BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair
BILL NO: AB 305 HEARING: 7/9/03
AUTHOR: Mullin FISCAL: No
VERSION: 7/3/03 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 -- 7/3/03 -- 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
If a housing development qualifies for a density bonus and
includes a child care facility, Assembly Bill 305 requires
a city or county to grant either :
An additional density bonus in an amount that
significantly contributes to the child care facility's
economic feasibility, or
An additional concession or incentive that
significantly contributes to the child care facility's
economic feasibility.
AB 305 allows local officials to require that the applicant
show that the density bonus or the concession is needed for
the child care facility's economic viability. Local
officials can require conditions to ensure the child care
facility's viability and continued use.
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
AB 305 -- 7/3/03 -- Page 3
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
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. Nebulous . Current law precisely defines a density
bonus; at least 25% over the maximum density allowed by the
zoning ordinance. A 40-unit apartment grows to 50 units.
AB 305 requires "an additional density bonus of an amount
that contributes significantly to the economic viability of
the child care facility." Is one more apartment enough?
Who decides? Do local officials or the builder calculate
the facility's economic viability? Does "economic
viability" mean the facility's construction costs or the
costs to staff a child care program? If a community based
nonprofit group runs the facility, the operating costs will
be lower than if a public school district is the operator.
How can local planners and builders agree what these terms
mean? The Committee may wish to consider whether the
bill's language will invite litigation.
4. As time goes by . Current law requires the lower income
bonus units to remain affordable for at least 30 years; 10
years for moderate income bonus condos. AB 305 allows ---
AB 305 -- 7/3/03 -- Page 4
but does not require --- local officials to keep the child
care facilities in use. The Committee may wish to consider
an amendment that requires the child care facilities to
operate for at least as long as the bonus units remain
affordable.
5. People of means . AB 305 is not means-tested. The bill
does not require that the child care facilities be
available to low and moderate income families. The
Committee may wish to consider an amendment that requires
the same affordability standards for child care slots as
current law requires for the housing development. If 20%
of the housing units must be set aside for lower income
households to get a density bonus, then 20% of the child
care slots should be reserved for kids from lower income
families.
6. Double-referred . The Senate Rules Committee ordered
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 (7/3/03)
Support : California Child Care Resource and Referral
Network, California Federation of Teachers, California
Teachers Association.
Opposition : Unknown.