BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2501
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2501 (Bloom) - As Amended April 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Housing and Community |Vote:|5 - 1 |
|Committee: |Development | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Local Government | |7 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY: This bill makes a number of changes to density bonus
law. Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that when an applicant seeks a density bonus for a
housing development within, or for the donation of land for
AB 2501
Page 2
housing within, the jurisdiction of a city or county, that
local government must provide the applicant with waiver and
reduction of development standards for the production of
housing units and child care facilities, in addition to
incentives or concessions, as provided currently in density
bonus law.
2)Prohibits a local government from conditioning the submission,
review, or approval of an application for a density bonus on
the preparation of an additional report or study that is not
otherwise described in density bonus law.
3)Requires, in order to provide for the expeditious processing
of a density bonus application, the local government to do all
of the following:
a) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a density
bonus application;
b) Provide a list of all documents and information required
to be submitted with the density bonus application in order
for the density bonus application to be deemed complete,
consistent with density bonus law; and,
c) Notify the applicant for a density bonus whether the
application is complete in a manner that is consistent with
the Permit Streamlining Act (Act).
1)Modifies the circumstance under which a local government can
refuse to grant a concession or incentive to a developer to
when a concession or incentive "does not reduce the cost of
the development" rather than when it "is not required in
order" to provide for the affordable housing costs, and
AB 2501
Page 3
provides that a local government must bear the burden of proof
for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.
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, "Developers and local
governments need certainty in order for density bonus law to
be an effective incentive to produce affordable housing.
Right now that certainty is lacking. State density bonus law
has a number of ambiguous provisions that discourage
developers from utilizing it or are used by local governments
to prevent developers from accessing the law. This bill
addresses a number of ambiguous provisions and strengthens the
incentives to help encourage market rate developers to include
affordable units within residential developments, and reduce
costs for affordable housing developers."
2)Background. Density bonus is a tool to encourage the
production of affordable housing by market rate developers,
although it is used by developers building 100% affordable
developments as well. 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. The increase in density and concessions and
incentives are intended to financially support the inclusion
of the affordable units. All local governments are required
to adopt an ordinance that provides concessions and incentives
to developers that seek a density bonus on top of the cities
AB 2501
Page 4
zoned density in exchange for including extremely low-, very
low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. A developer can
submit a request to a local government as part of their
density bonus application for incentives and concessions.
Density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979, but has been
changed numerous times over the years. It is often described
as confusing and subject to interpretation by both developers
and cities as to its meaning.
3)Arguments in Support. According to the sponsors, Western
Center on Law and Poverty and the California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation, "AB 2501 is one piece of a
multi-pronged effort by legislators, housing advocates, and
other organizations to address California's unfortunate
dominance of the list of the country's least-affordable
housing markets. By reducing regulatory barriers to housing
development, this bill would stretch any increase in state
housing funding further and would induce market-rate
developers to build below-market units without any public
funding."
4)Arguments in Opposition. Opponents, cities and counties,
argue that this bill contains provisions that would limit the
ability of a city to interpret its own development standards,
diminish the role of planning commissions and impose
unrealistic timeframes.
5)Related Legislation. This is one of six Assembly bills
addressing density bonus issues before this committee today.
a) AB 1934 (Santiago) creates a density bonus for
commercial developers that partner with an affordable
AB 2501
Page 5
housing developer to construct a mixed-used development.
b) AB 2208 (Santiago) adds to the list of the types of
sites that a local government can identify as suitable for
residential development in their housing element.
c) 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.
d) 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.
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 2501
Page 6