California Environmental Quality Act: attorney’s fees: infill housing.
The introduction of SB 659 is seen as a significant change in the handling of lawsuits that challenge housing developments under CEQA. By facilitating the awarding of attorneys' fees to those prevailing in such disputes, the bill seeks to discourage parties from filing meritless lawsuits that could obstruct necessary housing projects. This change is expected to streamline the approval process for developments that meet state regulations and could potentially alleviate some of the housing shortages experienced in California, particularly in urban areas where infill development is targeted.
Senate Bill 659, introduced by Senator Borgeas, aims to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adding a provision that allows courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in legal actions associated with housing development at infill sites. This provision would specifically apply when the court determines that the petitioner engaged in actions that were deemed frivolous or made in bad faith, leading to unnecessary delays in the consideration of such projects. The intent of the bill is to deter abuse of the judicial process in cases related to environmental compliance and to promote timely housing development.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB 659 has been mixed. Proponents argue that the bill serves as a necessary measure to combat frivolous legal challenges that hinder essential housing projects, thus supporting economic growth and addressing California's housing crisis. Detractors, however, raise concerns that this approach may discourage legitimate environmental protections by punishing citizens or organizations trying to ensure compliance with CEQA. This contention reflects a broader debate over balancing environmental stewardship with the imperative of addressing housing needs.
One notable point of contention regarding SB 659 is the bill's potential impact on public participation in environmental review processes. Critics fear that the ability to impose attorneys' fees may create a chilling effect, deterring individuals and advocacy groups from challenging projects even when they may pose significant environmental concerns. This raises questions about the fairness and accessibility of the judicial system for communities striving to hold developers accountable, emphasizing the delicate balance between facilitating development and protecting public interests.