Planning and zoning: supportive housing: number of units: emergency shelter zones.
If passed, AB 2988 would significantly alter state laws governing housing development by relaxing some restrictions on the number of units that can be built under supportive housing guidelines. This change is designed to alleviate housing shortages for homeless populations, particularly in regions dealing with high levels of homelessness. It also imposes new requirements upon local planning officials to consider supportive housing developments more favorably, thus changing the local zoning landscape for housing projects.
Assembly Bill 2988, introduced by Assembly Members Chu and Chiu, aims to amend the Planning and Zoning Law in California related to supportive housing. The bill designates supportive housing as a use by right within specific zones where emergency shelters are permitted, expanding the existing law that limits the number of allowable units for supportive housing. AB 2988 raises this limit from 50 to 120 units for developments situated in certain jurisdictions reporting lower populations of homeless individuals, thus facilitating the creation of additional supportive housing in areas of need.
The sentiment surrounding AB 2988 exhibits a mixture of support and opposition. Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step toward addressing the housing crisis and homelessness in California, emphasizing the need for more accessible supportive housing options. Conversely, some opponents express concerns about potential overreach and the possibility that this could lead to reduced local control over housing decisions, highlighting fears that local needs might be overlooked in favor of state mandates.
Key points of contention arise around the implications of the bill on local governance and the associated responsibilities that extend to municipal planning. Critics are wary of the state-mandated local program aspect of the bill, fearing it may impose additional burdens on localities without providing adequate resources or funding. Furthermore, the provision that allows local governments to impose service charges or fees may provide some oversight but also raises questions about the potential costs of implementation for local authorities.