Planning and zoning: density bonuses: annual report: affordable housing.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 2345 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 2345.
You're tracking AB 2345
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 2345 — Planning and zoning: density bonuses: annual report: affordable housing.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 197, Statutes of 2020.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2020. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
2 sponsors
1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 R).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 8 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to, among other entities, the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other specified information, the number of net new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy, thus far in the housing element cycle, as provided. This bill would require that the annual report include specified information regarding density bonuses granted in accordance with specified law, as described below. (2) Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city, county, or city and county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the jurisdictional boundaries of that city, county, or city and county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents and meets other requirements. Among other things, existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to provide a density bonus under these provisions if the developer agrees to construct a housing development in which 100% of the total units, exclusive of managers' units, for lower income households, as defined, but authorizes a housing development that qualifies under these provisions to include up to 20% of the total units for moderate-income households, as defined. For purposes of determining the qualifying amount of units in a development for purposes of awarding a density bonus, existing law specifies that "total units" does not include units added by a density bonus. This bill would revise the requirements for a housing development that includes 100% of units for lower income households to instead require that the development include 100% of all units in the development, including both total units, defined as described above, and density bonus units, but exclusive of managers' units, are for lower income households, as defined, except that the development may include up to 20% of those units for moderate-income households. (3) Existing law provides for the calculation of the amount of density bonus for each type of housing development that qualifies under these provisions. Existing law specifies the number of incentives or concessions that an applicant can receive. Existing law requires that an applicant receive 2 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20% of the total units for lower income households, at least 10% for very low income households, or at least 20% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. Existing law requires that an applicant receive 3 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total units for lower income households, at least 15% for very low income households, or at least 30% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. This bill, instead, would authorize an applicant to receive 2 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17% of the total units for lower income households, at least 10% of the total units for very low income households, or at least 20% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. This bill would authorize an applicant to receive 3 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24% of the total units for lower income households, at least 15% of the total units for very low income households, or at least 30% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. (4) Existing law provides that a housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density, as specified, is not eligible for, and prohibits such a development from receiving, a waiver or reduction of development standards. This bill, instead, would provide that a housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density, as specified, is only eligible for a specified waiver or reduction of development standards, unless the city, county, or city and county agrees to additional waivers or reductions of development standards. (5) Existing law specifies that the density bonus, or the amount of the density increase over the otherwise allowable gross residential density, to which an applicant is entitled varies according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units in a development exceeds a specified base percentage for units for lower income households, very low income households, senior citizens, persons and families of moderate income, transitional foster youth, or lower income students, as specified. Existing law authorizes a maximum density bonus of 35% for a housing development in which 20% or more of the total units are for lower income households. Existing law authorizes a maximum density bonus of 35% for a housing development in which 11% or more of the total units are for very low income households. Existing law authorizes a maximum density bonus of 35% for housing developments in which 40% or more of the total units are for persons and families of moderate income. This bill would include a maximum density bonus for a housing development in which 16% of the total units are for lower income households and would increase the maximum density bonus, to up to 50%, for construction of a housing development in which a greater percentage than that described above of total units are for lower income households, very low income households, and persons and families of moderate income, as specified. (6) Existing law, for projects in which 100% of the units are for lower income households, as described above, prohibits a city, county, or city and county from imposing any maximum controls on density, and in addition to the above-described incentives or concessions, requires that the applicant receive a specified height increase, if the project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop, as defined. Existing law also requires, among other criteria for a project to be eligible for various vehicular parking ratios under the Density Bonus Law, as described below, that the project be located within ½ mile of a major transit stop, as defined. This bill, for purposes of determining whether a project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop under the Density Bonus Law, would require that the measurement of the distance of a development from a transit stop be measured from any point on the property of the proposed development to any point on the property where the transit stop is located. The bill would also make technical changes with respect to the definition of "major transit stop" under the Density Bonus Law. (7) Existing law prohibits, except as provided, upon the request of a developer, a city, county, or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio for a development that qualifies for a density bonus that exceeds specified amounts of onsite parking per bedroom. Existing law also specifies the parking ratios applicable to a development that include a maximum percentage of low-income or very low income units, that is located within 12 mile of a transit stop, and that provides unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development. This bill would decrease the maximum ratio of vehicular parking for developments with 2 to 