_________________________ 

 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

State of California 

XAVIER BECERRA 

Attorney General 

: 

OPINION : No. 17-602 

: 

of : April 9, 2019 

: 

XAVIER BECERRA : 

Attorney General : 

: 

ANYA M. BINSACCA : 

Deputy Attorney General : 

: 

THE HONORABLE SHARON QUIRK-SILVA, MEMBER OF THE STATE 

ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question: 

The Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) rewards real estate 

developers who provide affordable housing by permitting them to build additional units, 

called “density-bonus units.” May a city or county condition its grant of a developer’s 

application for a density bonus upon the developer’s payment of a “public benefit fee” that 

is imposed only on the density-bonus units? 

CONCLUSION 

No. A city or county may not condition its grant of a developer’s application for a 

density bonus under the state Density Bonus Law upon the developer’s payment of a public 

benefit fee imposed only on the density-bonus units. 

1 

17-602 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS 

Under the Planning and Zoning Law,1 “[t]he Legislature has required every county 

and city to adopt ‘a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development 

of the county or city . . . .’”2 The general plan provides a roadmap for future development, 

as well as the city’s or county’s “fundamental policy decisions about such development.”3 

A general plan is required to include, among many other things, “a statement of the 

standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various 

districts . . . .”4 

The Legislature has enacted several statutes aimed at redressing the shortage of 

affordable housing in the state, including section 65915, the Density Bonus Law5 at issue 

here. The Density Bonus Law incentivizes the building of affordable housing by granting 

developers “a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential 

density,”6 as well as other incentives or concessions,

7 in return for a commitment to provide 

affordable housing as part of a development project.8 “In other words, the Density Bonus 

Law ‘reward[s] a developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low-income 

housing with the opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted 

1 Gov. Code, §§ 65000-66210. Future undesignated statutory references are to the 

Government Code. 

2 Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815, 

quoting Gov. Code, § 65300. 

3 Ibid.; see also Gov. Code, § 65302 (“general plan shall consist of a statement of 

development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth 

objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals”). 

4 Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (a). 

5 Gov. Code, § 65915. The law governing density bonuses is contained in Government 

Code sections 65915 through 65918, which are often collectively referred to as the Density 

Bonus Law. 

6 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (f). 

7 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b). The other incentives or concessions may include 

waivers or reductions of development standards, such as setbacks or ratio of required 

parking spaces, and approval of mixed-use zoning. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k).) 

8 The Density Bonus Law provides similar incentives for building senior housing; 

housing for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons; and child care 

facilities. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subds. (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(E), (h).) 

2 

17-602 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by the applicable local regulations.’”9 In general, the larger the percentage of affordable 

housing included in the project and the needier the population served, the larger the density 

bonus.10 Furthermore, if the developer meets the requirements of section 65915, the city 

or county must award a density bonus.11 

We are informed that several cities12 have adopted ordinances that condition the 

grant of a density bonus under section 65915 on the payment of a public benefit fee 

imposed only on the additional units provided by the density bonus. Public benefit fees 

can include monetary contributions toward community improvements, such as bicycle 

paths, public parking, and open spaces, as well as the actual provision of such 

improvements. Does such an ordinance run afoul of the Density Bonus Law? 

This is a question of preemption. Although “[a] county or city may make and 

enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not 

in conflict with general laws,”13 a local ordinance that conflicts with the state Planning and 

Zoning Law is invalid.14 A conflict exists, and the ordinance is preempted, if the local 

9 Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 824, 

quoting Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 

1246, 1263. 

10 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (f); see Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 

supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 824 (“Although application of the statute can be complicated, 

its aim is fairly simple: When a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the 

units in a housing development for low or very low income households, or to construct a 

senior citizen housing development, the city or county must grant the developer one or 

more itemized concessions and a ‘density bonus,’ which allows the developer to increase 

the density of the development by a certain percentage above the maximum allowable limit 

under local zoning law”). 

