BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2556
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2556 (Nazarian) - 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 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. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a jurisdiction, if the income of the household that
occupies the unit is not known, to adopt a rebuttable
presumption that lower-income households occupied the units in
AB 2556
Page 2
the same proportion of lower-income households to all
households within the census tract, in which the development
is located, as determined by the last decennial census.
2)Requires a jurisdiction, in cases where all dwelling units
have been vacated or demolished within the five-year period
preceding the density bonus application and the incomes of the
persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint of the
affordable units is not known, to adopt a rebuttable
presumption that lower-income households occupied these units
in the same proportion of lower-income households to all
households within the census tract in which the development is
located, as determined from the last decennial census.
3)Allows the city or county, in cases where a proposed
development is replacing existing affordable housing units,
for any dwelling unit that is or was subject to a form of rent
or price control and that is or was occupied by persons of
families above lower income, to do either of the following:
a) Require that the replacement units be made available at
affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied
by, low-income persons or families. If the replacement
units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be
subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at
least 55 years. Requires, if the proposed development is
for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to
existing law; or,
b) Require that units be replaced in compliance with the
jurisdiction's rent or price control ordinance.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 2556
Page 3
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 sponsors, Western Center on Law and
Poverty and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation:
"In implementing the provisions of AB 2222, cities, housing
advocates, and developers have discovered several places where
the law needs clarification. AB 2222 required the replacement
of rent-controlled units, but did not provide guidance on what
the rent level for the replacement unit should be in cases
where the current occupant of the rent-controlled unit is not
lower-income. AB 2556 allows cities to require that these
units be replaced either with a deed-restricted unit
affordable to low-income families or with another
rent-controlled unit."
2)Background. 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.
AB 2556
Page 4
Density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979, but has been
changed numerous times since. SB 1818 (Hollingsworth),
Chapter 928, Statutes of 2004, made significant changes to the
law, including reducing the number of housing units required
to be provided at below market rate in order to qualify for a
density bonus.
3)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
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 2501 (Bloom and Low) makes a number of changes to
density bonus law.
AB 2556
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081