Regional housing need: determination: consultation with councils of governments.
If enacted, SB 233 would enhance the collaboration between state authorities and regional councils when assessing housing demands. By instituting stricter deadlines for consultations, the bill aims to ensure that a detailed and mutually agreed-upon methodology for housing needs is developed, which considers projected population growth, job balance, and local housing market conditions. This could potentially lead to more accurately tailored housing solutions that address regional disparities and housing shortages in California.
Senate Bill 233, introduced by Senator Seyarto, focuses on the procedural aspects of determining regional housing needs in California. This bill amends Section 65584.01 of the Government Code and mandates that the Department of Housing and Community Development consult with the councils of governments regarding housing needs assessments. The bill particularly emphasizes the requirement for earlier consultations, shifting the timeline for meetings to at least 38 months prior to the revisions for the 7th and subsequent revisions of the housing element. This is a notable change from the previous requirement of 26 months, aligning timelines for more comprehensive planning cooperation.
The sentiment surrounding SB 233 appears to be supportive among housing advocacy groups that emphasize the importance of thorough and collaborative planning for housing needs. However, there may be concerns from some local government officials who might feel that the stringent timelines imposed could pressure councils and affect their ability to conduct thorough assessments. The overall debate seems to balance the need for timely action against the complexities of local housing situations, with proponents advocating for more systemic approaches to resolution.
One of the notable points of contention surrounding SB 233 may revolve around the perceived administrative burdens placed on councils of governments. Some officials might argue that the increased frequency of mandated consultations may strain resources or limit local control over housing policy, fostering a debate between state mandates and local governance autonomy. The bill's approach to establishing designated timelines for consultations might also be contested by those who believe that flexibility based on regional specifics is essential for effective planning.