This legislation affects local governance by changing how local agencies define and manage surplus land. By increasing the affordable housing requirements, AB 76 seeks to address California's housing crisis by ensuring that surplus land is utilized effectively to support lower income communities. Local agencies will need to assess their surplus land inventories and potentially adjust their development plans to comply with this new requirement, which could lead to increased construction of affordable housing units in their jurisdiction.
Summary
Assembly Bill 76, introduced by Assembly Member Alvarez, amends Section 54221 of the Government Code concerning the disposal of surplus land by local agencies. The bill's key provisions redefine the criteria for land designated as 'exempt surplus land' which now require that at least 25% of the proposed residential units in a sectional planning area document be set aside for lower income households. This amount may also be defined as 500 units when applicable. Additionally, it asserts that all land must be developed at an average density of at least 10 units per acre. The intent of this bill is to encourage the development of more affordable housing options in areas previously declared as surplus by local agencies.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding AB 76 appears supportive among advocates for affordable housing, who emphasize the importance of creating more inclusive communities. Supporters argue that the bill will help mitigate housing shortages by mandating that local agencies allocate more resources towards developing affordable housing. However, there may be contention among some local governments and developers who view these mandates as regulatory burdens that could hinder their ability to execute development projects efficiently.
Contention
Notable points of contention within the bill are likely to arise from the requirements for density and the percentage of units dedicated to lower income households. Some stakeholders may argue that these requirements unnecessarily limit the flexibility of local agencies to respond to their community’s unique needs. Additionally, there is potential disagreement on how to classify surplus land accurately and efficiently, as varying interpretations of what constitutes 'surplus' could complicate compliance. The legislative debates surrounding these themes may highlight deeper challenges in balancing local autonomy with state-level mandates.