Housing Accountability Act: disapprovals: California Environmental Quality Act.
The bill mandates that housing development projects must meet certain criteria, including being located in urbanized areas with a density of at least 15 dwelling units per acre. By increasing the accountability of local governments, it aims to combat the existing barriers that inhibit the approval of new housing, thereby addressing the pressing housing supply issues in California. This legislative change is a response to the significant ongoing housing crisis characterized by extreme affordability issues and escalating homelessness.
Assembly Bill 2656, introduced by Assembly Member Ting, amends the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The bill aims to clarify the circumstances under which a local agency's failure to provide an exemption from CEQA for housing development projects constitutes a disapproval under the HAA. Essentially, if local agencies do not grant necessary exemptions or approvals within a specified timeline, this behavior is treated as a final disapproval, thus allowing applicants to seek legal recourse more efficiently. This act is intended to enhance the state's efforts in addressing acute housing shortages.
The sentiment around AB 2656 is mixed. Proponents, mainly housing advocates and some legislators, view the bill as a necessary step to combat the growing housing crisis, seeing it as a means to ensure that local governments cannot arbitrarily block housing projects. Conversely, opponents, including some local government officials and environmentalists, express concerns about the potential for diminishing local control and oversight, fearing that the expedited approval processes might overlook critical environmental and community impacts.
Notable points of contention include the balance between state mandates and local governance authority. Opponents argue that the bill could undermine local decision-making abilities regarding neighborhood and environmental protections. Supporters counter that the current local regulatory frameworks have failed to adequately provide housing solutions, thus necessitating state-level intervention to ensure compliance with broader housing goals.