California’s Historic Housing Law Instigates Unprecedented Transformations Across the State

Governor Gavin Newsom approved over 50 housing bills in California, appearing modest yet holding significant influence with subtle adjustments.

Among these, AB1287, a legislative amendment nestled within the repertoire, exemplifies the significant impact these subtle modifications carry.

AB1287 tweaks the longstanding Density Bonus Law, a statute enacted in the 1970s to incentivize developers to build low-income housing. 

The amendment allows developers to base their unit calculations on a city’s general plan for land use instead of zoning regulations a seemingly small change with far-reaching implications.

The amendment’s ramifications were illuminated by a legal dispute in Los Angeles, where parcels previously restricted to single-family homes under zoning laws could now qualify for a spectrum of uses, spanning from agriculture to large apartment buildings, as per the city’s general plan. This shift marks a departure from conventional norms, altering the relationship between the general plan and zoning regulations.

California’s Ongoing Housing Challenges

The revised law upends the traditional hierarchy, making the maximum density permitted under the general plan the baseline for city planners to approve, along with a bonus, if developers allocate 5% to 10% of units for low-income housing. 

Moreover, it mandates cities to waive nearly any development standard obstructing project amenities, reshaping urban planning dynamics.

However, while the Density Bonus Law streamlines development standards, it isn’t flawless. Its wide scope can lead to the waiver of critical land-use regulations, potentially impacting urban connectivity, and fails to differentiate between various market dynamics or address fee exemptions, which inflate construction costs.

Amidst the necessity for streamlined development, caution is urged in amending the law. Transparency through detailed reporting requirements and limiting waivers for certain restrictions could be a prudent approach.

Future considerations might revolve around setting allowable densities rather than relying solely on local plans.

While adjustments to peripheral aspects may be warranted, preserving the core function of the Density Bonus Law addressing the opacity of housing rules’ impact on project viability remains crucial. Striking a balance between refinement and preservation will be key as California continues to navigate its housing challenges.