BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, Chair
Bill No: AB 305 Hearing: June
16, 2003
Author: MullinFiscal: No
Version: March 24,
2003Consultant: Jesus Torres
DENSITY BONUSES: CHILD CARE
Background and Existing Law :
According to the 2001 California ChildCare Portfolio, 55%
of California's children up to the age of 13 live with
either two working parents or a working single head of
household. Only one slot at a licensed childcare facility
or family childcare home exists for every 4.6 of these
children. Only 5% of these slots are for infants. Even if
a slot is available, the cost of the childcare is steep
and, in some cases, prohibitive. In every county in
California, the cost of putting an infant or preschooler in
full-time care exceeds the fair market rent of a
two-bedroom apartment.
To help address the affordable housing shortage, the
Legislature enacted the density bonus law to encourage
development of more housing units. Existing law 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. To
qualify for the benefits of this provision, a proposed
housing development must contain at least 20 percent of the
units affordable to low-income households, 10 percent of
the units affordable to very low-income households, or 50
percent of the units reserved for seniors. The density
bonus must be at least 25 percent over the existing maximum
density for the site. The incentives the local government
may offer include:
A reduction in site development standards.
AB 305
Page 2
A 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).
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.
Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by
the developer or the city or county that result in
identifiable cost reductions. A density bonus does not
require, in and of itself, a general plan amendment,
zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
Proposed Law :
AB 305 requires a city or county to grant an additional
density bonus, concession, or incentive to a developer of
housing who is already entitled to a density bonus 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.
Comments :
1. Purpose of Bill . In order to encourage developers to
build childcare facilities within the housing development,
this bill requires cities, county or cities and counties to
grant additional density bonuses, concessions, or
incentives. According to the author, AB 305 "?gives a
builder more incentive to construct child care facilities
closer to the homes of those who utilize these facilities.
This measure is in line with the creation of 'Transit
Villages.'"
2. Who Chooses? Last year, AB 1866 (Chapter 1062, 2002),
authored by Assembly member Wright, allowed affordable
housing developers to request specific concessions or
incentives that would be most useful to them under density
bonus law, rather than allowing the local government to
AB 305
Page 3
unilaterally decide what incentives are offered. The local
government is required to grant the requested incentives
unless it makes specified findings. This was established
to preclude cities and/or counties from undermining the law
by offering incentives developers did not want or could not
use. AB 305 is inconsistent with AB 1866 in that it
specifies that cities and/or counties get to choose which
concessions or incentives are offered. The committee may
wish to consider allowing developers to request specific
concessions/incentives to remain consistent with current
language in statute.
3. Impact? It is unknown what impact these
incentives/concessions will have in luring developers into
building childcare facilities. Are the incentives and the
cost of building a childcare facility of equal value? The
committee may wish to consider whether the incentives
offered are enough to overcome the costs of adding
childcare facilities.
Previous Actions :
Assembly Floor: 49-28
Assembly Local Government: 5-3
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 6-3
Support and Opposition : (6/11/03)
Support : California Federation of Teachers
California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network (CCCRR)
Opposition : None received.