who have fewer cars.
Much of California's existing parking requirements are based on
AB 744
Page 7
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.
Senate amendments: Prior to the Senate amendments, this bill
would have eliminated the minimum parking requirements for
specified categories of 100% affordable projects near transit
that qualify for a density bonus, and would not have required a
nexus to transit for seniors or special needs projects. To
address concerns raised by local governments, the Senate
amendments provide reduced parking ratios for these projects,
and require seniors and special needs projects to have access to
paratransit or be within one-half mile of a fixed bus route that
runs at least eight times per day. The parking ratios are
inclusive of handicapped and guest parking.
Analysis Prepared by:
Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085
FN:
0001472