Regional housing need: determination: consultation with councils of governments.
Impact
The enactment of SB 233 is expected to streamline the process for identifying housing needs across various regions in California, potentially leading to more accurate forecasts regarding housing demand. By enhancing the role of councils of governments in the consultation process, the bill seeks to encourage local input and adaptability in addressing unique regional challenges related to housing shortages. The structured timeline established by the bill aims to facilitate timely updates to housing elements in comprehensive regional plans, which are crucial for urban development and planning.
Summary
Senate Bill 233 aims to amend Section 65584.01 of the Government Code concerning the determination of regional housing needs. The bill specifies that the Department of Housing and Community Development must consult with councils of governments in a more structured manner regarding the methodologies and assumptions used to estimate housing needs. Notably, it establishes a requirement for meetings to occur at least 38 months before the revision of the housing element for certain regions. This is a change from the previous requirement of 26 months, intending to enhance planning efforts and ensure better preparation for regional housing needs assessments.
Sentiment
Discussions surrounding SB 233 have generally been positive, with support primarily from housing advocates who see the bill as a significant step towards addressing the housing crisis in California. Proponents argue that the enhanced consultation process will lead to more informed decision-making that better reflects local needs. However, there are concerns from local government officials regarding the feasibility of meeting the longer timeline, along with fears that stringent regulations could impose additional burdens on local jurisdictions.
Contention
Some notable points of contention related to SB 233 include apprehensions about the increased timelines for housing assessments which may complicate existing planning processes. Local governments have expressed concerns that the bill may not adequately account for discrepancies in resources among different councils of governments, potentially leading to unequal capacities in fulfilling the requirements. Additionally, opponents argue that while the bill promotes consultation, it may not sufficiently empower localities to act independently on their unique housing issues, which could limit local governance in housing policy formulation.