BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1934
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1934 (Santiago) - As Amended April 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Housing and Community |Vote:|6 - 0 |
|Committee: |Development | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Local Government | |8 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill creates a density bonus for commercial developers that
partner with an affordable housing developer to construct a
mixed-used development. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, that when a commercial development agrees to partner
with an affordable housing developer to construct a mixed-use
AB 1934
Page 2
project with housing located onsite, a local government, in
addition to granting incentives and concessions under State
Density Bonus Law also grant the commercial developer
exceptions resulting in significant costs reductions over the
maximum allowable intensity in the general plan, zoning
ordinance, or regulation, including but not limited to, floor
area ratios, and may include modification to development
standards, such as height and parking requirements.
2)Declares that the development of affordable housing is a
matter of statewide concern and it is not a municipal affair,
and therefore, this bill applies to all cities including
charter cities.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No state fiscal impact. Local agencies have the authority to
levy fees for related costs and thus, any local costs are not
reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "Local governments can be
wary of high density residential development because of the
corresponding increase in demand for public services and
infrastructure. In an era of tight budgets, local governments
are also more likely to approve commercial developments which
will increase revenues. This bill seeks to marry these two
needs: a) the state's need for affordable housing; and b)
local governments' desire for increased revenues, by
encouraging non-traditional housing developers to enter the
market and think outside the box in their developments."
AB 1934
Page 3
2)Background. In 1979, the Legislature enacted density bonus
law to help address the affordable housing shortage and to
encourage development of more low- and moderate-income housing
units. Density bonus is a tool to encourage the production of
affordable housing that is used by both market rate and
affordable housing developers. In return for inclusion of
affordable units in a development, developers are given an
increase in density over a city's zoned density and
concessions and incentives in order to offset the cost of the
affordable units which will be offered at a lower rent.
Developers that seek a density bonus must agree to restrict
very low- and low-income rental units to affordable levels for
55 years.
3)Arguments in Support. Supporters (apartment owners and
realtors) argue that the bill's proposed solution meets the
needs of local governments for economic development, along
with the construction of affordable housing for the
individuals and families who work in our communities and will
be helpful to encourage affordable housing construction.
4)Arguments in Opposition. Opponents (cities and planners) are
concerned that the new statutory framework proposed by the
bill may result in requests for local agency concessions that
may not be warranted, or which may unnecessarily limit
authority to review development applications and ensure
consistency with local plans. Opposition also points to the
lack of definitions for "commercial" development and
"partners" in the bill.
5)Related Legislation. This is one of six Assembly bills
addressing density bonus issues before this committee today.
a) AB 2208 (Santiago) adds to the list of the types of
sites that a local government can identify as suitable for
AB 1934
Page 4
residential development in their housing element.
b) AB 2299 (Bloom) requires, instead of allows, a local
agency to, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second
units in single-family and multifamily residential zones,
and makes a number of other changes specifying what is
required to be in the ordinance.
c) AB 2442 (Holden) requires local agencies to grant a
density bonus when an applicant for a housing development
agrees to construct housing for transitional foster youth,
disabled veterans, or homeless persons.
d) AB 2501 (Bloom and Low) makes a number of changes to
density bonus law.
e) AB 2556 (Nazarian) requires a jurisdiction, in cases
where a proposed development is replacing existing
affordable housing units, to adopt a rebuttable presumption
regarding the number and type of affordable housing units
necessary for density bonus eligibility.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1934
Page 5