3 bedrooms, as specified. This bill would define the term "natural or constructed impediments" for purposes of determining whether a development has unobstructed access to a transit stop. The bill would authorize a developer to request that a city, county, or city and county not impose vehicular parking standards if the development meets specified affordability requirements and either (A) provides unobstructed access to a major transit stop or (B) is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older that will have either paratransit service or unobstructed access to a fixed bus route, as specified. (8) Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance that specifies how it will implement the Density Bonus Law, but provides that failure to adopt an ordinance does not relieve a city, county, or city and county from complying with that law. Existing law also authorizes a city, county, or city and county, if permitted by local ordinance, to grant a density bonus greater than what is described in the Density Bonus Law or to grant a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by the Density Bonus Law for developments that do not meet the requirements of that law. This bill, notwithstanding any other law, would provide that a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county that has adopted an ordinance or a housing program, or both an ordinance and a housing program, that incentivizes the development of affordable housing that allows for density bonuses that exceed the density bonuses required by the Density Bonus Law effective through December 31, 2020, is not required to amend or otherwise update its ordinance or housing program to comply with the amendments made by this bill and is exempt from complying with the incentive and concession calculation amended by this bill, as provided. (9) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by AB 168 and SB 1085 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 168 and SB 1085 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1085 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1085 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (10) By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to preparing and submitting the above-described annual report to the Department of Housing and Community Development and awarding density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 09/28/20 - Chaptered Current pdf September 28, 2020
- Enrolled 09/04/20 - Enrolled pdf September 04, 2020
- Amended 08/25/20 - Amended Senate pdf August 25, 2020
- Amended 08/21/20 - Amended Senate pdf August 21, 2020
- Amended 07/21/20 - Amended Senate pdf July 21, 2020
- Amended 05/22/20 - Amended Assembly pdf May 22, 2020
- Amended 05/11/20 - Amended Assembly pdf May 11, 2020
- Introduced 02/18/20 - Introduced pdf February 18, 2020
- AB2345 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 197, Statutes of 2020.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
-
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 70. Noes 2. Page 5447.).
-
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 26. Noes 5.).
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (August 20).
-
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (August 6). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
-
Referred to Com. on HOUSING.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 1. Page 4761.)
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (June 3).
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 20).
-
Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.
-
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
-
Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Chiu · Cosponsor
- Jeff Gonzalez · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 2 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Gonzalez, Jeff Republican
Co-sponsors (1)
- Chiu
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 46 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Democratic | 18 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 70 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| % of votes cast | 89% | 3% | 0% | 9% |
How each member voted (79)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Diep | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| Friedman | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Smith | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Gloria | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Chu | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Obernolte | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Not Voting |
| Eggman | — | Not Voting |
| Maienschein | — | Not Voting |
| Voepel | — | Not Voting |
| Nazarian | — | Not Voting |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Nay |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Nay |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Choi, Steven S. | Republican | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 17 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 26 | 5 | 0 | 9 |
| % of votes cast | 65% | 13% | 0% | 23% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Nay |
| Bates | — | Nay |
| Morrell | — | Nay |
| Glazer | — | Nay |
| Melendez | — | Nay |
| Moorlach | — | Not Voting |
| Wilk | — | Not Voting |
| Borgeas | — | Not Voting |
| Portantino | — | Not Voting |
| Chang | — | Not Voting |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Lena A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Not Voting |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Not Voting |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 71% | 14% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Nay |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 8 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 73% | 0% | 0% | 27% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Not Voting |
| Moorlach | — | Not Voting |
| Morrell | — | Not Voting |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 20 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 48 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Republican | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 74 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 94% | 1% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (79)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Friedman | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Diep | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Gloria | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Chu | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Voepel | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Obernolte | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Not Voting |
| Smith | — | Not Voting |
| Quirk | — | Not Voting |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Nay |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Choi, Steven S. | Republican | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 17 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 94% | 0% | 0% | 6% |
How each member voted (18)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Fong | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Voepel | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Diep | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 88% | 0% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (8)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Gloria | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Diep | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Not Voting |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2345 do?
