California Environmental Quality Act: aesthetic impacts.
The passing of AB 356 is likely to accelerate the refurbishment of old and abandoned buildings into housing. This is particularly crucial at a time when California faces a housing crisis. By easing the requirements for aesthetic evaluations, the bill is expected to simplify and speed up the approval process for developers while focusing on the need for housing. However, it does come with instructions that must be followed, such as notifying the Office of Planning and Research and local county clerks of projects that meet the criteria.
Assembly Bill No. 356, known as the Dilapidated Building Refurbishment Act, modifies the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations regarding the evaluation of aesthetic impacts for certain types of projects. Specifically, it extends the provision that allows lead agencies to approve projects involving the refurbishment, conversion, or replacement of existing abandoned and dilapidated buildings without evaluating their aesthetic effects until January 1, 2029. The bill aims to facilitate the development of housing in urban areas by permitting local agencies to bypass aesthetic assessments for specific renovation projects under certain conditions.
The reception to AB 356 has been mixed. Proponents, including many real estate developers and some local government officials, view it as a necessary step towards tackling California’s housing shortage by making it easier to revive unused properties. Conversely, critics express concern that the bill undercuts local governance and reduces the checks on potential negative impacts of development on neighborhoods, particularly in preserving community aesthetics and historical districts.
One of the notable points of contention surrounding AB 356 is its potential to diminish local control over development decisions. Critics are worried that the extended exemption from evaluating aesthetic impacts could lead to developments that clash with community values or quality of life. Additionally, the bill specifies that the state will not reimburse local agencies for costs incurred under this act, which could pose financial challenges for these agencies trying to manage increased workloads without additional funds to support them.