California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: City of Los Angeles: County of Los Angeles: affordable housing and transitional housing.
AB 785 is focused on local conditions, where nearly 25% of California's homeless population resides in the City of Los Angeles. By expediting the approval process for housing-related projects, the bill addresses a pressing need for more effective solutions to homelessness, particularly targeting youth and young adults. The bill imposes labor requirements to ensure fair practices in projects that benefit from the new exemption. However, it will expire on January 1, 2030, signaling a temporary legislative measure tailored to the current housing crisis.
Assembly Bill 785, authored by Santiago, amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to exempt certain activities related to affordable housing, low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, and transitional housing from CEQA requirements within the City and County of Los Angeles. The bill broadens the definition of supportive housing and transitions the term 'emergency shelter' to 'low barrier navigation center'. This change is significant as it aims to facilitate the development of housing solutions that are critical in addressing homelessness issues in Los Angeles, which has one of the highest homelessness rates in the U.S.
The sentiment around AB 785 is predominantly supportive, especially among those advocating for homelessness solutions in California. Proponents view it as a necessary step towards improving housing access for vulnerable populations. Nonetheless, there may be underlying concerns regarding the balancing act between environmental assessments and rapid housing development. Some stakeholders may worry about the long-term implications of exempting projects from CEQA, which could diminish public accountability and environmental considerations.
Notably, the bill argues for a unique statute due to the specific circumstances surrounding homelessness in Los Angeles, as highlighted by legislative findings. While it aims to streamline housing developments, which many see as critical in solving the homelessness crisis, it also reflects a tension between urgent housing needs and traditional regulatory frameworks that ensure environmental quality. The potential of not requiring state reimbursement to local agencies for mandated costs has also raised questions about the implications for local governance and financial responsibilities.