Planning and Zoning Law: housing element: violations.
This legislation stipulates that the Department of Housing and Community Development cannot review a local government's draft until after it has completed the public comment process. Additionally, this bill introduces significant penalties for non-compliance with state housing laws, allowing the Attorney General to take legal action against jurisdictions that fail to meet requirements. The bill seeks to improve compliance with state housing policies by instituting a clearer process for public engagement and accountability in housing element development.
Assembly Bill 215, known as the Planning and Zoning Law: housing element: violations, aims to enhance public participation in the local government's housing element drafting process. Under the bill, local governments are required to make their first draft revisions of housing elements available for public comment for a minimum of 30 days. After this period, they must take an additional 10 business days to incorporate any public feedback before submitting the draft to the Department of Housing and Community Development. Subsequent drafts must be posted online and shared with interested parties, strengthening transparency in the housing planning process.
The sentiment surrounding AB 215 is largely positive among supporters who believe it will bolster democratic processes and foster community involvement in housing development decisions. Proponents argue that increased public input will lead to better outcomes in housing policies and planning. However, critics express concerns about the potential administrative burden this could place on local governments and fear it may complicate the housing approval process rather than streamline it.
One notable point of contention is the introduction of specific penalties for local governments that do not comply with the amended housing elements requirements. The bill allows for the imposition of fines that can escalate significantly if jurisdictions fail to comply over time. Critics argue that such punitive measures may disincentivize local governments from engaging in the housing planning process if they perceive they could face substantial fines for unintentional oversights.