Density Bonus Law: purchase of density bonus units by nonprofit housing organizations.
The modifications proposed in SB 728 have significant implications for local governments and housing developers. By mandating that units benefiting from density bonuses must be directed towards low-income households or nonprofits, cities and counties are encouraged to take proactive measures in ensuring equitable housing developments. This approach seeks to address housing shortages and improve accessibility for families with varying income levels, aligning with broader state goals to increase the stock of affordable housing across California.
Senate Bill 728 aims to modify the Density Bonus Law in California, emphasizing the role of nonprofit housing organizations in the development of affordable housing units. The bill stipulates that cities and counties must ensure that units qualifying for density bonuses are either sold to low-income individuals or purchased by qualified nonprofit housing organizations. This changes the previous stipulations regarding initial occupants of these units and introduces new requirements for the sales process, including affordability restrictions and equity sharing agreements. Furthermore, the bill's intent is to strike a balance by ensuring that as developers gain additional density bonuses, there is a corresponding public benefit in the form of attainable housing.
The general sentiment surrounding SB 728 has been supportive among those advocating for affordable housing. Proponents argue that the amendments to the Density Bonus Law would lead to a more comprehensive solution to California's housing crisis by promoting partnerships with nonprofit organizations. However, there is contention among some local officials who are concerned about the potential burden this law could place on municipal regulations and the autonomy of local governance in managing development policies.
Notable points of contention relate to the implications of greater state involvement in local housing policies. Some critics argue that while the bill aims to protect and promote affordable housing, it could diminish the flexibility that local agencies have in addressing unique community needs. Additionally, the requirement for public reimbursement of costs mandated by the state raises questions about funding and resources for local agencies responsible for implementing these housing strategies.