BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair
BILL NO: AB 305 HEARING: 7/2/03
AUTHOR: Mullin FISCAL: No
VERSION: 6/24/03 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
DENSITY BONUSES AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Background and Existing Law
The Planning and Zoning Law requires every city and county
to adopt a general plan, with specified contents. Local
officials' land use decisions -- zoning, subdivisions, use
permits, public works -- must be consistent with their
general plans.
Local officials use a practice called incentive zoning to
entice private investors to meet public goals by rewarding
them with more developable space. If an office project
includes an attractive street-level plaza, a city might
allow the developer to build a taller building with more
leasable office space. Everyone profits.
The Legislature created the housing density bonus as an
exception to the usual consistency requirement (AB 1151,
Roos, 1979). When a developer agrees to build more
affordable housing, local officials must grant the
developer more units than the maximum density allowed by
the general plan and zoning, and at least one other
concession or incentive. Alternatively, local officials
can provide incentives or concessions of equal financial
value.
If the project sets aside:
20% of the units for lower income households, the
density bonus is 25% more units and at least one other
concession.
10% of the units for very low income households,
the density bonus is 25% more units and at least one
other concession.
50% of the units for senior citizens, the density
bonus is 25% more units and at least one other
concession.
20% of the units in a condominium project for
moderate income families, the density bonus is 10%
more units and at least one other concession.
AB 305 -- 6/24/03 -- Page 2
The housing density bonus statute allows concessions that:
Reduce development, zoning, or design standards.
Allow mixed use zoning that reduces housing costs.
Provide other incentives or concession that reduce
costs.
More working parents, longer commutes, and rising housing
costs have boosted the demand for child care facilities.
Advocates say that integrating child care facilities into
mixed-use developments can help. They want to apply the
approach of the housing density bonus to reward builders
who provide child care facilities.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 305 requires a city or county to grant either
an additional density bonus, or an additional concession or
incentive to an applicant who includes a child care
facility as part of the proposed housing project.
If the city or county finds that the existing area has
adequate child care facilities, AB 305 allows local
officials to avoid this additional density bonus.
The bill defines "child care facility" to exclude a family
day care home but include infant centers, preschools,
extended day care centers, and school age child care
centers.
Comments
1. Filling the need . California's families want more
child care opportunities. Meeting this goal begins with
harnessing the power of the development industry to build
more child care facilities. When residential developers
integrate child care facilities into their subdivisions,
apartment projects, and condominium developments, residents
get child care closer to home. By adapting the concept of
incentive zoning to child care, AB 305 rewards builders who
make infant centers, preschools, and other care centers
part of their projects. Following this quid-pro-quo,
everyone wins: families get closer child care and builders
get more profitable projects.
2. Violates plans' integrity . State law requires cities
AB 305 -- 6/24/03 -- Page 3
and counties to adhere to the principal of vertical
consistency; major land use decisions must be consistent
with local general plans. Private developments and public
works projects must carry out the plans' goals, policies,
and standards. That's why the courts call local general
plans the constitutions for community development. But the
housing density bonus law violates the general plans'
integrity. Private investors get to build more units than
public policy otherwise allows. AB 305 also avoids general
plans' housing density standards, this time in the name of
building more child care facilities. The Committee may
wish to consider whether the Legislature is sending mixed
messages to cities and counties: they must adopt balanced
general plans but a few favored interests get to ignore
community standards. How can legislators insist on good
planning but then excuse some builders?
3. Two bonuses, too dense ? AB 305 requires local
officials to "grant an additional density bonus" to a
builder who includes child care facilities in a housing
project that already qualifies for a density bonus. If the
general plan and the maximum zoning density allow a 40-unit
apartment building and the applicant sets aside four units
(10%) for very low income tenants, the builder gets to put
up a 50-unit building (the 25% density bonus). If the
project includes a child care facility, the builder gets a
total of 60 units (the additional 25% density bonus). The
Committee may wish to consider whether building four very
low income units warrants a 50% jump in the maximum
density.
4. The missing link . The 1979 housing density bonus law
and its 2002 revisions reward investors who build
affordable housing for lower income, very low income, and
moderate income families, and for seniors (AB 1866, Wright,
2002). But the density bonus for child care facilities in
AB 305 is not means-tested. The bill does not require that
the child care facilities be available to low and moderate
income families. Further, the bill does not link the new
density bonus to reducing the cost of child care
facilities. The Committee may wish to consider an
amendment that requires at least 50% of the resulting child
care slots be available to children from low and very low
income families.
5. Double-referred . The Senate Rules Committee ordered
AB 305 -- 6/24/03 -- Page 4
the double-referral of AB 305. On June 16, the Senate
Housing and Community Development Committee passed the bill
on a 6-2 vote.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee: 6-3
Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-3
Assembly Floor: 49-28
Support and Opposition (6/26/03)
Support : California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network, California Federation of Teachers, California
Teachers Association.
Opposition : Unknown.