AB2656 may have also been killed because it was a victim of compromising too much and the proponents did not see much value in trying to get it across the finish line.
A developer having to (1) wait a year after submitting the approval to then "call into question" the deadline and then (2) wait another 3 months for a decision after that and then (3) sue the city for a court order to proceed
is not a "streamlined" process. In fact it's more or less what the process already is today in some cities. I'd much rather see a better system introduced, rather than that bandaid solution:
"If the completed environmental review is not approved within a year after submission [for some projects which fulfill X criteria], it is assumed compliant." with further safeguards like "a city must start the review process within 90 days and present major findings within another 90 days after that" to avoid the "we just started reviewing it a day before the deadline" delay tactic.