Density bonuses: affordable housing impact fees.
The implementation of AB 2063 is designed to streamline the process for developers looking to build affordable units by reducing financial burdens related to impact fees imposed by local governments. This reflects the legislative intent to create a favorable environment for the construction of more housing, especially focusing on lower-income groups. However, this shift to a more state-mandated approach could potentially limit local governments' ability to tailor housing policies to their specific circumstances, sparking discussions on the balance between state intervention and local control.
Assembly Bill 2063, introduced by Assembly Member Berman, aims to amend the existing Density Bonus Law to further incentivize the development of affordable housing units. The bill specifically prohibits local governments from imposing certain affordable housing impact fees, such as inclusionary zoning fees and in-lieu fees, on housing developments that qualify for density bonuses. This prohibition would only hold if the local government has adopted a local density bonus ordinance that allows for a density bonus of at least 50% based on specific affordable housing requirements by January 1, 2022.
The overall sentiment surrounding AB 2063 appears to be positive among housing advocates and developers who believe that the bill will facilitate the construction of much-needed affordable housing across California. They argue that reducing fees associated with density bonuses can significantly enhance the feasibility of projects aimed at lower-income households. However, there are concerns raised by some local government officials who feel that this could undermine their authority to impose necessary regulations that reflect community needs and priorities.
Key points of contention related to AB 2063 include the tension between state-mandated requirements and local governance autonomy. Critics argue that while the bill seeks to address housing shortages, it may inadvertently disenfranchise local entities by restricting their ability to collect impact fees that fund critical local services and infrastructure. Furthermore, discussions have also highlighted the potential complexities that arise from encouraging developers to build affordable units without correspondingly increasing local funding mechanisms to support community development initiatives.