HomeMy WebLinkAbout062320 - 03.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council June 23, 2020
SUBJECT: June Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
Both individually and as part of the Tri-Valley Cities coalition, Danville officials are
adapting to the social and economic changes and 2020 state legislative priorities. The
immediate focus on our advocacy work has been to support legislative efforts that help
the Town recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and limit new legislation that impacts
local control and adds stress to the Town’s already depleted resources.
The California State Legislature (legislature) opened the 2020 legislative session with
2,203 active bills as of February 21, the last day for bills to be introduced during the
session. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the legislative session was suspended on March
16. The Assembly reopened on May 4, followed by the Senate on May 11.
During the 7 and 8-week respective closings, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major
impact on the legislative schedule and priorities. State, counties, and local agencies have
had to confront a steep and unprecedented economic crisis including job losses, budget
shortfalls and reduced services. As a result of this change, the legislature has reduced
the number of bills in the Assembly to less than 80 and Senate to less than 60 bills and the
numbers are changing every day.
Budget
On May 14, Governor Newsom introduced a revised budget proposal to the Legislature.
The proposal highlighted a swing at the start of the year from an 18 billion-dollar rainy
day fund to a 54 billion-dollar budget shortfall as a result of COVID-19. The budget
proposes the cancelling of new initiatives, reduced spending, a draw down on reserves,
and borrowing and transferring money from special funds. The Federal Government
allocated the state 8 billion-dollars in CARES Act funding. As of this report, the budget
has been approved as constitutionally mandated however, the Governor and Legislature
are far apart on spending and proposed cuts. The Federal Government is discussing
legislation for another round of CARES Act funding. The discussions and proposals have
focused on direct funding to state and local governments.
June Legislative Update 2 June 23, 2020
Housing
Housing production remains a top priority of the Senate. The Senate Pro Tem has
introduced a housing production legislative package that would streamline existing
housing approval processes at the state and local levels. The focus of this package is to
reduce workload for local planning departments, increase the availability of existing
affordable housing, and build policies that would accelerate job growth and economic
development. The package also includes a budget proposal for a renter/landlord
stabilization program.
Police Policy/Reforms
The murder of George Floyd has shocked the nation and created a call to action to re -
evaluate and change police practices, policies, regulation and funding. At the State level,
Governor Newsom has called for the creation of new standards for crowd control and
use of force in protests. Additionally, he called for the end of the carotid hold and other
like techniques in California, directing that the carotid hold be removed from the state
police training program and state training materials. At the federal level, both houses are
proposing legislation on police practices and the President signed an Executive Order
that will use grants to help departments meet certification standards on the use of force,
create a national database on excessive force complaints, and encourage the involvement
of mental health professionals when responding to nonviolent cases, like addiction,
homelessness and mental illness. The president also said the order would prioritize
grants to police departments to certify that they meet certain standards, and those
standards would include a ban on chokeholds except with an officer's life is at risk.
DISCUSSION
Senate Housing Production Package
SB 1385 - Caballero: Neighborhood Homes Act (Oppose)
This bill would unlock existing land zoned for commercial office and retail for potential
residential development by making housing an eligible use on those sites. The bill would
also allow for streamlined ministerial approval of housing projects on land zoned for
office or retail commercial use when the site has been vacant or severely underutilized
for at least three (3) years and the project meets the existing requirements for by-right
housing.
League: Watch
SB 1120 - Atkins: Subdivisions: Tentative Maps (Oppose)
Builds off state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law that allows for at least three
units/parcel; further encourages small-scale neighborhood development spearheaded
by homeowners by creating a ministerial approval process for duplexes and lot splits
that meet local zoning, environmental and tenant displacement standards. Local
governments are not required to permit ADU’s on sites that exercise this option. The
June Legislative Update 3 June 23, 2020
creation of local ordinances to implement these sections are not subject to CEQA.
SB 995 - Atkins: Environmental Quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement Through
Environmental Leadership Act (Support)
Provides California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relief by expanding the existing
AB-900 process for Environmental Leadership Development Projects for housing
projects, particularly affordable housing. This creates a new tool for housing developers
who may have been interested in utilizing the AB 900 process, but did not meet the
existing dollar threshold. In addition to creating housing units, it also could carry the
benefit of creating numerous construction jobs. According to figures compiled by the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and Senate Office of Research, since 2011,
10,573 housing units have been constructed or proposed under projects certified under
AB 900, and the law helped create 46,949 high -wage, permanent construction jobs.
SB 902 - Wiener: Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density (Support with
Amendments)
Allows local governments to pass a zoning ordinance that is not subject to CEQA for
projects that allow up to 10 units, if they are located in one of the following priority areas:
a. A transit-rich area
b. A jobs-rich area
c. An urban infill site
This bill further allows for additional small-scale infill development for local
governments who want to spur more housing production. It provides cities with a new
tool to rezone for density in a streamlined, expedited way. Currently, cities that want to
rezone for more housing - or are required to rezone due to state mandates - face years of
process and lawsuits, costing significant taxpayer funds. It is important to note this
measure does not waive any of existing or proposed new standards that a local
government applies to new housing in their jurisdiction.
League: Pending
SB 1085 - Skinner: Density Bonus Law: Qualifications for Incentives or Concessions
(Oppose)
SB 1085 would make changes to the Density Bonus Law and incentivize the construction
of housing developments that will contain a specified percentage of units for low and
moderate-income households and for which the rent is 30% below market rate. The bill’s
mandated local costs would not be subject to state reimbursement because local agencies
have the authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees as necessary to
cover administrative costs. Increasing the amount of affordable housing for low- income
families remains a top priority for the Senate. Enhancing the Density Bonus Law would
allow developers to expand projects, thereby enhancing their profitability, and adding
more affordable housing units at no cost to taxpayers.
League: Pending
June Legislative Update 4 June 23, 2020
Senate Budget Proposal
Renter/Landlord Stabilization Program:
The program would enable agreements between renters, landlords, and the state to
resolve unpaid rents over a limited period, as well as make available short-term tax-
credits that provide immediate value to landlords at risk of foreclosure. While the Senate
embarked on the goal of increasing housing production at the beginning of 2020, given
COVID-19 and its impacts on Californians, the need arose to also incorporate measures
to ensure the state does not lose existing rental housing stock. This proposal provides
immediate relief to tenants in need to ensure no one is evicted as a result of COVID-19
and/or its economic impacts, while also protecting landlords who operate in good faith
and otherwise face foreclosure and, by result, tenant evictions.
AB 725 - Wicks: Housing Element. Moderate-income and Above Moderate- income
Housing.
This measure would require incorporated areas within a metropolitan jurisdiction, at
least 25% of the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for both the moderate-
income and above moderate-income housing categories must be allocated to sites with
zoning that allows at least two units of housing, but no more than 35 units of housing per
acre.
League: Pending
AB 2345 - Gonzalez: Planning and Zoning. Density Bonus.
This measure would greatly expand Density Bonus law and allow developers to receive
up to five concessions and incentives from local governments and up to 50% more
density. This measure would also require local governments to award up to six
concessions and incentives to 100% affordable housing developments.
League: Pending
AB 1279 – Bloom: Planning and Zoning: High Development High Opportunity Areas
Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to designate areas
in this state as "high-resource areas," as defined as an area of high opportunity and low
residential density that is not currently experiencing gentrification and displacement, and
that is not at a high risk of future gentrification and displacement.
League: Oppose
Revenue and Taxation
SB 1431 - Glazer: Property Taxation. Reassessment. Disaster Relief.
This measure would require county assessors to reassess certain types of properties based
on their ability to generate income from renters during the COVID-19 emergency due to
eviction controls ordered statewide by the Governor’s Executive Order. This measure
would be retroactive to April 5, 2020. The loss estimate must be at least $10,000 of current
market value to qualify. This would result in loss of property tax revenue.
League: Oppose
June Legislative Update 5 June 23, 2020
Environmental Quality
AB2323 - Friedman: California Environmental Quality Act Exemptions
Expands the application of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for
housing and other specified projects by permitting community plans, as defined, to serve
as the basis for exemption of residential, mixed-use and employment center projects near
transit and eliminating the exclusion of sites within the boundaries of a state conservancy
from existing exemptions for affordable agricultural housing, affordable urban housing,
and urban infill housing. Major Provisions 1) Permits community plans, as defined, to
serve as the basis for exemption of residential, mixed-use and employment center projects
near transit. 2) Eliminates the exclusion of sites within the boundaries of a state
conservancy from existing exemptions for affordable agricultural housing, affordable
urban housing, and urban infill housing.
League: Watch
AB 3279 - Friedman: Environmental Quality Act: Administrative and Judicial
Procedures
This measure would revise CEQA litigation procedures in a number of ways including
reducing the deadline for a court to commence hearings from one year to 270 days, and
providing that a lead agency may decide whether a plaintiff prepares the administrative
record.
League: Oppose
Transportation, Communications and Public Works
AB 2421 – Quirk: Land Use. Permitting. Wireless Communications. This measure
would require local agencies to adopt completed permit applications to install an
emergency standby generator within the physical footprint of a macro cell tower site
within 60 days of submittal of the application. If a local agency has not approved or
denied such permit applications within 60 days, the permit would be deemed approved.
League: Concerns
Constitutional Amendments
ACA 25 – Mullen
Temporarily permits Members of the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to remotely attend
and vote in a legislative proceeding, or to vote by proxy in a legislative proceeding if
permitted by their house, during the pendency of a state of emergency declared by the
President of the United States or the Governor. Provides that a Member may only
remotely attend and vote, or vote by proxy as authorized, in a proceeding if the state of
emergency prevents the Member from safely attending the proceeding in person.
Federal Legislation Small Cell Wireless
S. 3157 Thune: Streamlining Small Cell Deployment Act
This bill would impose deadlines for state and local action on small cell applications and
include a “deemed granted” remedy sought by the wireless industry if deadlines were
June Legislative Update 6 June 23, 2020
missed. It also would impose restrictions on the fees that states and localities can charge
for processing applications or using the rights of way.
S. 2012 Feinstein: Restoring Local Control Over Public Infrastructure
This bill nullifies rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission that revoke
state and local authority to regulate telecommunications equipment deployment and to
determine the amount of payment for the use of such equipment.
H.R. 530 Eshoo: Acceleration Wireless Broadband Development by Empowering Local
Communities Act
This bill nullifies rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission that revoke
state and local authority to regulate telecommunications equipment deployment.
These federal bills have not progressed in the current legislative session.
Grant Applications
Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many funding programs are being
temporarily postponed primarily due to staffing issues. Grant Funds are constitutionally
mandated if set aside by legislation. Bond funds such as the Proposition 68, 4 billion -
dollar fund are subject to use in times of budget shortfalls. The town currently has three
grant applications that are pending. Town staff is working with Townsend and
Associates to submit an application to the FEMA Public Assistance Program, for
reimbursement of COVID-19 expenses. New grants are coming online as resources for
recovery from COVID-19. Staff is continuing to evaluate existing and new fund options.
Prepared by: Diane Friedmann
Assistant to the Town Manager
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
Attachments: A – State Senate and Assembly Committee Reports
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 1385 (Caballero ) - Local planning: housing: commercial zones
Version: May 20, 2020 Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 6 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: June 9, 2020 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: SB 1385 would enact the “Neighborhood Homes Act,” which
establishes a housing development project as an authorized use on a parcel currently
zoned for office or retail commercial use, as specified in a local agency’s zoning code or
general plan.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates it would
incur costs of $261,000 in the first year and $246,000 annually thereafter for 1.25 PY
of staff time to ongoing to review and update information regarding state housing
laws, develop technical assistance materials, provide consultation and guidance to
local agencies and developers, and post updated information on the department’s
website. (General Fund)
Unknown local costs to implement the bill, including updating procedures and
processes to account for the authorization of housing development on a parcel
zoned for office or retail commercial use, and providing for streamlined and
expedited review of those projects. These costs are not state-reimbursable because
local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting
fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates .
(local funds)
Background: The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a
general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A
general plan must include seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that
establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’
and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other
aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans.
Zoning ordinances establish the type of land uses that are authorized in a designated
area, often identifying a primary use for parcels in an area, as well as other uses that
may be allowed if they meet conditions imposed by the local agency to address
aesthetics, community impacts, or other site-specific considerations.
A city or county’s housing element must identify adequate sites for housing at all income
levels—very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income. Each local jurisdiction
must also ensure that its housing element makes enough sites available to
accommodate its share of the regional housing need assessment (RHNA), which is an
estimate for various regions in the state that is developed by the Department of Finance
and HCD and further allocated amongst individual local jurisdictions. The housing
element of a general plan must generally be updated every eight years, and the local
ATTACHMENT A
SB 1385 (Caballero) Page 2 of 4
government must identify an adequate number of sites throughout its entire planning
period. If a city or county does not have enough sites within its existing inventory of
residentially zoned land to accommodate its share of the regional housing needs, it
must adopt a program to rezone land within the first three years of the planning period.
Every city and county must submit a report to HCD and the Governor’s Offic e of
Planning and Research annually on its implementation and progress towards meeting
its RHNA amount and removing governmental obstacles to housing development.
Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects that are
permitted “by right”—the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is
allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the
permit if the application is complete. Local governments have two options for providing
landowners with relief from zoning ordinances that might otherwise prohibit or restrict a
particular land use: variances and conditional use permits. A variance may be granted
to alleviate a unique hardship on a property owner because of the way a generally-
applicable zoning ordinance affects a particular parcel, and a conditional use permit
allows a land use that is not authorized by right in a zoning ordinance, but may be
authorized if the property owner takes certain steps, such as to mitigate the potential
impacts of the land use. Both of these processes require hearings by the local zoning
board and public notice.
Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff ministerially or
without further approval from elected officials. Projects reviewed ministerially require
only an administrative review designed to ensure they are consistent with existing
general plan and zoning rules, as well as meet standards for building quality, health,
and safety. Most large housing projects are not allowed ministerial review. Instead,
these projects are vetted through both public hearings and administrative review,
including design review and appeals processes. Most housing projects that require
discretionary review and approval are subject to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review, while projects permitted ministerially are not.
Existing law, as enacted by SB 35 (Wiener), Chap. 366/2017, provides for a
streamlined, ministerial process for approving infill multifamily housing developments
that are in compliance with the applicable objective local planning standards —including
the general plan, zoning ordinances, and objective design review standards. To be
eligible for streamlining, a specified percentage of the total housing units in the
development must be affordable to lower-income households (those under 80 percent
of area median income), as specified. An eligible project cannot be located on sensitive
environmental sites, such as the prime agricultural land, floodplains, high and very high
fire hazard severity zones, and lands with conservation easements. SB 35 also
included certain requirements for labor standards, such as the use of a skilled and
trained workforce on an eligible project, and sunsets on January 1, 2026.
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Act) allows cities, counties, special districts,
and school districts to finance public works projects and a limited list of public services
through the imposition of parcel taxes; a Community Facilities District (CFD) formed
pursuant to the Act issues bonds against these special taxes to finance public works.
The Act allows property owners or voters to either form a new CFD or annex into an
existing CFD after following certain procedures, including a specified protest hearing
process. Without access to Mello-Roos bond funding, many builders would have to pay
SB 1385 (Caballero) Page 3 of 4
higher development impact fees and raise housing prices. But if a CFD pays for capital
facilities or services, local agencies can’t charge impact fees for those same facilities
and services.
Proposed Law: SB 1385 would enact the “Neighborhood Homes Act,” which
establishes a housing development project as an authorized use on a “neighborhood
lot” zoned for office or retail commercial use under a local agency’s zoning code or
general plan. A housing development project on a neighborhood lot may consist of
entirely residential units or a mix of commercial retail, office, or residential uses, and
must comply with all of the following:
The density for the housing development must meet or exceed the applicable
density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income
households under housing element law. If more than one zoning designation in
the city or county meets this requirement, the zoning standards that apply to a
neighborhood lot are the same zoning standards that apply to the closest parcel
that allows for residential use at that density. If the existing zoning on the parcel
allows denser residential use, the local zoning applies.
The housing development is subject to local zoning, parking, design, and other
ordinances, and must comply with any design review or other procedural
requirements imposed by the local government, applicable to a housing
development in the zone identified above.
SB 1385 allows a local agency to exempt a lot zoned for commercial retail or office use
from the bill if the local agency concurrently reallocates the lost residential density to
other lots so that there is no net loss in residential production capacity, but only if the
local agency finds that the construction cost of the reallocated housing units will not be
greater than the construction cost of housing units built on the neighborhood lot.
SB 1385 provides that its provisions do not alter or lessen the applicability of any
housing, environmental, or labor law applicable to a housing development authorized by
the bill, as specified. The bill also specifies that, for purposes of the Housing
Accountability Act, , a project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with
local standards if it meets the standards applied by the bill to a neighborhood lot.
SB 1385 also modifies the Mello-Roos annexation process. The bill allows an applicant
seeking to develop a housing project on a neighborhood lot to request that a Mello-
Roos CFD be formed or annexed into an existing CFD, consistent with existing law.
However, SB 1385 allows annexation of a neighborhood lot into an existing CFD without
the opportunity for existing CFD residents to protest. An applicant who voluntarily
enrolls in a CFD cannot be required to pay impact fees or exactions to the extent that
these facilities and services are funded by the CFD, consistent with existing law, but
must pay all costs not funded by the CFD.
SB 1385 allows housing developments on neighborhood lots to be eligible for SB 35’s
streamlined ministerial approval process if it meets all of the following requirements:
The proposed project meets the objective zoning, design, and subdivision
standards that apply to the neighborhood lot as a result of SB 1385;
SB 1385 (Caballero) Page 4 of 4
The proposed project meets all of SB 35’s other requirements; and
The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use and 50 percent or more of its
total square footage has been vacant for a period of at least three years prior to
the submission of the application.
Related Legislation: SB 1299 (Portantino), which is currently pending in this
Committee, would establish a program administered by HCD, upon appropriation of
funding by the Legislature, to provide grants to cities and counties that rezone idle or
underutilized big box retailer or commercial shopping center properties and instead
provide for the development of workforce housing, as specified.
SB 1385 is part of the Senate’s 2020 Housing Production Package , which also includes
the following bills:
SB 902 (Wiener), which is currently pending in this Committee, would allow a
local government to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 units per parcel,
notwithstanding local voter initiatives, in infill, transit-rich, or high opportunity
areas. SB 902 also provides that this zoning is not considered a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
SB 995 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would expand the
streamlined judicial review provisions of the Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900) to a project with at least
15% of its units affordable to lower income households and a minimum
investment of $15 million, and extend AB 900 provisions until 2025.
SB 1085 (Skinner), which is currently pending in this Committee, would grant a
density bonus to a project with at least 20% of its units affordable to moderate
income households and increases the density bonus from 35% to 40% for
projects that include the maximum amount of very low income households under
density bonus law.
SB 1120 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would require
ministerial approval of either or both of the following, as specified: a housing
development of up to two units (duplexes); and the subdivision of a parcel into
two equal parts (urban lot split). The bill would also extend the life of subdivision
maps by one year, up to a total of four years, as specified.
Staff Comments: The bill’s mandated local costs would not be subject to state
reimbursement because local agencies have the authority to charge and adjust planning
and permitting fees as necessary to cover administrative costs. Existing law authorizes
planning and zoning fees to “include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and
revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make
any necessary findings and determinations.” Case law and previous decisions by the
Commission on State Mandates support the position that local governments’ planning
costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning mandates.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 1120 (Atkins) - Subdivisions: tentative maps
Version: May 20, 2020 Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 7 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: June 9, 2020 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: SB 1120 would require cities and counties to provide for the ministerial
consideration of a proposed housing development containing two residential units (a
duplex), and ministerial approval of a parcel map dividing a lot into two equal parts for
residential use (an urban lot split), as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates it would
incur costs of $105,000 in the first year and $99,000 annually thereafter for 0.5 PY of
staff time to provide technical assistance and outreach education to local agencies
and affordable housing developers. (General Fund)
Unknown local costs to establish streamlined project review processes for proposed
duplex housing developments and tentative maps for urban lot splits, and to conduct
expedited design reviews of these proposals. These costs are not state-
reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust
planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with
new planning mandates. (local funds).
Background: The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a
general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A
general plan must include seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that
establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’
and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other
aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans.
Zoning ordinances establish the type of land uses that are authorized in a designated
area, often identifying a primary use for parcels in an area, as well as other uses that
may be allowed if they meet conditions imposed by the local agency to address
aesthetics, community impacts, or other site-specific considerations.
Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects that are
permitted “by right”—the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is
allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the
permit if the application is complete. Local governments have two options for providing
landowners with relief from zoning ordinances that might otherwise prohibit or restrict a
particular land use: variances and conditional use permits. A variance may be granted
to alleviate a unique hardship on a property owner because of the way a generally-
applicable zoning ordinance affects a particular parcel, and a conditional use permit
allows a land use that is not authorized by right in a zoning ordinance, but may be
authorized if the property owner takes certain steps, such as to mitigate the potential
SB 1120 (Atkins) Page 2 of 4
impacts of the land use. Both of these processes require hearings by the local zoning
board and public notice.
Some housing projects can be permitted by city or county planning staff ministerially or
without further approval from elected officials. Projects reviewed ministerially require
only an administrative review designed to ensure they are consistent with existing
general plan and zoning rules, as well as meet standards for building quality, health,
and safety. Most large housing projects are not allowed ministerial review. Instead,
these projects are discretionary and vetted through both public hearings and
administrative review, including design review and appeals processes. Most housing
projects that require discretionary review and approval are subject to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, while projects permitted ministerially are not.
Existing law requires local agencies to ministerially permit the development of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on residential parcels, either within the space of an
existing single family home or in a new or converted structure in the rear of a property,
or both, regardless of local zoning restrictions. ADU law places numerous specified
limitations on the ability of local governments to impose requirements on ADUs to
encourage small-scale neighborhood development.
The Subdivision Map Act establishes a statewide regulatory framework for controlling
the subdividing of land into parcels for sale, lease, or financing. Local subdivision
approvals must be consistent with city and county general plans. For smaller
subdivisions that create four or fewer parcels, local officials usually use parcel maps,
but they can require tentative parcel maps followed by final parcel maps. The Map Act
also constrains the dedications and improvements that local cities and counties can
require as a condition of a subdivision of four or fewer lots to only the dedication of
rights-of-way, easements, and the construction of reasonable offsite and onsite
improvements for the parcels being created.
Proposed Law: SB 1120 would require cities and counties to provide for the
ministerial consideration of a proposed housing development containing two residential
units (a duplex), and ministerial approval of a parcel map dividing a parcel into two
equal parts for residential use (an urban lot split), under specified conditions.
To be eligible, a proposed duplex or parcel proposed for subdivision must be located
within an urbanized area or urban cluster, as defined by the United States Census and
cannot be located on any of the following:
Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
Wetlands;
Land within the very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the development
complies with state mitigation requirements;
A hazardous waste site;
An earthquake fault zone;
Land within the 100-year floodplain or a floodway;
Land identified for conservation under a natural community conservation plan, or
lands under conservation easement;
Habitat for protected species; or
A site that has been placed on a national, state, or local historic register.
SB 1120 (Atkins) Page 3 of 4
Duplex provisions. SB 1120 requires a housing development containing two units to be
considered ministerially in single family zones if the development meets certain
conditions, including the requirements on eligible parcels above. The project also
cannot require demolition or alteration that would require the evacuation or eviction of
an existing housing unit of any of the following types of housing:
Rent-restricted housing, including deed-restricted affordable housing and
housing subject to rent or price control by a public entity’s police power;
Housing that has been the subject of an Ellis Act eviction within the past 15
years; or
Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
A city or county may impose objective zoning and design standards that do not conflict
with the provisions of the bill, and a city or county cannot require a project to comply
with any standard that would prevent two units from being built. SB 1120 prohibits
demolition of more than one exterior wall of an existing structure unless the local
ordinance allows greater demolition or if the site has not been occupied by a tenant in
the last three years. The bill would also allow a local government to adopt an ordinance
to implement its duplex provisions, and specify that the adoption of such an ordinance is
not subject to CEQA.
Urban lot splits. SB 1120 requires a city or county to ministerially approve or deny a
parcel map for an urban lot split that meets specified requirements, in addition to the
requirements for eligible parcels that apply to both duplexes and urban lot splits.
Specifically, the urban lot split must meet the following requirements:
The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create two new parcels of equal
size.
Both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet, unless the
local agency adopts a smaller minimum lot size.
The parcel being subdivided is zoned for residential use.
The parcel does not contain rent-restricted housing, housing where an owner has
exercised their rights under the Ellis Act within the past 15 years, or housing that
has been occupied by tenants in the past three years.
The parcel being subdivided was not previously created through an urban lot
split, and none of the adjoining parcels were created by an urban lot split and
owned by the same owner.
SB 1120 prohibits a local agency from imposing regulations that require dedications of
rights-of-way or the construction of reasonable offsite and onsite improvements for
parcels created through an urban lot split. However, a local agency may require
easements and that the parcel have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public
right-of-way. A local agency can impose objective zoning and design standards that do
not conflict with the bill, so long as those standards do not reduce the buildable area, as
defined, on each newly created parcel to less than 50 percent of the buildable area on
the parcel being subdivided. The bill would also allow a local government to adopt an
ordinance to implement the urban lot split requirements, and specify that the adoption of
such an ordinance is not subject to CEQA.
SB 1120 (Atkins) Page 4 of 4
SB 1120 prohibits the development of ADUs on parcels that use both the urban lot split
and duplex provisions of the bill, and it applies the limitations on parking requirements
from ADU law to both duplexes and urban lot splits under the bill.
SB 1120 allows local governments to extend the life of subdivision maps by one year ,
up to a total of four years.
Related Legislation: SB 1120 is part of the Senate’s 2020 Housing Production
Package, which also includes the following bills:
SB 902 (Wiener), which is currently pending in this Committee, would allow a
local government to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 units per parcel,
notwithstanding local voter initiatives, in infill, transit-rich, or high opportunity
areas. SB 902 also provides that this zoning is not considered a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
SB 995 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would expand the
streamlined judicial review provisions of the Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900) to a project with at least
15% of its units affordable to lower income households and a minimum
investment of $15 million, and extend AB 900 provisions until 2025.
SB 1085 (Skinner), which is currently pending in this Committee, would grant a
density bonus to a project with at least 20% of its units affordable to moderate
income households and increases the density bonus from 35% to 40% for
projects that include the maximum amount of very low income households under
density bonus law.
SB 1385 (Caballero), which is currently pending in this Committee, would enact
the “Neighborhood Homes Act,” which establishes a housing development
project as an authorized use on a parcel currently zoned for office or retail
commercial use, as specified in a local agency’s zoning code or g eneral plan.
Staff Comments: The bill’s mandated local costs would not be subject to state
reimbursement because local agencies have the authority to charge and adjust planning
and permitting fees as necessary to cover administrative costs. Existing law authorizes
planning and zoning fees to “include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and
revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make
any necessary findings and determinations.” Case law and previous de cisions by the
Commission on State Mandates support the position that local governments’ planning
costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning mandates.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 995 (Atkins) - Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011: housing projects
Version: June 2, 2020 Policy Vote: E.Q. 5 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: June 9, 2020 Consultant: Ashley Ames
Bill Summary: This bill would extend the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through
Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 until 2025, and would make housing projects that
meet certain requirements eligible for certification under the Act.
Fiscal Impact:
The California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) estimates ongoing costs of
$384,000 (special fund) annually to determine within 60 days whether a project will
result in a net increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Unknown costs (General Fund) to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
to review and certify "leadership projects" and, potentially, to issue guidelines
regarding application and certification of projects.
Potential unknown cost pressure (General Fund) to the state-funded court system to
process and hear challenges to the project's environmental review within the
timeframes prescribed by the bill. (See staff comments.)
Unknown but likely minor costs (General Fund) to Judicial Council to adopt rules of
the court to guide implementation of the provisions of this bill and to report to the
Legislature.
Background:
The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011
(AB 900). AB 900 established specified administrative and judicial review procedures for
the review of the environmental review documents and public agency approvals granted
for designated residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or
recreational use projects, known as Environmental Leadership Development Projects
(ELDP). To qualify as an ELDP, the project must meet specified objective environmental
standards. The Legislature has also applied similar expedited frameworks for specific
sports stadiums that meet certain objective environmental standards.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proceedings. Current law requires the
courts to give CEQA-related cases preference over “all other civil actions… so that the
action or proceeding shall be quickly heard and determined” (PRC §21167.1). In
addition to this existing mandate, the AB 900 process provides that the courts, to the
extent feasible, must complete the judicial review process in a given timeframe for
certain CEQA-related actions or proceedings. As a consequence, such mandates on a
court delay access for other, unknown cases such as medical malpractice suits,
wrongful death suits, or contract disputes, as well as potentially exacerbating a court’s
backlog on civil documents such as filing a new civil complaint, processing answers and
SB 995 (Atkins) Page 2 of 3
cross complaints, or processing a demurrer or summary judgement. Calendar
preferences and guaranteed time frames create additional demands and burden on our
courts that have very limited resources and a never-ending supply of cases to hear.
AB 900 lawsuits. Of the projects that have been subject to AB 900, or similar expedited
judicial review, four projects have been challenged under CEQA. Expedited judicial
review does not always guarantee a 270 day timeframe and cases can take longer to
resolve due to, among other reasons, (1) ambiguity if the 270 days applies to business
days or calendar days and if it includes appeals to the Supreme Court, (2) non-CEQA
related actions which are not subject to the 270 day timeframe that are filed in addition
to CEQA actions, or (3) consolidation of many, and sometimes complicated, actions.
Proposed Law: This bill would:
1) Require a lead agency to prepare a master EIR for a general plan, plan
amendment, plan element, or specific plan for housing projects where the state
has provided funding for the preparation of the master EIR.
2) Extend the Governor’s authority to certify a leadership project to January 1, 2024,
and repeal AB 900 January 1, 2025.
3) Make housing projects that meet certain requirements eligible for certification,
including:
a) The project is located on an infill site.
b) For a project located within a metropolitan planning organization for which a
sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy is in effect,
the project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building
intensity, and applicable policies specified in either a sustainable communities
strategies or an alternative planning strategy, as specified.
c) The project will result in a minimum investment of $15 million in California
upon completion.
d) At least 15 percent of the housing project is affordable housing.
Related Legislation:
AB 2991 (Santiago) extends the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through
Environmental Leadership Act for five years, and makes various changes to the
requirements of the Act. AB 2991 is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 25 (Caballero, 2019) provides qualified projects, which includes housing projects
that will obtain LEED Gold certification and with a minimum 40% affordable housing,
with expedited judicial review. SB 25 is in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
SB 621 (Glazer, 2019) provides affordable housing projects that meet certain
requirements, including LEED Gold certification and a minimum 30% of the housing
SB 995 (Atkins) Page 3 of 3
units be affordable housing, with expedited judicial review. SB 621 is in the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee.
Staff Comments:
CARB costs. CARB notes that it did not receive any additional resources to complete
the additional analyses required under AB 900. It is resource intensive for CARB to
determine within 60 days whether a project will result in a net increase of greenhouse
gas emissions, as application materials and calculation methodologies often exceed
thousands of pages. To cover this workload, CARB has had to divert staff from other
core program areas, which is no longer sustainable.
In 2019, CARB worked on nine projects under the AB 900 program and made GHG
emissions determinations for eight of the nine projects, six of which were undergoing
simultaneous review. Based on this bill’s authorization allowing residential projects of
only $15 million or more to qualify and the recent trend of increasing project applications
of greater complexity, CARB anticipates that its workload could continue to increase if
this bill is enacted.
Court costs. This bill would result in potential cost pressure of an unknown amount to
the state-funded court system to process and hear challenges to a project's
environmental review within the timeframes prescribed by the bill. It is possible that,
absent this bill, the state would face similar costs resulting from challenges to a project
that would occur over a period longer than timeframes prescribed by this bill. However,
the acceleration of some cases due to this bill could result in the need for extra
personnel and resources in order for the courts to hear them within the required period.
The Governor’s May Revision of the state budget includes significant proposed cuts to
trail court operations that increase the likelihood that this bill could result in cost
pressure. Specifically, the May Revision withdraws a January budget proposal of $107.6
million (General Fund) ongoing to support trial court operations, and instead proposes a
reduction of $206.2 million (General Fund) ongoing in order to balance the state budget.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 902 (Wiener) - Planning and zoning: housing development: density
Version: May 21, 2020 Policy Vote: HOUSING 9 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: June 9, 2020 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: SB 902 would authorize a local government to pass an ordinance to
zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified
in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an
urban infill site, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates total
General Fund costs of $462,000 in the first year, and $329,000 annually thereafter
as follows:
o $262,000 in the first year and $249,000 annually thereafter for 1.25 PY of
staff time to: produce guidance materials and provide technical assistance to
local governments and developers; coordinate with the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) and academic researchers to identify jobs-rich
areas, perform IT services to publish maps; and update the jobs-rich data and
mapping every five years.
o $200,000 in the first year and $80,000 annually ongoing to contract with
researchers to develop, host, and update the jobs-ri ch maps.
Unknown, likely minor costs for OPR to coordinate with HCD to identify high
opportunity areas that are either jobs-rich or enable shorter commute distances, as
specified. (General Fund)
Background: The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a
general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A
general plan must include seven mandatory elements, including a housing element that
establishes the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’
and counties’ major land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other
aspects of development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans.
Zoning ordinances establish the type of land uses that are authorized in a designated
area, often identifying a primary use for parcels in an area, as well as other uses that
may be allowed if they meet conditions imposed by the local agency to address
aesthetics, community impacts, or other site-specific considerations. A zoning
ordinance may be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if it will
have a significant impact on the environment. The adoption of local ordinances
providing for accessory dwelling unit development, however, are explicitly exempt from
CEQA. There are also several statutory exemptions that provide limited environmental
SB 902 (Wiener) Page 2 of 3
review for projects that are consistent with a previously adopted general plan,
community plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance
Local governments have two options for providing landowners with relief from zoning
ordinances that might otherwise prohibit or restrict a particular land use: variances and
conditional use permits. A variance may be granted to alleviate a unique hardship on a
property owner because of the way a generally-applicable zoning ordinance affects a
particular parcel, and a conditional use permit allows a land use that is not authorized
by right in a zoning ordinance, but may be authorized if the property owner takes certain
steps, such as to mitigate the potential impacts of the land use. Both of these
processes require hearings by the local zoning board and public notice.
A city or county’s housing element must identify adequate sites for housing at all income
levels—very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income. Each local jurisdiction
must also ensure that its housing element makes enough sites available to
accommodate its share of the regional housing need assessment (RHNA), which is an
estimate for various regions in the state that is developed by the Department of Finance
and HCD and further allocated amongst individual local jurisdictions. The housing
element of a general plan must generally be updated every eight years, and the local
government must identify an adequate number of sites throughout its entire planning
period. If a city or county does not have enough sites within its existing inventory of
residentially zoned land to accommodate its share of the regional housing needs, it
must adopt a program to rezone land within the first three years of the planning period.
Every city and county must submit a report to HCD and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research annually on its implementation and progress towards meeting
its RHNA amount and removing governmental obstacles to housing development.
Proposed Law: SB 902 would authorize a local government to pass an ordinance to
zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified
in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an
urban infill site. Specifically, this bill would:
Authorize passage of the ordinance, notwithstanding any local restrictions on
adopting ordinances enacted by the jurisdiction, including restrictions enacted by a
local voter initiative that limit the ability to adopt zoning ordinances.
Specify that an ordinance adopted under this bill would not be considered a project
for purposes of CEQA.
Define “jobs-rich area” as an area identified by HCD, in consultation with OPR, that
is high opportunity and either jobs rich or would enable shorter commuter distances
based upon whether, in a regional analysis, the tract meets both of the following:
o It is high opportunity, meaning its characteristics are associated with positive
educational and economic outcomes for households of all income levels; and
o New housing sited in the tract would enable residents to either live near more
jobs than is typical for the region, or enable shorter commute distances for
residents, as specified.
Require HCD to publish a state map showing areas identified as “jobs -rich areas” by
January 1, 2022, and to update the map every five years thereafter.
Define “transit rich area” as a parcel within one -half mile of a major transit stop or a
parcel on a high quality bus corridor with a fixed-route bus service that meets
specified service interval times.
SB 902 (Wiener) Page 3 of 3
Define “urban infill site” as a site that satisfies all of the following:
o A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city
boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster,
or for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the
boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster.
o A site in which at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that
are developed with urban uses.
o A site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development,
or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of
residential and nonresidential sues, with at least 2/3 of the square footage of
the development designated for residential use.
Related Legislation: SB 902 is part of the Senate’s 2020 Housing Production
Package, which also includes the following bills:
SB 995 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would expand the
streamlined judicial review provisions of the Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900) to a project with at least
15% of its units affordable to lower income households and a minimum
investment of $15 million, and extend AB 900 provisions until 2025.
SB 1085 (Skinner), which is currently pending in this Committee, would grant a
density bonus to a project with at least 20% of its units affordable to moderate
income households and increases the density bonus from 35% to 40% for
projects that include the maximum amount of very low income households under
density bonus law.
SB 1120 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would require
ministerial approval of either or both of the following, as specified: a housing
development of up to two units (duplexes); and the subdivision of a parcel into
two equal parts (urban lot split). The bill would also extend the life of subdivisio n
maps by one year, up to a total of four years, as specified.
SB 1385 (Caballero), which is currently pending in this Committee, would enact
the “Neighborhood Homes Act,” which establishes a housing development
project as an authorized use on a parcel currently zoned for office or retail
commercial use, as specified in a local agency’s zoning code or general plan.
SB 35 (Wiener), Chap. 366/2017, created a streamlined, ministerial approval process
for infill developments in cities and counties that have failed to meet their RHNA
production targets.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 1085 (Skinner) - Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or
concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income
persons and families: local government constraints
Version: May 27, 2020 Policy Vote: HOUSING 9 - 0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: June 9, 2020 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
Bill Summary: SB 1085 would make several changes to the Density Bonus Law and
grant additional benefits to housing development projects with a specified percentage of
units designated for low and moderate income households, if the rent charged for those
units is 30% below the market rate for the jurisdiction in which the development is
proposed.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates it would
incur costs of $101,000 in 2020-21 and $95,000 in 2021-22 for 0.5 PY of staff time to
update guidance documents for the Density Bonus Law, and to provide technical
assistance and outreach education to local agencies and affordable housing
developers. (General Fund)
Unknown local costs to provide for the additional incentives when applying a density
bonus, as specified. These costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies
have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover
their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds).
Background: Existing law requires a city or county to adopt an ordinance that specifies
how it will implement state Density Bonus Law, which requires the granting of a
specified density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of 5 or more units
agrees to construct a project with at least any of the following:
1) 10% of housing units dedicated for lower income households;
2) 5% of units for very low-income households;
3) A senior citizen development or mobilehome park;
4) 10% of units in a common interest development for moderate income households;
5) 10% of the total units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless
persons; or
6) 20% of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing development.
Existing law requires a city or county to allow an increase in density of 20% - 35% on a
sliding scale, depending on the percentage of units affordable to very low- and low-
income households, over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under
the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan. For #4
above, however, the increase in density is limited to 5%. Allowing more total units in a
SB 1085 (Skinner) Page 2 of 3
project allows a developer to spread the subsidized cost of affordable units more
broadly over the market-rate units, making affordable housing more financially feasible.
In addition to the density bonus, existing law provides a sliding scale of incentives or
concessions as follows:
One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10% of the total
units for moderate-income households, 10% of the total units for lower-income
households, or at least 5% for very low-income households.
Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20% of the total
units for moderate-income households, 20% of the total units for lower income
households, or least 10% for very low income households.
Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total
units for moderate-income households 30% of the total units for lower-income
households, or at least 15% for very low-income households.
Existing housing element law requires every city and county must submit a report to
HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research annually on its
implementation and progress towards meeting its share of the regional housing needs
assessment amount and removing governmental obstacles to housing development.
Proposed Law: SB 1085 would make changes to the Density Bonus Law and
incentivize the construction of housing developments that will contain a specified
percentage of units for low and moderate income households and for which the rent is
30% below market rate. Specifically, this bill would:
Require a city or county to include data on the number of units in a student housing
development for lower-income students for which a developer was granted a density
bonus in the annual housing progress report it files with HCD.
Make a student housing development eligible for one incentive or concession if at
least 20% of the units are for lower-income students, as defined.
Grant a 35% density bonus for a development with 20% of the units for low or
moderate income households and the rent is 30% below the market rate for the
jurisdiction in which the development is located. A local government may not
impose a parking ratio that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom if a project meeting
these criteria is located within ½ mile of a transit stop, as specified.
Provide for the following sliding scale of concessions and incentives for a
development with a specified percentage of the units reserved for low or moderate
income households and rent that is 30% below the jurisdiction’s market rate, as
specified:
o One incentive or concession for a project that includes at least 20% of the
units for low or moderate income households.
o Two incentives or concessions for a project that includes at least 30% of the
units for low or moderate income households.
o Three incentives or concessions for a project that includes at least 40% of the
units for low or moderate income households.
Prohibit fees relating to affordable housing, including inclusionary zoning fees, in lieu
fees, and public benefit fees established unde r a local agency’s police powers from
being imposed on the affordable units or bonus units of a housing development.
SB 1085 (Skinner) Page 3 of 3
Define “total units” or “total dwelling units” as a calculation of the number of units that
excludes a unit added by a specified density bonus and includes a unit designated to
satisfy a local agency’s inclusionary zoning requirement .
Related Legislation: AB 2345 (Gonzalez), which is currently pending on the Assembly
Floor, would revise Density Bonus Law to increase the maximum allowable density
bonus and the number of concessions and incentives a developer can seek, as
specified.
Staff notes that this bill is part of the Senate’s 2020 Housing Production Package, which
also includes the following measures:
SB 902 (Wiener), which is currently pending in this Committee, would allow a
local government to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 units per parcel,
notwithstanding local voter initiatives, in infill, transit-rich, or high opportunity
areas. SB 902 also provides that this zoning is not considered a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
SB 995 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would expand the
streamlined judicial review provisions of the Jobs and Economic Improvement
Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900) to a project with at least
15% of its units affordable to lower income households and a minimum
investment of $15 million, and extend AB 900 provisions until 2025.
SB 1120 (Atkins), which is currently pending in this Committee, would require
ministerial approval of either or both of the following, as specified: a housing
development of up to two units (duplexes); and the subdivision of a parcel into
two equal parts (urban lot split). The bill would also extend the life of subdivision
maps by one year, up to a total of four years, as specified.
SB 1385 (Caballero), which is currently pending in this Committee, would enact
the “Neighborhood Homes Act,” which establishes a housing development
project as an authorized use on a parcel currently zoned for office or retail
commercial use, as specified in a local agency’s zoning code or general plan.
Staff Comments: The bill’s mandated local costs would not be subject to state
reimbursement because local agencies have the authority to charge and adjust planning
and permitting fees as necessary to cover administrative costs. Existing law authorizes
planning and zoning fees to “include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and
revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make
any necessary findings and determinations.” Case law and previous decisions by the
Commission on State Mandates support the position that local governments’ planning
costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning mandates.
-- END --
AB 725
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 725 (Wicks)
As Amended January 16, 2020
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Amends Housing Element law to require certain jurisdictions to zone for multi-family moderate
and above-moderate income housing.
Major Provisions
1) Requires that, for incorporated areas within a metropolitan jurisdiction, at least 25% of the
jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for both the moderate-income and above
moderate-income housing categories must be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at
least two units of housing, but no more than 35 units of housing per acre.
2) Specifies that, for sites with this allocation:
a) A project proponent may propose, and a jurisdiction may approve, a single-family
detached home;
b) This allocation cannot be the basis for a jurisdiction to deny a project that does not
comply with the allocation; and
c) This allocation cannot be the basis for a jurisdiction to not impose price controls, or in
lieu thereof, any exactions or conditions of approval.
3) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B
of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to
levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service
mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
COMMENTS:
The cost of housing in California is the highest of any state in the nation. One of the many
reasons that housing is too expensive is the type of housing that is being built. Almost all of the
housing built in California is single-family (which can be an inefficient use of land) and mid- and
high-rise construction (which are expensive to build). One strategy to lower the cost of housing
is to facilitate the construction of "missing-middle" housing types, including medium-density
typologies such as duplexes, fourplexes, garden apartment, town homes, and their ilk. These
types of units have many benefits, including being land-efficient; less expensive to build; being
more contextually similar to existing single-family neighborhoods; providing sufficient density
to support the shops, restaurants, and transit that are associated with walkable neighborhoods;
helping expand the pool of homebuilders, since the construction and building materials are
comparatively less complicated than larger mid- and high-rise structures; and being naturally less
expensive in the market because they are typically smaller than single-family homes, thereby
helping increase access to opportunity and facilitate neighborhood equity and inclusion.
A major reason that these units are not being built is that they are not allowed under local zoning.
A 2019 Terner Center survey of California cities and counties revealed that only 7% zoned over
AB 725
Page 2
half their land for multi-family housing, and only 35% zoned even 25% of their land for multi-
family housing.
One reason that there is not sufficient land zoned for medium-density housing is that it is not
local jurisdictions are not required to do so. In planning for housing, housing element law
requires local jurisdictions to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs
through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. RHNAs are assigned by four
income categories as guideposts for each community to develop a mix of housing types for all
economic segments of the population. These income categories include very low-income (under
50% of Area Median Income (AMI)), low-income (between 50-80% of AMI), moderate-income
(80%-120% of AMI), and above-moderate income (above 120% of AMI). Upon receiving its
RHNA, each jurisdiction must then demonstrate, through its housing element, that the
development capacity exists to accommodate, at a minimum, the allocation for each of the four
income categories. Jurisdictions do so by creating an inventory of developable sites. Per housing
element law, sites determined to be eligible for very low-income and low-income housing must
be zoned for a density of at least 30 units per acre in metropolitan jurisdiction and 20 units per
acre in suburban jurisdictions. There is no density minimum for moderate-income and above
moderate-income housing sites, which represent approximately 60% of the overall housing
allocation.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the development of more medium density housing at
moderate and above-moderate incomes, akin to the requirement for very low- and low-income
housing. It would do so by requiring at least 25% of the jurisdiction's share of the regional
housing need for both moderate-income and above moderate-income housing be allocated to
sites with zoning that allows at least two units of housing, but no more than 35 units per acre of
housing. Such density would enable the production of medium-density housing on these sites
that typically are subject to more restrictive zoning currently. For a typical jurisdiction, this bill
would increase the minimum percentage of land zoned for multi-family housing from
approximately 40% to 55%.
According to the Author:
According to the author, "As we continue to tackle the housing crisis, "missing middle"
developments prompt the loudest outcry and have the best chance of being relatively more
affordable for residents who make too much for subsidized housing but still can't afford market-
rate homes."
Arguments in Support:
According to California YIMBY, the bill "will require many local governments, especially in
high-cost coastal areas, to plan for multigenerational neighborhoods that are more inclusive and
more able to accommodate multiple income levels."
Arguments in Opposition:
None on file
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, no state costs. Any state-mandated
local costs are not reimbursable by the state because cities and counties have fee authority to
recover those costs.
AB 725
Page 3
VOTES:
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-0-1
YES: Chiu, Bloom, Gloria, Kiley, Limón, Maienschein, Quirk-Silva
ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-3-0
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas
NO: Lackey, Boerner Horvath, Voepel
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-6-1
YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Eduardo Garcia,
Maienschein, Quirk, Robert Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong, Petrie-Norris
ABS, ABST OR NV: Gabriel
UPDATED:
VERSION: January 16, 2020
CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002629
AB 2345
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2345 (Gonzalez and Chiu)
As Amended May 22, 2020
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Revises Density Bonus Law to increase the maximum allowable density and the number of
concessions and incentives a developer can seek.
Major Provisions
1) Requires a developer to receive four incentives and concessions for projects that include the
following percentage of total units: 31% for lower income households, 13% for very low
income households, and 31% for moderate income households in a common interest
development.
2) Requires a developer to receive five incentives and concessions for projects that include the
follow percentage of total units: 33% for lower income households, 15% for very low income
households, and 33% for moderate income households in a common interest development.
3) Requires a developer to receive three incentives or concession for projects that include 12%
rather than 15% for very low income households.
4) Requires a developer to receive six instead of four incentives and concessions for projects
that are within one-half mile of transit that are 100% affordable to lower income households,
although 20% may be affordable to moderate income households.
5) Gives a local government discretion to grant additional waivers or reductions in development
standards for projects that are within one-half mile of transit and are 100% affordable to
lower income households, although 20% may be available to moderate income households.
6) Extends the density bonuses that a developer can request as follows (additions in bold,
underlined, and italics):
Very Low Income Density Bonus
Percent Very Low
Income Units
Percent Density
Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
≥15 50
AB 2345
Page 2
Low Income Density Bonus
Percent Low
Income Units
Percent Density
Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
16 29
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
21 38.75
22 42.5
23 46.25
24 50
25 50
26 50
27 50
28 50
29 50
30 50
31 50
32 50
≥ 33 50
Moderate Income Density Bonus
Percent Moderate
Income Units
Percent Density
Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
AB 2345
Page 3
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
41 38.75
42 42.5
43 46.25
≥ 44 50
7) Provides that if a city, county, or city and county has adopted a density bonus ordinance that
requires a higher percentage of density bonus than what is required above prior to the
enactment of this Act then that density bonus ordinance is not required to be updated.
8) Defines "natural or constructed impediments," for the purpose of calculating the distance of a
project from a major transit stop, to include, but not be limited to, freeways, rivers,
mountains, and bodies of water, but does not include residential structures, shopping centers,
parking lots, or rails used for transit.
9) Provides that the distance of a development from a major transit stop shall be measured from
any point located on the property of the proposed development to any point on the property
on which the major transit stop is located, including any parking lot owned by the transit
authority or other local agency operating the major transit stop.
10) Reduces the amount of parking a local government can require of a developer requesting a
density bonus as follows:
a) For two to three bedrooms from 2 spaces to 1.5 spaces; and
b) For four or more bedrooms 2.5 to 2 spaces.
AB 2345
Page 4
11) Reduce the amount of parking a local government can require for a development that
includes the maximum amount of very-low income or low income housing units under
density bonus law and that is with one-half mile of unobstructed access to mass transit, from
0.5 spaces per bedroom to 0.5 spaces per unit.
12) Reduces the amount of parking a local government can require of a 100% affordable
development for lower income households within one-half mile of unobstructed access to
mass transit, from 0.5 spaces per unit to zero spaces per unit.
13) Reduces the amount of parking a local government can require of a 100% affordable rental
development for seniors 62 years or older, with either paratransit service or unobstructed
access within one-have mile of a fixed bus route that operates eight times a day, from 0.5
spaces per unit to zero spaces per unit.
14) Requires the following local governments include the following information in the housing
element annual report:
a) The number of density bonus applications received by the city or county;
b) The number of density bonus applications approved by the city or county; and
c) Data from a sample of projects, selected by the planning agency, approved to receive a
density bonus from the city or county, including, but not limited to, the percentage of
density bonus received, the percentage of affordable units in the project, the number of
other incentives or concessions granted to the project, and any waiver or reduction of
parking standards for the project.
15) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this Act because a local government has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments to pay for the program or level of
services mandated by the Act.
COMMENTS:
Density bonus law: Density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979, to help address the
affordable housing shortage and to encourage development of more low- and moderate income
housing units. Over 40 years later, the state faces the same affordable housing challenges.
Density bonus is a tool to encourage the production of affordable housing by market rate
developers, although it is used by developers building 100% affordable developments as well. In
return for inclusion of affordable units in a development, developers are given an increase in
density over a city's zoned density and concessions and incentives. The increase in density and
concessions and incentives are intended to financially support the inclusion of the affordable
units.
All local governments are required to adopt an ordinance that provides concessions and
incentives to developers that seek a density bonus on top of the cities' zoned density in exchange
for including extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income housing. Failure to adopt an
ordinance does not relieve a local government from complying with state density bonus law.
Local governments must grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of
five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain a percentage of
affordable housing.
AB 2345
Page 5
As part of the density bonus application, a developer may also request incentives, concessions
and parking ratio reductions. The number of incentives and concessions, and the parking ratio
reduction, vary depending on the percentage and type of affordable housing included in a project.
Maximum density: A developer can access a 35% density bonus and three concessions and
incentives under existing law. To qualify for a 35% density bonus, a developer must restrict
either 11% of the units in a development to very-low income households (making less than 50%
of Area Median Income) or 20% to lower income households (at or below 80% of AMI). This
bill would extend the density formula to a maximum density of 50%. A developer could access a
50% density bonus if between 24% to 33% of the units are restricted to low income units, 15 to
33% for very low income units; and 44% for moderate income. Committee staff notes that it is
unclear why a developer would agree to include more than the lowest possible percentage of
affordability to receive a 50% density bonus.
Concessions and incentives: In addition to an increase in density, a developer can request
concessions under density bonus law to reduce the cost of the development and support the
inclusion of the affordable housing units. Under existing law, a developer can receive up to three
incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total units for lower income
households, at least 15% for very low-income households, or at least 30% for persons and
families of moderate income in a common interest development. This bill would allow a
developer to receive four concessions and incentives for including additional density.
As discussed above, AB 2345 is based on the San Diego Affordable Homes Bonus Program,
which allowed a developer to seek up to five concessions and incentives. San Diego found that
developers only requested, at most, three concessions and incentives. It is important to note that
developers are not required to take a density bonus to receive concessions and incentives,
provided they include the required affordable housing units. Density bonus law is a balancing act
between providing enough benefits for the developer to offset the inclusion of affordable housing
units. In addition, density bonus law already requires a local government to provide waivers in
development standards to accommodate the additional density allowed under density bonus law.
The committee may wish to continue allowing a developer to seek up to three concessions and
incentives (excluding 100% affordable projects), and instead adjust the density needed to access
three concessions upward to reflect the changes proposed in other provisions of this bill.
Impact on Measure JJJ: In 2016, the voters of the City of Los Angeles approved the Transit
Oriented Communities (TOC) Affordable Housing Incentive Program to added provisions to the
municipal code to require developers requesting certain entitlements for residential projects to
either provide affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee. Measure JJJ also required the Department of
City Planning to create a program to further incentivize affordable housing near transit.
Accordingly, the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Affordable Housing Incentive Program
became effective on September 22, 2017. The program encourages affordable housing within a
half mile of major transit stops by providing additional density, reduced parking, and other
incentives for projects that include covenanted affordable units. JJJ provides a developer a 50%
density bonus if 17% of the units in the development are reserved for very low-income
households. This bill would provide a 50% density bonus if a developer restricts 15% of the
units to very low income households, which would conflict with JJJ. The committee may wish to
consider if this issue should be addressed.
AB 2345
Page 6
According to the Author:
According to the author, "California's Density Bonus Law has been on the books for 40 years,
with a goal to boost mixed-income developments, but has failed to draw enough interest from
developers. The City of San Diego took steps to enhance the state's existing program, and
generated significant interest to build additional affordable and market-rate housing.
Communities across California can take a page from the lessons learned in San Diego. Assembly
Bill 2345 will expand the Density Bonus Law to provide the same enhancements adopted by the
City of San Diego, and will help alleviate California's housing shortage. With more than 40% of
all California households spending too much of their income on housing, this bill will provide
developers the incentive to build the affordable homes we urgently need in California."
Arguments in Support:
The sponsor of this bill, Circulate San Diego, writes in support, "Circulate supports this law
because an identical effort in the City of San Diego has proven to substantially increase both the
number of applications for use of the bonus program, as well as the total number of affordable
and market rate homes permitted. Applications increased by 900% when San Diego enhanced its
program. Additionally, applications saw a 473% increase for deed-restricted affordable units, and
a 453% increase overall in units for mixed-income applications. This modest adjustment to an
existing policy will have outsized positive impacts on housing affordability and availability
across the state.
Arguments in Opposition:
The American Planning Association is opposed to this bill unless amended. They are concerned
that the percentage of affordability is too low for the corresponding density. They are also
concerned that the TOC program will be undermined by the changes proposed in this bill
because they are not consistent with that program and could serve as an incentive to choose state
density bonus law over the TOC, which requires 17% affordability for a project to receive a 50%
density bonus. This bill requires 15% to receive a 50% bonus. They are also concerned that the
number of incentives and concessions proposed is too high and also not commensurate with the
amount of affordability required.
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) Estimated costs of $200,000 (General Fund (GF )) in the first year and $190,000 (GF) in the
second year and ongoing, to the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for one staff position to update memos and guidance documents for state Density
Bonus Law, provide technical assistance and outreach to local governments and affordable
housing developers, and to analyze additional data collected from the annual progress
reports.
2) Estimated one-time costs of $75,000 (GF) to HCD for a one-time information technology
(IT) contract to update its Housing Element Tracking System to add the new data points to be
collected.
AB 2345
Page 7
VOTES:
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 7-0-1
YES: Chiu, Diep, Gabriel, Gloria, Kiley, Limón, Quirk-Silva
ABS, ABST OR NV: Maienschein
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 17-0-1
YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Megan Dahle, Diep,
Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, McCarty, Robert Rivas, Voepel
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan
UPDATED:
VERSION: May 22, 2020
CONSULTANT: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0002948
AB 1279
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1279 (Bloom)
As Introduced February 21, 2019
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Requires certain development sites in high resource areas to allow for more density and height
and makes these sites subject to "use by-right " approval.
Major Provisions
1) Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to designate areas
in this state as "high-resource areas," as defined as an area of high opportunity and low
residential density that is not currently experiencing gentrification and displacement, and that
is not at a high risk of future gentrification and displacement;
2) Requires that a housing development project must be a use by right in any high-resource area
if the development satisfies the following criteria:
a) In areas zoned only for single-family residential development, the development project
consists of up to four residential units with a height of up to 20 feet. The units would
have to be either affordable to households making 100% of the area median income
(AMI), or sold or rented at a higher AMI if the developer pays 10% of the difference to
the local jurisdiction for construction of units for households at 50% AMI or less;
b) In areas zoned for residential use that are at least one -quarter acre in size and located on a
major street and/or the central business district, the development project consists of up to
40 residential units with a height of up to 30 feet. Projects with 10 or fewer units would
need to meet the same affordability parameters as the projects in single -family zones
discussed above. Projects of more than 10 units would need to dedicate at least 10% of
the units to households with low incomes (typically 50%-80% AMI) and 5% to very low
incomes (typically under 50% AMI);
c) If the parcel exceeded one-half acre in these prime locations, a project that had at least
25% of its units dedicated to low-income households and 25% to very-low income
households would be allowed to have up to 100 residential units with a height of up to 55
feet. Such a project could receive a density bonus if it were to include additional
affordable units; and,
d) No qualifying project must require the demolition of housing that is currently for rent or
has been in the past ten years, or be located in an environmentally unsafe or sensitive
area.
COMMENTS:
The cost of housing in California is the highest of any state in the nation. According to the
Legislative Analyst's Office, the foremost reason for this is that far less housing has been built in
California's coastal areas than people demand. Facilitating the necessary growth will require
building at higher densities than are currently allowed in much of the state.
AB 1279
Page 2
Additionally, multiple studies have shown that life outcomes improve for those living in "high-
resource areas," i.e., neighborhoods with high quality public schools, proximity to well-paying
jobs, and a clean and safe environment. Such studies ha ve also shown that living in such
communities can have a particularly beneficial outcome for low-income people in terms of
health, employment, and educational attainment. However, historically low -income people have
been excluded from high-resource areas through a number of means that have only been
exacerbated by the rapidly rising cost of housing in California.
The bill is intended to help alleviate the housing crisis and reduce exclusionary practices by
making housing a use by right in high resource are as when certain criteria are met, allowing
increased densities and heights that are tailored to proximity to arterial streets and central
business districts. The bill would establish minimum amounts of affordable housing, and create
additional incentives for projects that are at least 50 percent affordable. The bill would preclude
the use of this provision for projects that would result in demolition of housing that is currently
for rent or has been in the past ten years, or be located in an environmentall y unsafe or sensitive
area. To facilitate the implementation of these requirements, the bill requires HCD to undergo a
process, with defined stakeholders, to define "high-resource areas" as areas that are not
experiencing nor at risk of gentrification and displacement.
According to the Author:
According to the author, "California's housing shortage is well-documented, and it is primarily a
shortage of units affordable to households at the lower end of the income spectrum. Facilitating
the production of affordable housing units requires increasing allowable residential densities in
many communities and creating more opportunities for multifamily development. Allowing
these types of projects to be developed by right in the most exclusionary places is crucial to
ensuring that they are able to proceed."
Arguments in Support:
Supporters argue that this bill addresses exclusionary zoning practices in high-resource areas,
which exacerbate racial and economic segregation and reduce opportunities for lower -wage
workers to live close to where they work, and will facilitate mixed -income and affordable
housing in high-resource, lower-density communities.
Arguments in Opposition:
According to the City of La Palma, "this bill would usurp cities' authority to protect and preserve
the quality of residential areas and quality of life by allowing housing developments that meet
minimum standards, including affordability requirements, by-right ".
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:
1) Estimated one-time costs to HCD of $100,000 (GF) in the first year for a mapping consultant
contract and $225,000 (GF) for HCD staff to coordinate with stakeholders and the mapping
consultant.
2) Estimated ongoing costs of $207,000 (GF) annually to HCD for program staff to support the
program.
3) Unknown ongoing administrative costs to support the program
AB 1279
Page 3
VOTES:
ASM RULES: 12-0-0
YES: Cooley, Cunningham, Carrillo, Flora, Grayson, Kamlager-Dove, Maienschein, Mathis,
Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Wicks
ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 6-1-1
YES: Chiu, Gabriel, Gloria, Kiley, Maienschein, Quirk -Silva
NO: Diep
ABS, ABST OR NV: Limón
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 5-2-1
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas
NO: Lackey, Voepel
ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner Horvath
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-6-0
YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia,
Maienschein, Quirk, Robert Rivas
NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte, Petrie -Norris
UPDATED:
VERSION: February 21, 2019
CONSULTANT: Steve Wertheim / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000743
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular Session
SB 1431 (Glazer) - Property taxation: reassessment: disaster relief
Version: May 6, 2020 Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 4 - 3
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: June 9, 2020 Consultant: Robert Ingenito
Bill Summary: SB 1431 would permit disaster reassessments for property tax
purposes for properties affected by COVID -19.
Fiscal Impact: The Board of Equalization (BOE) indicates that the revenue loss that
would result from this bill cannot be determined. However, the magnitude is likely
significant. BOE’s administration costs would be minor and absorbable.
Background: Under the California Constitution, all property is taxable unless explicitly
exempted by the Constitution or federal law. Specifically, Proposition 13 (1978) limits
the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1 percent of value, and
directs assessors to set assessed values at 1975 market value levels and only
reappraise property thereafter if there is a change in ownership or new construction.
Voters enacted Proposition 8 (1978) a few months after Proposition 13, which amended
the Constitution to allow a te mporary reduction in value to reflect substantial damage,
destruction, or other factors causing a decline in value.
Local agencies are authorized to provide for the assessment or reassessment of
taxable property “physically damaged or destroyed” for prop erty tax purposes.
Specifically, current law allows a county board of supervisors to enact an ordinance
allowing taxpayers to apply for reassessment when their property is damaged or
destroyed in a major misfortune or calamity. The ordinance can apply to large disasters,
such as earthquakes or wildfires, or site -specific incidents, like house fires. Additionally,
assessors must revalue property when a diminution in value is attributable to restricted
access to property as a result of the disaster, if the Go vernor has issued a disaster
proclamation as a result of the disaster. Restricted access traditionally means when an
event like a landslide destroys a road or imposes a physical barrier to a taxpayer
accessing their property.
If the county enacts an ordi nance, its assessor must revalue property affected by the
disaster. The loss estimate must be at least $10,000 of current market value to qualify.
The assessor will first determine the market value of a property, which often exceeds its
assessed value. The assessor then calculates a percentage loss in the market value of
the property, and multiplies that percentage by its market value. If the loss exceeds
$10,000, the assessor then compares the adjusted market value to its assessed value,
and enrolls a new value if the adjusted market value is less than the assessed value.
Taxpayers must file a claim with the county assessor within the time specified in its
ordinance, or 12 months from the date of damage or destruction, whichever is later. The
SB 1431 (Glazer) Page 2 of 3
assessor next revalues the property to its disaster-affected value, and sends the
taxpayer a notice of proposed new assessment. The county will then issue a separate
supplemental refund for taxes paid in the current year based on the amount of
reduction. The refund is prorated from the month in which the disaster occurred to the
end of the fiscal year, or completion of new construction, whichever is first. Taxpayers
must still pay their regular tax bill. Taxpayers may appeal the proposed reassessment
to the assessment appeals board within six months of the date of mailing the notice.
The property retains its disaster-affected value until fully restored, reconstructed, or
rebuilt. If the taxpayer rebuilds their property in a like or similar manner, the propert y
retains its prior base year value.
Proposed Law: This bill would, among other changes, amend disaster reassessment
law to require disaster reassessments for a state of emergency. Additionally, it would
redefine damage to include the diminution in value resulting from any law, order, rule, or
regulation of the state or any city, county, or other political subdivision providing tenant
protections in response to the COVID -19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, eviction
controls imposed under (1) Executive Order No. N-33-20, which ordered all Californians
to stay at their home or place of residence, except as specified, and (2) Executive Order
No. N-37-20, issued on March 27, 2020, extended deadlines for 60 days to evict tenants
for nonpayment of rent due to COVID -19.
The measure also defines “major misfortune or calamity” to include the COVID -19
pandemic, as defined in the Governor’ state of emergency declaration issued March 4,
2020, thereby allowing disaster reassessment for diminution in the value of property
resulting from restricted access due to the COVID -19 pandemic.
The bill would be effective immediately upon enactment, but provides that it would be
retroactive to April 5, 2020. A ffected taxpayers can submit an application within 12
months of the effective date of the bill or within the time specified in the county’s
ordinance, whichever is later.
Staff Comments: This bill would expand the eligibility for disaster relief of specified
properties affected by the COVID -19 pandemic. BOE indicates that it cannot estimate
the number or type of properties that would qualify for relief under this bill. Moreover, for
disaster relief purposes, it is unclear as to what point in time a market value
determination would be made. However, the assessed value of any property is variable
and depends on the facts of each property on a case -by case basis. The revenue loss
resulting from the bill would depend (1) on the number of properties that would qualify
for relief under this bill, (2) the type of properties, (3) the taxable value of the properties,
and (4) current market value of the properties. All of these are unknown; consequently,
the bill’s ultimate revenue loss is indeterminable.
Lower local property tax revenues lead to increased General Fund Prop osition 98
spending by up to roughly 50 percent (the exact amount depends on the specific
amount of the annual Proposition 98 guarantee, which in turns depends upon a variety
of economic, demographic and budgetary factors). Thus, this bill would lead to
increased General Fund expenditures of an unknown amount.
SB 1431 (Glazer) Page 3 of 3
The BOE will incur absorbable costs to update its documents, website materials, and
provide guidance to assessors.
Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this measure are not state -
reimbursable because the mandate only involves the definition of a crime or the penalty
for conviction of a crime.
-- END --
AB 2323
Page 1
(Without Reference to File )
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2323 (Friedman and Chiu)
As Amended June 4, 2020
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Expands the application of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for
housing and other specified projects by permitting community plans, as defined, to serve as the
basis for exemption of residential, mixed-use and employment center projects near transit and
eliminating the exclusion of sites within the boundaries of a state conservancy from existing
exemptions for affordable agricultural housing, affordable urban housing, and urban infill
housing.
Major Provisions
1) Permits community plans, as defined, to serve as the basis for exemption of residential,
mixed-use and employment center projects near transit.
2) Eliminates the exclusion of sites within the boundaries of a state conservancy from existing
exemptions for affordable agricultural housing, affordable urban housing, and urban infill
housing.
COMMENTS:
CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA
Guidelines, for housing projects. For example, any residential development project, including
any subdivision, or any zoning change that is consistent with an adopted specific plan is exempt
from CEQA pursuant to a statute enacted in 1984.
SB 1925 (Sher), Chapter 1039, Statutes of 2002 established CEQA exemptions for certain
residential projects providing affordable urban or agricultural housing, or located on an infill site
within an urbanized area, and meeting specified unit and acreage criteria.
Since SB 1925, additional legislation has provided CEQA exemptions and streamlining for
residential (including, but not limited to, affordable housing) and certain other projects in infill
areas. SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008 provided a CEQA exemption for a
narrow set of eligible residential projects in infill areas adjacent to transit. SB 226 (Simitian),
Chapter 469, Statutes of 2011 provided abbreviated CEQA review procedures for a broader set
of urban infill projects, including retail, commercial, and public buildings. SB 743 (Steinberg),
Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013established a new exemption for residential, mixed-use and
"employment center" projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, if the project
is consistent with an adopted specific plan and specified elements of an SB 375 strategy. SB 743
also required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to propose revisions to the CEQA
Guidelines for transportation impacts to better support infill development.
In 2017, the Legislature passed three bills to streamline the CEQA process for affordable
housing projects. SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017 established a ministerial
approval process (i.e., not subject to CEQA) for certain multifamily affordable housing projects
AB 2323
Page 2
that are proposed in local jurisdictions that have not met regional housing needs. SB 540 (Roth),
Chapter 369, Statutes of 2017 authorizes a city or county to establish a workforce housing
opportunity zone (WHOZ) by preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) and by adopting a
specific plan. Once a WHOZ is established, and for five years thereafter, eligible housing
developments within a WHOZ must be approved within 60 days without requiring the
preparation of an EIR or negative declaration under CEQA. AB 73 (Chiu) Chapter 371, Statutes
of 2017 authorizes a city or county to create a housing sustainability district (HSD) to complete
upfront zoning and environmental review in order to receive incentive payments for residential
and mixed-use development projects with an affordable housing component. Once the city or
county has prepared an EIR for the HSD, then housing projects within, and consistent with, a
designated HSD are exempt from CEQA.
AB 1804 (Berman), Chapter 670, Statutes of 2018 codified an existing categorical exemption for
infill projects, expanding the exemption to apply to multi-family residential and mixed-use
housing projects on infill sites in unincorporated urbanized areas or urban clusters.
Since 1978, CEQA has included statutory exemptions for housing projects. There are now 12
distinct CEQA exemptions for housing projects. Three are specific to projects with an affordable
housing fraction, the rest are available to affordable and market-rate projects alike. Each
exemption includes a range of conditions, including requirements for prior planning-level
review, as well as limitations on the location and characteristics of the site. These conditions are
intended to guard against the approval of projects with significant environmental impacts that go
undisclosed and unmitigated – endangering workers, residents and the greater environment.
However, as these exemptions have been added in bills over the past 40 years, and in particular
since SB 1925 in 2002, the conditions in each bill have varied and evolved. Some, particularly
SB 1925, included conditions which are excessively restrictive and subjective, making the
exemptions difficult to use. More recent exemptions have been less restrictive, more objective,
and have emphasized production of housing in urban areas near transit.
According to the Author:
AB 2323 is intended to help address California's housing and climate crises by ensuring that
CEQA streamlining for housing projects works as intended, and that well-planned housing near
transit and jobs is not delayed unnecessarily. AB 2323, in its current form and with pending
amendments, aims to make the existing housing exemptions more consistent, objective and
aligned with housing and climate goals.
Arguments in Support:
Housing advocates, environmental groups, local governments, planners, and environmental
professionals support the bill because it makes existing CEQA streamlining for housing projects
more practical, usable, and consistent with both housing and climate goals. For example,
according to the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), California law provides
numerous opportunities for streamlining or exempting infill housing projects from review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, these many options are often
vague, overly complicated, and inconsistent, limiting their usage by lead agencies. AB 2323
seeks to clarify and align several of these measures to help lead agencies understand and
determine when and how they can be applied.
AB 2323
Page 3
Arguments in Opposition:
The State Building and Construction Trades Council (S BCTC) and other affiliated labor unions
objected to the bill's prior provision, which was removed by the June 4 amendments, permitting
some exemptions for housing projects on sites included on the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) "Cortese List," if the site had been cleaned up and cleared for residential use.
With the removal of those provisions, and an additional clarifying amendment, SBCTC indicates
to the author they will adopt a "support if amended" position.
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no additional state costs.
VOTES:
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 7-2-2
YES: Friedman, Flora, Chau, Eggman, Limón, Mathis, McCarty
NO: Cristina Garcia, Mark Stone
ABS, ABST OR NV: Brough, Muratsuchi
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-2
YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Megan Dahle, Diep,
Eggman, Fong, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, McCarty, Robert Rivas, Voepel
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, Gabriel
UPDATED:
VERSION: June 4, 2020
CONSULTANT: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0003024
AB 3279
Page 1
(Without Reference to File )
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 3279 (Friedman)
As Amended June 4, 2020
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Revises California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) litigation procedures by 1) reducing the
deadline for a court to commence hearings from one year to 270 days, 2) providing that a lead
agency may decide whether a plaintiff prepares the administrative record, and 3) authorizing a
court to issue an interlocutory remand.
Major Provisions
1) Requires the court to regulate the briefing schedule so that, to the extent feasible, hearings
commence within 270 days, rather than one year, of the filing of the appeal.
2) Requires briefing to be completed within 60, rather than 90, days of the petitioner's request
for hearing.
3) Authorizes the plaintiff to elect to prepare the record only upon request of the public agency.
4) Authorizes a court to issue an interlocutory remand order if the court finds both of the
following:
a) The order would promote judicial efficiency and expedition.
b) The public agency's reconsideration on remand comports with due process and is not
likely to result in a post hoc rationalization of the public agency's actions.
5) Clarifies that the remand provision shall not prevent a court from entering a final judgment,
affect the right of parties to appeal that judgment, or affect the appropriate determination of
attorney's fees.
6) Repeals several obsolete sections and makes conforming and correction amendments.
COMMENTS:
In order to enforce compliance with CEQA, actions taken by public agencies can be challenged
in superior court once the agency approves the project. CEQA appeals are subject to unusually
short statutes of limitations. Under current law, CEQA lawsuits generally must be filed within
30 to 35 days, depending on the type of decision. The courts are required to give CEQA actions
preference over all other civil actions. The petitioner must request a hearing within 90 days of
filing the petition and, generally, briefing must be completed within 90 days of the request for
hearing. Courts are required to commence hearings on CEQA appeals within one year of filing,
to the extent feasible.
CEQA establishes procedures for the preparation and certification of the administrative record
(e.g., application materials, staff reports, transcripts or minutes of public proceedings, notices,
AB 3279
Page 2
written comments, and written correspondence prepared by or submitted to the public agency
regarding the proposed project).
Generally, the respondent agency is required to prepare and certify the record within 60 days of
the petitioner's request. However, the petitioner may elect to prepare the record subject to
certification by the respondent agency, or the parties may agree to an alternative method of
preparing the record.
Upon finding a public agency's actions are not in compliance with CEQA, a court is required to
order one or more of the following:
1) A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in
whole or in part.
2) If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration
or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate
that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project
activity or activities that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical
environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to comply
with CEQA.
3) A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the
determination, finding, or decision into compliance with CEQA.
Any order is required to include only those mandates that are necessary to achieve compliance
with CEQA and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with CEQA.
According to the Author:
AB 3279 addresses common delays in litigation over CEQA actions to promote swifter and more
efficient resolution of lawsuits regarding all projects.
Arguments in Support:
Supporters state this bill would make incremental improvements to the CEQA process that will
allow more housing and other land use projects to be built with less unnecessary dela ys.
Specifically, the bill would authorize courts to hear CEQA appeals sooner, reduce the time
parties take to file petitions, expedite the preparation of the administrative record, and authorize
courts to issue interlocutory remand orders instead of setting aside project approvals and forcing
applicants to start the process all over again.
Arguments in Opposition:
Labor, environmental, and environmental justice advocates, typically aligned with CEQA
petitioners, list the following concerns:
1) The bill unnecessarily expedites an already expedited judicial review process for CEQA
cases, restricting petitioners' rights to seek judicial review.
2) The current 90-day briefing schedule is already demanding for petitioners. 60 days is too
short.
AB 3279
Page 3
3) Restricting petitioners' ability to prepare the record impedes their ability to prosecute the case
and increases costs due to record disputes.
4) Interlocutory remand may prevent petitioners from obtaining a final judgment necessary to
then file an appeal, and is unnecessary because CEQA already requires a writ to include only
those mandates that are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA.
5) By permitting a lead agency to remedy non-compliance with CEQA prior to a final
judgment, rather than via a judgment against the lead agency and in favor of the petitioner, an
interlocutory remand order may jeopardize petitioners' ability to recover attorneys' fees.
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) Initial first-year costs of $208,000 and ongoing annual cost of $362,000 for the Attorney
General's Office to increase staff (2 PY) to address the anticipated increase in litigation
(General Fund and special fund).
2) Unknown, potentially significant, increase in court costs or delays in other civil litigation
resulting from the shortened deadlines. The courts are required to give CEQA actions
preference over all other civil actions.
VOTES:
ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 9-2-0
YES: Friedman, Flora, Brough, Chau, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Limón, Mathis, McCarty
NO: Muratsuchi, Mark Stone
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-1-2
YES: Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Bloom, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Megan Dahle, Eggman, Fong,
Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, McCarty, Robert Rivas, Voepel
NO: Diep
ABS, ABST OR NV: Gonzalez, Bonta
UPDATED:
VERSION: June 4, 2020
CONSULTANT: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0003014
AB 2421
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2421 (Quirk)
As Amended June 4, 2020
Majority vote
SUMMARY:
Requires expedited permitting of emergency standby generators for macro cell towers.
Major Provisions
This bill limits permit reviews for emergency standby generators for macro cell towers to
administrative review only, and creates a shot-clock by which permit reviews must be
completed. The proposed generator must be rated below 50 horsepower and certified to
California emission standards, have a 190-gallon double-wall storage tank, and be mounted on a
concrete pad. The macro cell tower site at which the emergency standby generator is proposed to
be installed must be an existing site that was previously permitted by the local agency. The
emergency standby generator must comply with all applicable state and local laws and
regulations, including building and fire safety codes.
A county or city must approve or deny a permit application for such a generator within 60 days.
If an application is incomplete, the county or city has 10 days to notify the applicant, in which
case the shot-clock stops until the applicant provides the requested information. A county or city
cannot require any new or different information for a permit application than it routinely requires
for applications for other emergency standby generators. If a county or city fails to approve or
deny a completed application within 60 days, the application will be deemed approved.
This bill does not prohibit a local agency from revoking, through the appropriate process, the
permit or approval status for an emergency standby generator that is determined to violate an
applicable state or local law or regulation, including building and fire safety codes, or from
otherwise enforcing state and local law with respect to the emergency standby generator.
If a county or city requires more than one permit application for the installation of a generator,
all applications submitted concurrently must be issued within the same 60-day period set forth
above. A county or city may not require an applicant to submit proof of consent or other
authorization from an underlying property owner as part of the initial application for a generator
permit. However, the applicant must not install the generator until the applicant provides
documentation to the local agency, if the local agency requires it.
A county of city may impose a permit fee to cover its costs associated with administering this
bill. The fee shall not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is
charged and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes. This bill applies to all counties and
cities, including charter cities, and contains a repeal date of January 1, 2024.
COMMENTS:
Public Safety Power Shutoffs have been part of California's strategy to prevent wildfires for
several years. However, 2019 was a landmark year for PSPS events, which occurred from
October 9 to November 1 in about 30 counties in Northern California and several in Southern
California and affected all three of the state's largest power utilities – Pacific Gas and Electric
AB 2421
Page 2
Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).
Over the course of the PSPS events, more than 3 million people lost power.
Given the critical importance of uninterrupted communications during power outages, this bill
seeks to protect this communications infrastructure so it will continue to operate in the event the
primary source of power goes down during a PSPS event or other power interruption. AT&T
reports some delays (from five to 30 months) in local jurisdictions that have required – as part of
the permitting process for back-up generators – variances, substantial aesthetic structures, spec
sheets and transmission details on existing equipment not affected by a generator application,
and documents that the agency already has on file.
In addition to speeding up the permitting process with a shot-clock and deemed approved
approach, this bill also prohibits local agencies from requiring a permit applicant to prove up-
front that an underlying property owner has provided consent for the installation of a generator.
This allows the applicant to pursue the permitting process concurrently with the process of
obtaining permission from property owners. The applicant would still be required to provide this
evidence to the local agency before installing the generator if the agency requires it as part of the
permitting process.
According to the Author:
"In order to facilitate wireless network upgrades needed to mitigate the impacts of Public Safety
Power Shutoffs, this legislation will help enable the rapid deployment of emergency standby
generators at macro cell sites. These resources are vital for public safety and welfare to help
ensure consumers maintain access to 911 services, wireless emergency alerts, and other public
safety communications.
"AB 2421 is a critical component to supporting the efforts of wireless service providers to install
emergency standby generators before catastrophic events threaten Californians' ability to stay
connected to emergency services when needed most. Without the short term, narrowly crafted
process prescribed in this legislation, widely differing and lengthy permitting requirements
across the state could delay these public safety efforts by many months. AB 2421 is focused on
improving public safety through power-resilient wireless communications networks."
Arguments in Support:
The Peace Officers Research Association of California, in support, writes, "This bill would
enable California to take timely steps to improve public safety communications in preparation
for the coming wildfire seasons and possible power shutoffs by electric utilities. AB 2421
streamlines the local permitting process for back-up power equipment at cell sites, while
safeguarding final permitting authority with the local jurisdiction. This legislation would only
apply to the installation of generators that are certified to California low emission standards.
"Expediting the deployment of back-up power solutions at wireless sites is essential to public
safety. During extended power outages, wildfires, and other emergencies, mobile
communications are critical for our members to stay connected, as well as to share potentially
life-saving information with the public. Even when commercial power is lost, Californians must
be able to maintain access to 911 and receive emergency notifications, including Wireless
Emergencies Alerts (WEA) broadcast by our public safety officials. California's Legislature
should use every tool available to rapidly prepare for the growing threat of wildfires, power
outages, and other disasters. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to support AB 2421."
AB 2421
Page 3
Arguments in Opposition: The Communications Workers of America, District 9 (CWA),
writes, "CWA believes strongly that the communications grid should be reliable, promote public
safety, and be subject to robust oversight. CWA workers are on the front lines, working to ensure
the reliability of these cell towers, and the communications grid as a whole. Local review can be
a critical step to ensuring reliability and establishing the necessity of a requested approval. There
may be circumstances demanding an expedited review process with automatic approval after 60
days. However, the default provision contained in AB 2421 applies to every application, in every
city and county in California. This bill is not narrowly tailored to only those areas of high
wildfire risk or other exigent circumstances. Nor is there an avenue for the local government to
extend the mandated timeline for justifiable reasons. "Additionally, AB 2421's focus on short -
term generator power could have the unintended consequence of allowing corporations to ignore
or delay long-term infrastructure investment and repair. Ultimately, it is in the best interest of
California to ensure that it has a communications grid that has bee n hardened and is available to
all. CWA believes that a greater focus should be made on the long-term health of the
communications grid as opposed to an overreliance on temporary solutions. Furthermore,
discussion on this bill would benefit from insight into how telecommunications companies
responded to outages during recent wildfires and what strategies they employed for long-term
sustainability. Unfortunately, these corporations have failed to provide this information and have
argued that they are not required to inform the public about their activities. Temporary and short-
term responses may be necessary, but are best evaluated in the context of understanding the
overall strategies to maintain and strengthen the communications grid long-term."
FISCAL COMMENTS:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no state costs. State-mandated local costs
are not reimbursable by the state because the bill authorizes a local agency to impose a fee to
cover costs associated with administering the bill's provisions.
VOTES:
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-0
YES: Aguiar-Curry, Lackey, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas,
Voepel
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0
YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bauer-Kahan, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Megan Dahle,
Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Petrie-Norris, McCarty, Robert Rivas, Voepel
UPDATED:
VERSION: June 4, 2020
CONSULTANT: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003026
ACA 25
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 25 (Mullin, et al.)
As Amended June 4, 2020
2/3 vote
SUMMARY:
Temporarily permits Members of the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to remotely attend and vote
in a legislative proceeding, or to vote by proxy in a legislative proceeding if permitted by their
house, during the pendency of a state of emergency declared by the President of the United
States or the Governor. Provides that a Member may only remotely attend and vote, or vote by
proxy as authorized, in a proceeding if the state of emergency prevents the Member from safely
attending the proceeding in person.
Major Provisions
1) Provides that Members of the Legislature, through the use of technology and without being
physically present in the State Capitol, may attend and vote remotely in a legislative
proceeding, or vote by proxy in a legislative proceeding if authorized by their house, during
the pendency of a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the
Governor.
2) Provides that a Member may attend and vote remotely, or vote by proxy as authorized, in a
legislative proceeding only if the state of emergency prevents the Member from safely
attending the proceeding in person.
3) Provides that the vote of a Member remotely attending a proceeding shall have the same
force and effect as if the Member were physically present in the State Capitol; and, requires
that a Member remotely attending a proceeding shall be included in the determination of a
quorum.
4) Defines "state of emergency" as the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to
the safety of persons and property within the State, or parts thereof, including, but not limited
to, such conditions as an attack or probable or imminent attack by an enemy of the United
States, fire, flood, storm, insurrection, earthquake, volcanic eruption, or pandemic or other
public health emergency.
5) Requires that the Legislature, or each house, shall choose technology for remote legislative
proceedings that furthers the goals of security, the integrity and efficiency of the legislative
process, and accessibility for Members who participate in proceedings remotely and
members of the public who seek to view proceedings conducted by remote participation.
6) Provides that if one-fifth or more of the Members of a house are unable to attend a legislative
proceeding during a state of emergency because they are deceased, disabled, or missing, a
quorum of the house shall be established by a majority of its Members able to attend.
7) Provides that the Legislature may provide by statute for the temporary filling of vacant
offices of Members with pro tempore members in the event that one-fifth or more of the
Members of a house are deceased, disabled, or missing during a state of emergency.
ACA 25
Page 2
8) Requires that a Member's authorization to attend and vote remotely, and to vote by proxy if
applicable, shall end upon the termination of the state of emergency.
9) Requires that the Legislature by concurrent resolution, or each house by separate resolutions,
shall adopt rules to implement remote legislative proceedings by a two-thirds rollcall vote
before the end of the biennial legislative session in which these provisions take effect.
10) Provides that the Legislature or each house, as applicable, may amend rules that implement
remote legislative proceedings by a subsequent resolution adopted by a two-thirds rollcall
vote.
11) Requires that the resolution adopted by the Legislature, or each house, shall specify rules for
remote attendance and voting, and shall include procedures for authenticating a Member's
remote attendance and voting.
12) Provides that the resolution may permit Members to vote by proxy, in which case the
resolution shall specify rules for this method of voting and shall include procedures for
authenticating a Member's proxy vote.
13) Provides that a Member may remotely attend and vote in proceedings as permitted by the
Member's house prior to adoption of the resolution implementing remote legislative
proceedings.
COMMENTS:
Remote participation in other states: According to information from the National Conference of
State Legislatures ("NCSL"), remote participation is currently allowed in Oregon and Wisconsin
if emergencies exist. Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2012 that defined
"catastrophic disaster" and granted additional powers to the governor and legislatures.
Wisconsin's constitutional provision authorizes the legislature to "adopt such other measures that
may be necessary and proper", which included a statute allowing for virtual meetings of the
legislature and legislative committees when an emergency or imminent threat of one exists.
COVID-19 Response: According to the NCSL, between March and May 2020, at least 20 states,
the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands have changed procedures to allow for
remote participation as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ACA 25 provides California,
subject to voter approval, the similar ability to allow for remote legislative proceedings.
According to the Author:
California is the fifth largest economy in the world with a population of over 40 million and
growing. We have a full time Legislature which, under normal circumstances, is able to be
nimble and respond by passing urgency legislation and adjust spending priorities, in real time,
when conditions warrant. However, it took a worldwide pandemic for us to discover that
California government is unable to continue to function, according to American notions of
checks and balances during such an emergency. The legislative branch of government currently
has no authority to convene remotely during an emergency where it would be unsafe for
members to gather and meet in person. ACA 25 seeks to put before the voters a Constitutional
amendment that would require both houses of the Legislature to adopt rules, by a two-thirds
vote, which would allow for the sworn duties of the Legislature to continue, and to require such
rules to provide for and maintain maximum transparency and visibility by the public. I am
ACA 25
Page 3
pleased that this is a bi-partisan effort, which seeks to safely maintain both the integrity of
California government as well as public access to the proceedings.
Arguments in Support:
None received.
Arguments in Opposition:
The Institute of Governmental Advocates (IGA) opposes ACA 25 and considers this bill
"unnecessary and unwise."
"ACA 25 would allow legislative business to be conducted without being physically present
and/or by proxy voting during the pendency of a state of emergency declared by the President or
the Governor." IGA also argues that "the definition of state of emergency is so overly broad that
it would authorize the Legislature to act in the dark at almost any time it so desires. Moreover,
Governors have a long history of making emergency declarations, but never rescinding such
declarations once the emergency has ended."
FISCAL COMMENTS:
This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
VOTES:
ASM RULES: 10-0-2
YES: Cooley, Cunningham, Carrillo, Flora, Grayson, Levine, Mathis, Quirk-Silva, Ramos,
Robert Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Maienschein, Wicks
UPDATED:
VERSION: June 4, 2020
CONSULTANT: Michael Erke / RLS. / (916) 319-2800 FN: 0003027