Density Bonus Law: affordability restrictions.
The impact of AB 634 on state housing laws is significant as it empowers local governments to set longer terms for affordability in housing agreements. By allowing for extended affordability periods, it aims to ensure that a greater number of housing units remain available to lower-income residents for longer durations, helping to address the critical housing shortage in California. Furthermore, it provides local authorities with the flexibility to implement regulations that are more responsive to their community's needs when it comes to affordable housing.
Assembly Bill 634, known as the Density Bonus Law: affordability restrictions, amends the Government Code by adding Section 65915.2. The bill allows cities, counties, or city and county to mandate an affordability period longer than 55 years for housing units that are part of developments qualifying for a density bonus. This density bonus is a tool used by local agencies to encourage the development of affordable housing by allowing increased density in exchange for providing affordable housing units for low-income, lower-income, very low-income, or extremely low-income households. The changes reflect an intention to enhance the provisions under existing Density Bonus Law, thereby reinforcing commitments to affordable housing in California.
The sentiment surrounding AB 634 is largely positive among advocates for affordable housing, who view this legislation as a step towards increasing the availability of long-term affordable housing options. However, there are concerns from some stakeholders regarding the regulatory burden this may impose on developers. They argue that while the extension of affordability periods is well-intentioned, it might deter potential development if seen as overly restrictive or burdensome.
Notable points of contention include the balance between sufficient incentives for developers to participate in affordability programs and maintaining adequate protections for low-income households. Proponents argue that longer affordability periods will provide stability and security for residents, whereas critics warn that overly stringent requirements might limit the number of new developments due to financial concerns for developers.