Planning and zoning: housing development.
This legislation is seen as a critical response to California's ongoing housing crisis, which has been exacerbated by a prolonged shortage of affordable housing. By establishing a 'use by right' framework for certain developments, AB 1251 seeks to streamline the process and eliminate potential delays caused by local government inaction. The law’s applicability to all cities, including charter cities, underscores its significance as a state-mandated initiative aimed at addressing housing shortages across diverse communities.
AB 1251, introduced by Assembly Member Santiago, aims to modify existing planning and zoning laws to facilitate the development of affordable housing in California. The bill mandates that if a local government fails to complete the necessary rezoning to accommodate adequate housing sites for various income levels, specific housing developments, particularly those with at least 40% affordable units, must be considered a 'use by right' in all zones intended for multifamily, commercial, or mixed-use. This means that such developments would be exempt from discretionary local government approvals that could delay housing projects, thus expediting the construction of affordable homes.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1251 is generally supportive amongst housing advocates and policymakers focused on alleviating California's housing demands. They argue that the bill is necessary to ensure that local governments take meaningful action to rezone appropriately for mandated housing needs. However, there are concerns raised by some local officials and community advocates regarding the potential erosion of local control over land use decisions, which they argue could lead to developments that do not align with community needs or aesthetics.
Notable contention surrounding AB 1251 centers on the balance between state intervention and local governance. Opponents argue that the bill undermines local authority to shape community development according to resident preferences. Furthermore, questions remain about the definition and implementation of 'affordable' housing—what qualifies as affordable may vary widely across different regions. The bill also excludes provisions for reimbursement to local agencies for costs associated with its implementation, which has drawn criticism regarding the financial burdens it may impose.