Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2015-2016 Legislature.

AB 744 - An Act to Amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, Relating to Housing.

Planning and zoning: density bonuses. 2015-2016 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other… More
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. Existing law requires continued affordability for 55 years or longer, as specified, of all very low and low-income units that qualified an applicant for a density bonus. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio for a housing development that meets these criteria in excess of specified ratios. This prohibition applies only at the request of the developer and specifies that the developer may request additional parking incentives or concessions.

This bill would, notwithstanding the above-described provisions, additionally prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, in excess of 0.5 spaces per bedroom on a development that includes the maximum percentage of low- or very low income units, as specified, and is located within12 mile of a major transit stop, as defined, and there is unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development. The bill would also prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, in excess of specified amounts per unit on a development that consists solely of units with an affordable housing cost to lower income households, as specified, if the development is within12 mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development, is a for-rent housing development for individuals that are 62 years of age or older that complies with specified existing laws regarding senior housing, or is a special needs housing development, as those terms are defined. The bill would require a subject development that is a for-rent housing development for individuals that are 62 years of age or older or a special needs housing development to have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within 12 mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least 8 times per day. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to impose a higher vehicular parking ratio based on substantial evidence found in an areawide or jurisdictionwide parking study, as specified. The bill would make findings and declarations, including that the subject of the bill is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair.

By imposing additional duties on local governments in awarding density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on September 2, 2015.

voted YES: 54 voted NO: 25
1 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, Relating to Housing.

AB 744 — 2015-2016 Legislature

Summary
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. Existing law requires continued affordability for 55 years or longer, as specified, of all very low and low-income units that qualified an applicant for a density bonus. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio for a housing development that meets these criteria in excess of specified ratios. This prohibition applies only at the request of the developer and specifies that the developer may request additional parking incentives or concessions.

This bill would, notwithstanding the above-described provisions, additionally prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and… More
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when a developer of housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of the local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. Existing law requires continued affordability for 55 years or longer, as specified, of all very low and low-income units that qualified an applicant for a density bonus. Existing law prohibits a city, county, or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio for a housing development that meets these criteria in excess of specified ratios. This prohibition applies only at the request of the developer and specifies that the developer may request additional parking incentives or concessions.

This bill would, notwithstanding the above-described provisions, additionally prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, in excess of 0.5 spaces per bedroom on a development that includes the maximum percentage of low- or very low income units, as specified, and is located within12 mile of a major transit stop, as defined, and there is unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development. The bill would also prohibit, at the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, in excess of specified amounts per unit on a development that consists solely of units with an affordable housing cost to lower income households, as specified, if the development is within12 mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development, is a for-rent housing development for individuals that are 62 years of age or older that complies with specified existing laws regarding senior housing, or is a special needs housing development, as those terms are defined. The bill would require a subject development that is a for-rent housing development for individuals that are 62 years of age or older or a special needs housing development to have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within 12 mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least 8 times per day. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to impose a higher vehicular parking ratio based on substantial evidence found in an areawide or jurisdictionwide parking study, as specified. The bill would make findings and declarations, including that the subject of the bill is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair.

By imposing additional duties on local governments in awarding density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, Relating to Housing.
Author(s)
Ed Chau, Bill Quirk
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Planning and zoning: density bonuses
Major Actions
Introduced2/25/2015
Referred to Committee
Passed Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development4/15/2015
Passed Assembly Committee on Local Government4/29/2015
Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations5/27/2015
Passed Assembly6/04/2015
Passed Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing7/07/2015
Passed Senate Committee on Governance and Finance7/15/2015
Passed Senate8/31/2015
Passed Assembly9/02/2015
Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/15/2015
Became law (chaptered).10/09/2015
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteAssembly Committee on Housing and Community DevelopmentDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government]4/15/2015This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development
6 voted YES 1 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Local GovernmentDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]4/29/2015This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Local Government
7 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.5/27/2015This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
12 voted YES 4 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblyAB 744 CHAU Assembly Third Reading6/04/2015This bill PASSED the Assembly
52 voted YES 24 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on Transportation and HousingDo pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance]7/07/2015This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing
7 voted YES 4 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on Governance and FinanceDo pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]7/15/2015This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance
4 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateAssembly 3rd Reading AB744 Chau By Wieckowski8/31/2015This bill PASSED the Senate
22 voted YES 15 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
currently selectedAssemblyAB 744 CHAU Concurrence in Senate Amendments9/02/2015This bill PASSED the Assembly
54 voted YES 25 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced2/25/2015
2/25/2015Read first time. To print.
2/26/2015From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.
3/26/2015Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.
4/06/2015Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
select this voteVote4/15/2015Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government]
4/15/2015From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
select this voteVote4/29/2015Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
4/30/2015From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
5/13/2015In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
select this voteVote5/27/2015Do pass.
5/27/2015From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (May 27).
5/28/2015Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
6/02/2015Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 1763.)
6/04/2015Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 52. Noes 24. Page 1910.)
6/04/2015In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage6/04/2015AB 744 CHAU Assembly Third Reading
6/18/2015Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and GOV. & F.
6/23/2015From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H.
6/30/2015In committee: Testimony taken. Hearing postponed by committee.
select this voteVote7/07/2015Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance]
7/08/2015From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 7. Noes 4.) (July 7). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
7/08/2015From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
select this voteVote7/15/2015Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
7/15/2015From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 15). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
8/17/2015From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and be amended.
8/18/2015Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
8/31/2015Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 22. Noes 15. Page 2295.).
8/31/2015In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 2 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/31/2015Assembly 3rd Reading AB744 Chau By Wieckowski
9/02/2015Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 54. Noes 25. Page 2771.).
currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage9/02/2015AB 744 CHAU Concurrence in Senate Amendments
9/15/2015Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
10/09/2015Approved by the Governor.
10/09/2015Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 699, Statutes of 2015.

