Housing development: density bonuses.
The proposed changes to the Density Bonus Law are intended to facilitate housing development across California by streamlining the approval process for mixed-use projects. This could incentivize the construction of more affordable housing units, which is a pressing concern in many areas of the state. Additionally, by allowing local governments some discretion, the legislation aims to balance the need for housing with local regulatory authority, likely leading to more tailored solutions in diverse communities.
Senate Bill 92, introduced by Senator Blakespear, seeks to amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, particularly focusing on the Density Bonus Law. This law mandates that local governments provide density bonuses and other concessions to developers who agree to construct housing that includes a specified percentage of units for low-income households. The bill aims to clarify and expand these requirements specifically with respect to mixed-use developments, which combine residential and nonresidential uses. It distinguishes parameters where local governments may selectively provide incentives but are not mandated to approve all concessions, especially regarding transient lodgings as part of a housing development.
General sentiment around SB 92 appears to be cautiously optimistic, with supporters arguing that it provides a necessary framework to increase affordable housing supply while respecting local governance. However, there is also concern among some local officials who feel that the mandatory elements of the bill may strain resources and complicate their existing regulatory frameworks. This duality of support and apprehension showcases the ongoing challenges in addressing California's housing crisis head-on while ensuring community stability.
Notable points of contention include the specific requirements for local agencies to comply with new mandates without necessarily providing them with additional resources. Opponents of the bill may argue that while incentivizing density bonuses is important, it should not come at the expense of local control, potentially leading to broader developmental consequences that are misaligned with community characteristics and needs.