Housing development projects: applications: fees and exactions.
The bill's provisions require local agencies, including cities and counties, to furnish an itemized list and good faith estimate of total applicable fees post-approval of a housing development project. This is intended to mitigate delays and unpredictability that developers face regarding project costs, which have been reported to constitute a significant percentage of home prices. Critics, however, express concern about the implications for local autonomy in setting fees that respond to unique community needs. While the bill is designed to streamline the approval process, it raises questions about its impact on local governance and tailored responses to regional housing crises.
Assembly Bill 1820, sponsored by Assemblymember Schiavo, focuses on the handling of applications for housing development projects, particularly in relation to associated fees and exactions imposed by local agencies. The bill addresses the procedural requirements for local governments to provide developers with a preliminary estimate of fees and exactions upon submitting project applications, ensuring that the estimates are provided within 30 business days. This change aims to enhance clarity and transparency in the development process, which has been a point of contention due to the increasing complexity and variability in impact fees across jurisdictions in California.
Sentiment around AB 1820 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that it is a necessary step towards promoting housing production in California, where high fees can stymie development and exacerbate the housing crisis. They believe increased transparency will foster a more favorable environment for housing development, which has implications for state-wide economic health. Conversely, opponents worry that the bill undermines local authority, potentially leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that may not effectively address specific community needs or conditions.
Key points of contention include the balance between state-imposed regulations versus local control of development practices. While the bill aims to standardize and streamline processes, concerns exist regarding its effect on local agencies’ ability to impose necessary fees that reflect their specific infrastructural and community requirements. Furthermore, the bill specifies that no reimbursement will be required for costs mandated by the state, impacting funding for local agencies that rely on these fees to maintain services and infrastructure, thereby raising concerns about the financial viability of local governance post-implementation.