MapLight did not identify any interest groups that took a position on this vote.
You may be able to explore campaign contributions data if you add interest groups.

0 Organizations Support and 0 Oppose

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, Relating to Housing.: AB 744 CHAU Concurrence in Senate Amendments

0 organizations support this bill

0 organizations oppose this bill

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2012.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Support
$ From Interest Groups
That Oppose
Vote
Katcho AchadjianRCA-35$0$0
Luis AlejoDCA-30$0$0
Travis AllenRCA-72$0$0
Toni G. AtkinsDCA-78$0$0
Catharine B. BakerRCA-16$0$0
Frank BigelowRCA-5$0$0
Richard BloomDCA-50$0$0
Susan BonillaDCA-14$0$0
Rob BontaDCA-18$0$0
William P. BroughRCA-73$0$0
Cheryl BrownDCA-47$0$0
Autumn R. BurkeDCA-62$0$0
Ian C. CalderonDCA-57$0$0
Nora CamposDCA-27$0$0
Ling Ling ChangRCA-55$0$0
Ed ChauDCA-49$0$0
Rocky J. ChavezRCA-76$0$0
David ChiuDCA-17$0$0
Kansen ChuDCA-25$0$0
Ken CooleyDCA-8$0$0
Jim CooperDCA-9$0$0
Matthew DababnehDCA-45$0$0
Brian DahleRCA-1$0$0
Tom DalyDCA-69$0$0
Bill DoddDCA-4$0$0
Susan Talamantes EggmanDCA-13$0$0
Jim FrazierDCA-11$0$0
Beth GainesRCA-6$0$0
James GallagherRCA-3$0$0
Cristina GarciaDCA-58$0$0
Eduardo GarciaDCA-56$0$0
Mike GattoDCA-43$0$0
Mike A. GipsonDCA-64$0$0
Jimmy GomezDCA-51$0$0
Lorena S. GonzalezDCA-80$0$0
Rich GordonDCA-24$0$0
Adam C. GrayDCA-21$0$0
Shannon GroveRCA-34$0$0
David HadleyRCA-66$0$0
Matthew HarperRCA-74$0$0
Roger HernandezDCA-48$0$0
Chris R. HoldenDCA-41$0$0
Jacqui IrwinDCA-44$0$0
Brian JonesRCA-71$0$0
Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr.DCA-59$0$0
Young O. KimRCA-65$0$0
Tom LackeyRCA-36$0$0
Marc LevineDCA-10$0$0
Eric LinderRCA-60$0$0
Patty LopezDCA-39$0$0
Evan LowDCA-28$0$0
Brian MaienscheinRCA-77$0$0
Devon J. MathisRCA-26$0$0
Chad MayesRCA-42$0$0
Kevin McCartyDCA-7$0$0
Jose MedinaDCA-61$0$0
Melissa A. MelendezRCA-67$0$0
Kevin MullinDCA-22$0$0
Adrin NazarianDCA-46$0$0
Patrick O'DonnellDCA-70$0$0
Jay ObernolteRCA-33$0$0
Kristin OlsenRCA-12$0$0
Jim PattersonRCA-23$0$0
Henry PereaDCA-31$0$0
Bill QuirkDCA-20$0$0
Anthony RendonDCA-63$0$0
Sebastian Ridley-ThomasDCA-54$0$0
Freddie RodriguezDCA-52$0$0
Rudy SalasDCA-32$0$0
Miguel SantiagoDCA-53$0$0
Marc SteinorthRCA-40$0$0
Mark StoneDCA-29$0$0
Tony ThurmondDCA-15$0$0
Philip Y. TingDCA-19$0$0
Don WagnerRCA-68$0$0
Marie WaldronRCA-75$0$0
Shirley N. WeberDCA-79$0$0
Scott WilkRCA-38$0$0
Das WilliamsDCA-37$0$0
Jim WoodDCA-2$0$0

Interest Groups that support this bill

$ Donated

Interest Groups that oppose this bill

$ Donated
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range