11 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b) (“A city, county, or city and county shall grant one 

density bonus . . .), emphasis added; see also Gov. Code, § 14 (“‘shall’ is mandatory”), 

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 

1133, 1143 (when interpreting statutes, presumption is that “shall” is mandatory). 

12 The Density Bonus Law expressly applies to both general law cities and charter cities. 

(Gov. Code, § 65918.) 

13 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7. 

14 Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership v. County of Alameda, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1259. 

3 

17-602 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

legislation is contradictory to general law.15 

Legislative intent is clear with respect to density bonuses and other incentives for 

building affordable housing: “In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that 

the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county 

pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower 

income housing in proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a 

developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or 

any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter.”16 Section 65915 itself 

also states, “This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum 

number of total housing units.”17 As we have observed, “It is apparent that the intent of 

the legislative scheme as a whole is to encourage the construction of housing for persons 

and families of low or moderate income. The Legislature has essentially directed cities 

and counties to provide incentives to housing developers in return for the construction of 

housing units for such persons and families.”18 

The type of ordinance at issue here—one that imposes a fee only on additional units 

allowed as a density bonus—contradicts the Density Bonus Law. Rather than encourage 

construction of affordable housing, such a fee taxes developers for acquiring density 

bonuses. Thus the local law disincentives what the state law means to incentivize. 

Therefore, we conclude that an ordinance imposing a fee only on units created through a 

density bonus under section 65915 is invalid. 

Courts have reached similar conclusions where a local law or practice has 

diminished the benefits of the Density Bonus Law. For instance, a county required a certain 

amount of affordable housing in new developments, but did not count those units in 

calculating a density bonus under section 65915. The court found the county ordinance 

invalid as conflicting with the Density Bonus Law.19 “To the extent the ordinance requires 

a developer to dedicate a larger percentage of its units to affordable housing than required 

by section 65915, the ordinance is void.”20 Likewise, a court rejected a city’s growthcontrol ordinance that expressly excluded low-income and senior housing built with a 

15 Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897-898. 

16 Gov. Code, § 65917. 

17 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (r). 

18 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 370, 372 (1981). 

Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa y Solano v. County of Napa (2013) 217 

Cal.App.4th 1160, 1169. 

20 Ibid. 

4 

17-602 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

density bonus from the enumerated exemptions to the city’s established growth limit. The 

court held that the city’s ordinance was invalid because it conflicted with the Density 

Bonus Law by discouraging developers from proposing housing that would otherwise 

qualify for bonuses.21 

In sum, an ordinance conditioning the grant of a bonus under the state Density 

Bonus Law upon payment of a public benefit fee imposed only on the density bonus units 

is inimical to the Density Bonus Law itself and, therefore, invalid.22 

***** 

21 Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 770; see also 

Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at pp. 825-826 

(section 65915 sets 35% as the highest density bonus a locality is required to give; to 

prevent cities and counties from offering higher density bonuses would undermine policy 

of providing incentives to developers to build low-income and senior housing); 63 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 478, 480 (1980) (local government may comply with Density Bonus 

Law by providing incentives or concessions alternative to those enumerated in the statute 

so long as they are acceptable to the developer and “contribute significantly to the 

economic feasibility of low and moderate income housing . . . ”). 

22 Because we conclude that a city or county may not condition its grant of a density 

bonus under section 65915 upon the developer paying a public benefit fee imposed only 

on the density bonus units, we need not answer the additional question posed to us, which 

presents the same issue under more specific circumstances: Where a city ordinance allows 

a developer to increase the otherwise maximum allowable base residential density of its 

development project to a “Tier 1 density” if it agrees to pay a public benefit fee on the units 

above the standard base density, and the developer agrees to pay that fee to obtain such an 

increase, may the city condition its grant of the developer’s application for a density bonus, 

above the Tier 1 density, under the state Density Bonus Law upon the developer’s payment 

of an additional public benefit fee assessed only on the units granted under the Density 

Bonus Law? We have not been asked, and express no opinion about, the validity of the 

portion of the ordinance described in this question that allows a developer to increase the 

generally allowable maximum residential density by paying a fee imposed on the additional 

units. 

5 

17-602