Housing Accountability Act: disapprovals: California Environmental Quality Act.
The implications of AB 1633 are substantial, as it aims to mitigate local governmental hurdles that have historically limited housing development in California. The bill establishes that failure to adhere to specific timelines for project assessments will be deemed a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. Additionally, this law will mandate that housing projects be located in areas already urbanized and maintain a baseline density of at least 15 dwelling units per acre, thereby promoting more efficient use of space and resources in urban settings.
Assembly Bill 1633, also known as the Housing Accountability Act, seeks to address California's ongoing housing crisis by clarifying the conditions under which local agencies can disapprove housing development projects. Specifically, the bill expands the definition of 'disapprove' to include instances where a local agency fails to determine if a project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or engages in an abuse of discretion regarding project approvals. This move is designed to enhance accountability and streamline the development process for housing projects by ensuring local jurisdictions comply with established timelines and requirements.
The sentiment around AB 1633 appears divided. While proponents, particularly housing advocates and some Democratic lawmakers, hail the bill as a necessary step to combat the housing affordability crisis that is plaguing many Californians, critics raise concerns about the potential reduction in local control over housing developments. There is apprehension that the bill could lead to unintended consequences by limiting local governments' ability to consider the unique needs of their communities when evaluating housing projects, particularly those regarding environmental impacts.
One key point of contention is the balance between state oversight and local governance. Advocates for the bill argue that local agencies have been stifling essential housing growth, while opponents worry that the state intervention could undermine local decision-making authority. The bill currently does not require reimbursement for local agencies for costs incurred due to state mandates, which may further exacerbate tensions between state and local jurisdictions over housing development responsibilities.