BILL ANALYSIS
AB 305
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 305 (Mullin)
As Amended March 24, 2003
Majority vote
HOUSING 6-3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 5-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Dutra, Kehoe, |Ayes:|Salinas, Lieber, Leno, |
| |Mullin, Salinas, | |Mullin, Steinberg |
| |Steinberg | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Mountjoy, Cogdill, Runner |Nays:|Daucher, Garcia, LaSuer |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a city or county to grant an additional
density bonus, concession, or incentive to a developer of
housing, otherwise entitled to a density bonus or other
incentive if that developer includes a child care facility as
part of the housing development, unless the city or county makes
a finding that the existing area has adequate child care
facilities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a city or county to grant a density bonus and at
least one other specified incentive, or other housing
incentives of equivalent value, to a developer who agrees to
construct an affordable housing development of five or more
units unless the local government makes a finding that the
bonus and incentives are not needed to achieve affordability.
(Government Code Section 65915)
2)Provides that to qualify for the benefits of this provision, a
proposed housing development must contain at least 20 % of the
units affordable to low income households, 10 % of the units
affordable to very low income households, or 50 % of the units
reserved for seniors. (Government Code Section 65915)
3)Requires that the density bonus must be at least 25 % over the
existing maximum density for the site, unless a lesser amount
is elected by the developer. (Government Code Section 65915)
AB 305
Page 2
4)Provides that local government incentives may include
(Government Code Section 65915):
a) Reduction in site development standards;
b) Modification of zoning code requirements (including a
reduction in setbacks, square footage requirements, or
parking spaces, or architectural design requirements that
exceed the minimum building standards);
c) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the
housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other
land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development,
and if such nonresidential uses are compatible with the
project; or,
d) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by
the developer or the city or county that result in
identifiable cost reductions;
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : California's current housing shortage is well
documented. To keep up with demand, the state needs to build
over 100,000 more housing units per year than it currently
produces. Lack of available affordable housing poses a danger
to the state's economy. Employers will find it increasingly
difficult to attract and retain a qualified workforce if workers
are unable to find affordable housing near their jobs.
In addition to the lack of affordable housing, according to the
author, the demand for licensed day care also exceeds supply.
The author asserts that there are 4.06 million children in need
of child care and only 886,871 licensed day care slots. The
state average cost of child care is $8,521 annually and for the
larger urban counties the average cost is approximately $10,000
annually. The author argues that builders need an incentive to
build child care in most urban areas because of the high cost of
land (e.g. in San Mateo the average home sells for approximately
$600,000). California is the largest state by population and
still among the fastest growing.
To help address the affordable housing shortage, the Legislature
enacted the density bonus law to encourage development of more
housing units.
AB 305
Page 3
This bill seeks to allow local governments to offer additional
density bonuses and other incentives to builders of affordable
housing who also include child care facilities within the
development.
Analysis Prepared by : Hubert Bower / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085
FN: 0000554