Planning and zoning: housing development: independent institutions of higher education and religious institutions.
This bill's passage would significantly affect the regulatory landscape surrounding housing development. It ensures that local entities are held accountable for reporting their housing initiatives and progress towards meeting regional housing needs. Furthermore, it encourages collaborative efforts between educational and religious institutions and affordable housing builders, potentially increasing the availability of low-cost housing options. This move could alleviate some pressure from the housing market, particularly for lower-income households.
Assembly Bill 2728, introduced by Assembly Member Gabriel, aims to amend the Planning and Zoning Law to facilitate housing development on lands owned by independent educational institutions and religious organizations. The bill mandates local governments to enhance their annual reports on housing development projects, specifically focusing on certain criteria that include the number of applications submitted and permits issued. A significant aspect of the bill is its requirement for the state Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a list of financial incentives for developing low-income housing on the specified lands by July 2025.
The overall sentiment surrounding AB 2728 appears to be supportive among housing advocates and those within educational and religious sectors. Proponents argue that this bill promotes essential partnerships and innovative solutions to tackle housing shortages, especially in urban areas. However, there may also be concerns regarding the adequacy of oversight and the state-mandated requirements that could impose additional burdens on local governments without corresponding funding for implementation.
Notable contention could arise around the potential bureaucratic impact on local governments with respect to the increased reporting requirements. Critics may argue that imposing such duties without state reimbursement for the added costs could strain local resources. Moreover, while the intent is to foster more housing development, there may be skepticism about whether the financial incentives are sufficient to incentivize partnerships effectively and whether this could inadvertently lead to conflicts with local zoning laws.