- (1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to, among other entities, the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other specified information, the number of net new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy, thus far in the housing element cycle, as provided. This bill would require that the annual report include specified information regarding density bonuses granted in accordance with specified law, as described below. (2) Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city, county, or city and county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the jurisdictional boundaries of that city, county, or city and county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents and meets other requirements. Among other things, existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to provide a density bonus under these provisions if the developer agrees to construct a housing development in which 100% of the total units, exclusive of managers' units, for lower income households, as defined, but authorizes a housing development that qualifies under these provisions to include up to 20% of the total units for moderate-income households, as defined. For purposes of determining the qualifying amount of units in a development for purposes of awarding a density bonus, existing law specifies that "total units" does not include units added by a density bonus. This bill would revise the requirements for a housing development that includes 100% of units for lower income households to instead require that the development include 100% of all units in the development, including both total units, defined as described above, and density bonus units, but exclusive of managers' units, are for lower income households, as defined, except that the development may include up to 20% of those units for moderate-income households. (3) Existing law provides for the calculation of the amount of density bonus for each type of housing development that qualifies under these provisions. Existing law specifies the number of incentives or concessions that an applicant can receive. Existing law requires that an applicant receive 2 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20% of the total units for lower income households, at least 10% for very low income households, or at least 20% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. Existing law requires that an applicant receive 3 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total units for lower income households, at least 15% for very low income households, or at least 30% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. This bill, instead, would authorize an applicant to receive 2 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17% of the total units for lower income households, at least 10% of the total units for very low income households, or at least 20% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. This bill would authorize an applicant to receive 3 incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24% of the total units for lower income households, at least 15% of the total units for very low income households, or at least 30% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. (4) Existing law provides that a housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density, as specified, is not eligible for, and prohibits such a development from receiving, a waiver or reduction of development standards. This bill, instead, would provide that a housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density, as specified, is only eligible for a specified waiver or reduction of development standards, unless the city, county, or city and county agrees to additional waivers or reductions of development standards. (5) Existing law specifies that the density bonus, or the amount of the density increase over the otherwise allowable gross residential density, to which an applicant is entitled varies according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units in a development exceeds a specified base percentage for units for lower income households, very low income households, senior citizens, persons and families of moderate income, transitional foster youth, or lower income students, as specified. Existing law authorizes a maximum density bonus of 35% for a housing development in which 20% or more of the total units are for lower income households. Existing law authorizes a maximum density bonus of 35% for a housing development in which 11% or more of the total units are for very low income households. Existing law authorizes a maximum density bonus of 35% for housing developments in which 40% or more of the total units are for persons and families of moderate income. This bill would include a maximum density bonus for a housing development in which 16% of the total units are for lower income households and would increase the maximum density bonus, to up to 50%, for construction of a housing development in which a greater percentage than that described above of total units are for lower income households, very low income households, and persons and families of moderate income, as specified. (6) Existing law, for projects in which 100% of the units are for lower income households, as described above, prohibits a city, county, or city and county from imposing any maximum controls on density, and in addition to the above-described incentives or concessions, requires that the applicant receive a specified height increase, if the project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop, as defined. Existing law also requires, among other criteria for a project to be eligible for various vehicular parking ratios under the Density Bonus Law, as described below, that the project be located within ½ mile of a major transit stop, as defined. This bill, for purposes of determining whether a project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop under the Density Bonus Law, would require that the measurement of the distance of a development from a transit stop be measured from any point on the property of the proposed development to any point on the property where the transit stop is located. The bill would also make technical changes with respect to the definition of "major transit stop" under the Density Bonus Law. (7) Existing law prohibits, except as provided, upon the request of a developer, a city, county, or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio for a development that qualifies for a density bonus that exceeds specified amounts of onsite parking per bedroom. Existing law also specifies the parking ratios applicable to a development that include a maximum percentage of low-income or very low income units, that is located within 12 mile of a transit stop, and that provides unobstructed access to the transit stop from the development. This bill would decrease the maximum ratio of vehicular parking for developments with 2 to 3 bedrooms, as specified. This bill would define the term "natural or constructed impediments" for purposes of determining whether a development has unobstructed access to a transit stop. The bill would authorize a developer to request that a city, county, or city and county not impose vehicular parking standards if the development meets specified affordability requirements and either (A) provides unobstructed access to a major transit stop or (B) is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older that will have either paratransit service or unobstructed access to a fixed bus route, as specified. (8) Existing law requires a city, county, or city and county to adopt an ordinance that specifies how it will implement the Density Bonus Law, but provides that failure to adopt an ordinance does not relieve a city, county, or city and county from complying with that law. Existing law also authorizes a city, county, or city and county, if permitted by local ordinance, to grant a density bonus greater than what is described in the Density Bonus Law or to grant a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by the Density Bonus Law for developments that do not meet the requirements of that law. This bill, notwithstanding any other law, would provide that a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county that has adopted an ordinance or a housing program, or both an ordinance and a housing program, that incentivizes the development of affordable housing that allows for density bonuses that exceed the density bonuses required by the Density Bonus Law effective through December 31, 2020, is not required to amend or otherwise update its ordinance or housing program to comply with the amendments made by this bill and is exempt from complying with the incentive and concession calculation amended by this bill, as provided. (9) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65400 of the Government Code proposed by AB 168 and SB 1085 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 168 and SB 1085 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65915 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1085 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1085 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (10) By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to preparing and submitting the above-described annual report to the Department of Housing and Community Development and awarding density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors AB 2345?
- AB 2345 is sponsored by Chiu and Gonzalez, Jeff (Republican).
- What is the current status of AB 2345?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2020. Enacted.
- Where can I track AB 2345?
- Track AB 2345 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2345
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 2345
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →