HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council June 27, 2023
SUBJECT: June 2023 Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
At the end of May, Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees held their
“suspense file” hearings, to review any bills introduced that have a fiscal impact to the
State. In the Assembly Appropriations Committee, there were 755 bills reviewed, of
which 201 were held under submission (29%). The Senate Appropriations Committee
reviewed 416 bills, of which 70 bills were held under submission (22%). Bills held under
submission will not move forward in the 2023 legislative session.
Policy committees slowed during the month of June. This is a result of bills moving into
their second house and the need for Rules Committees to refer them to the appropriate
policy committee(s). The pause allows time for legislators to rework language and to
introduce bill amendments prior to the second house referral process.
On June 15, the legislature approved their budget bill, SB 101, which includes over $300
billion in state expenditures over the next fiscal year. The next steps are for the Governor,
Senate, and Assembly to negotiate the final framework. Negotiations are expected
continue; and the Governor has until July 1 to take action.
DISCUSSION The Town’s Legislative Committee follows priority legislation identified through the Tri-
Valley Cities coalition and the Danville Town Council based upon the Town’s legislative
framework. The bills and positions that are a priority for the Tri-Valley coalition are
discussed in the second half of this report.
The following bills have been identified as having an impact on Danville.
AB 965 (Carrillo) Local government: broadband permit applications.
This bill would require a local agency to undertake batch broadband permit processing
upon receiving two or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar
broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant. This bill
June Legislative Update 2 June 27, 2023
requires the minimum number of sites that can be batched in a single permit for a city
with a population of 50,000 or less as 25. This bill passed on the Assembly Floor with a 76:0:4
vote.
Position: Oppose
AB 1065 (Patterson) Communications: California Advanced Services Fund.
This bill expressly authorizes otherwise eligible wireless broadband service providers to
apply for and receive funding from the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account and
Federal Funding Account. This bill passed on the Assembly Floor with a 75:0:5 vote.
Position: Oppose
AB 1318 (Rivas) California Environmental Quality Act: exception: residential projects.
This bill would expand the existing CEQA exemptions by increasing the size of a
residential project that would qualify for the exemption to include a project of no more
than 5 acres in total area.This bill passed on the Assembly Floor with a 75:0:6 vote.
Position: Oppose
AB 1290 (Rivas) Product safety: plastic packaging: substances.
This bill would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2026, a person from manufacturing, selling,
offering for sale, or distributing in the state, (1) opaque or pigmented polyethylene
terephthalate bottles, and (2) plastic packaging that contains certain chemicals, pigments,
or additives, as specified. The bill would exclude from that prohibition packaging used
for certain medical, drug, and federally regulated products. The bill would authorize the
imposition of a civil penalty for a violation of that prohibition, as specified. This bill was
pulled at the request of the author and is marked as a two-year bill. Position: Support
SB 393 (Glazer) California Environmental Quality Act: judicial challenge:
identification of contributors: housing development projects.
This bill would authorize a defendant, in an action brought pursuant to the act relating
to a housing development project, to file a motion requested the plaintiff or petition to
identify every person or entity that contributes in excess of $10,000, as specified, toward
the plaintiff’s or petitioner’s costs of the action and require the plaintiff or petitioner to
identify any pecuniary or business interest related to the housing development project
of any person or entity that contributes in excess of $10,000 to the costs of the action, as
specified. The bill would provide that a failure to comply with these requirements may
be grounds for dismissal of the action by the court. This bill passed on the Senate Floor with
a 32:0:8 vote.
Position: Support
Tri-Valley Cities Coalition
Below is the list of bills the TVC identified at the beginning of the 2023 Legislative session
to track.
June Legislative Update 3 June 27, 2023
AB 894 (Friedman) Parking requirements: shared parking.
This bill would require a public agency to allow existing land uses with underutilized
parking to share underutilized parking with the public, a private entity, a public agency,
or other users. Furthermore, this bill would require a public agency to allow shared
parking to be counted toward meeting automobile parking requirements for a new or
existing development or use, when the parking spaces meet specified conditions
regarding the distance of the spaces from the applicable site. This bill passed on the
Assembly Floor with a 62:10:8 vote. (Affordable Housing and Homelessness,
Transportation and Infrastructure)
TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local government financing: affordable housing and public
infrastructure: voter approval.
This measure would authorize a local government to impose, extend, or increase a sales
and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed for the purposes of funding the
construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing,
or permanent supportive housing if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by
55% of its voters voting on the proposition and the proposition includes specified
accountability requirements. (Affordable Housing and Homelessness, Transportation
and Infrastructure) TVC Position: Support
SB 43 (Eggman) Behavioral Health
This bill would expand the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of involuntarily
detaining an individual, to include a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental
health disorder or a substance use disorder, or both, is at substantial risk of serious harm
or is currently experiencing serious harm to their physical or mental health. The bill
defines “serious harm” for purposes of these provisions to mean significant deterioration,
debilitation, or illness due to a person’s failure to meet certain conditions, including,
among other things, attend to needed personal or medical care and attend to self-
protection or personal safety. This bill passed on the Senate Floor with a 37:0:3 vote. (Mental
Health)
TVC Position: Support
SB 423 (Wiener) Land use: streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing
developments.
This bill would modify provisions of SB 35 (Wiener) by extending the operation of the
streamline, ministerial approval process to January 1, 2036. This bill would also make
specified revisions to provisions including eliminating the authorization for a local
government’s planning commission to conduct public oversight of a development and
would only authorize design review. This bill passed on the Senate Floor with a 29:5:6 vote.
(Affordable Housing and Homelessness) TVC Position: Oppose unless Amended
June Legislative Update 4 June 27, 2023
SB 569 (Glazer) Political Reform Act of 1974: audits
This bill was significantly amended and now requires a lobbying firm whose lobbyist are
placement agents, and each external manager who hires, engages, or retains a placement
agent who will be conducting activities which require registration, to renew its
registration annually between November 1 and December 31. Prior language of this bill
required the Franchise Tax Board to annually recompute for inflation the above-
mentioned credit amounts, and refund any credit in excess of the qualified renter’s
liability. Amended bill language does not directly impact Danville or the Tri-Valley Cities, and
no longer takes a position on this bill.
TVC Position: None
SB 746 (Eggman) Energy conservation contracts: alternate energy equipment: green
hydrogen. Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority
This bill was amended to specifically authorize the Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley
Regional Rail Authority to enter into energy service contracts, facility financing contracts,
and contracts for the sale of specified energy resources relating to green electrolytic
hydrogen, for purposes of financing the construction and operation of passenger rail
service through the Altamont Pass Corridor. This bill passed on the Senate Floor with a 40:0:0
vote. (Economic Development, Transportation and Infrastructure) TVC Position: Support
CONCLUSION
Accept this report and direct any questions and/or direction to Town legislative staff.
Prepared by:
Cat Bravo
Management Analyst
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
Attachment A – Bill Summary and Analysis Packet
Attachment B – TVC Letter of Oppose Unless Amended SB 423 (Wiener)
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Steven Bradford, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 965 Hearing Date: 6/20/2023
Author: Juan Carrillo
Version: 6/7/2023 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Sarah Smith
SUBJECT: Local government: broadband permit applications
DIGEST: This bill establishes requirements for local governments to process
batched permits for broadband infrastructure.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Defines a local agency as a city, county, city and county, charter city, special
district, or publicly owned utility (POU). (Government Code §65964.5)
2)Specifies that a wireless siting application shall be deemed approved if the
applicant meets certain requirements and a local agency fails to approve or
reject the application within a reasonable time period established by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). (Government Code §65964.1)
3)Requires a local agency to allow microtrenching for the installation of
underground fiber unless the local agency makes a written finding that allowing
microtrenching for fiber would have a specific, adverse impact on public health
or safety. (Government Code §65964.5)
4)Establishes a process for approving communications facility attachments to
utility poles owned or controlled by a local electric POU. Existing law requires
POUs to make appropriate space and capacity on their utility poles for use by a
communications provider on reasonable terms and conditions. Existing law
specifies timelines for attachments to poles, including multiple pole
attachments. (Public Utilities Code §9511)
ATTACHMENT A
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 2 of 8
5) Establishes the Dig Safe Board and requirements for safe excavation near utility
facilities and establishes penalties for entities that excavate without complying
with dig safe rules. (Government Code §4216 et. seq.)
6) Prohibits cities and counties from charging telecommunications facility siting
fees that exceed the reasonable costs of conducting the permitting and siting
services. Existing law specifies that these fees may not be collected for general
revenue purposes. (Government Code §50030)
This bill:
1) Defines a “local agency” as a city, county, city and county, charter city, or
special district and specifies that this definition does not include a POU.
2) Defines “batch broadband permit processing” as the simultaneous processing of
multiple broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband
project sites under a single permit.
3) Requires local agencies to process broadband project permits in batches if the
local agency receives two or more broadband permit applications for
substantially similar broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the
same applicant.
4) Requires batched wireless broadband projects to be processed within existing
deadlines unless a longer time is permitted under law. This bill specifies that if
a local agency does not approve or reject batched wireless permits within
existing shot clocks, all the wireless permits in a batch shall be deemed
approved.
5) Authorizes a local agency to set reasonable limits on the number of projects
batched into a single permit based on the following:
a) Cities with a population less than 50,000 persons may limit the number
of sites batched into a single permit to no less than 25 sites.
b) Counties with a population fewer than 150,000 persons may limit the
number of sites batched into a single permit to no less than 25 sites.
c) Cities and counties with populations greater than 50,000 and 150,000
persons respectively may limit the number of sites batched into a single
permit to no less than 50 sites.
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 3 of 8
6) Authorizes a local agency to impose a fee on broadband permit processing, as
specified in existing law, and requires local agencies to work with applicants to
resolve issues associated with limited local permitting resources. To address
these limitations, local governments may receive supplemental resources from
an applicant.
7) Specifies that nothing in this bill limits the application of existing utility safety
requirements, including dig safe requirements for underground excavations.
Background
State permitting recommendations have recognized batched permitting as a local
streamlining practice. In August 2022, the Governor’s Office of Business and
Economic Development (GO-Biz) released a guidance document, the State of
California Local Permitting Playbook, to help communities plan for broadband
investments. This guidance document recognizes batched permitting as a strategy
that local governments can use to streamline permit approvals for broadband
projects with multiple sites that have repetitive permit characteristics. The GO-Biz
Playbook states: “As with some of the other strategies presented here, a batch
permitting process might reduce the permit application caseload, decrease the
permit processing timeline, and improve a broadband deployer’s timeline.” The
guidebook suggests that when considering a batching process, local governments
should consider available staff resources, geographic boundaries for batching, and
caps on the number of permits that can be batched. The playbook recognizes that
not all permit streamlining strategies are appropriate for all local governments;
however, it suggests that where appropriate, batching can lower permit processing
timelines for larger multi-site broadband deployment projects within a single
jurisdiction.
Are this bill’s requirements flexible enough for all local governments? While
nothing in existing law prohibits a local government from adopting rules enabling
the processing of broadband facility permits in batches, this bill would require
local governments to do so. This bill also allows local governments to set a limit
on the maximum amount of permits in a single batch. However, this bill also
specifies that smaller cities and counties can only set a maximum limit at or above
25 permits per batch; all larger cities and counties must allow batching of at least
50 sites per permit.
While some local governments already allow certain telecommunications facilities
to process their permits in batches, these local governments’ permit batching rules
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 4 of 8
may not meet this bill’s requirements. The cities of Long Beach and Davis have
both adopted rules facilitating the batching of small wireless facility permits;
however, these cities’ batching processes do not encompass all wireless facilities,
and they set much lower thresholds for the maximum amount of sites that can
batched into one permit. The City of Long Beach allows a maximum of 10 sites to
be batched into a single permit, and the City of Davis allows a maximum of five
sites to be batched into a single permit. This bill would require these cities to
substantially increase their rules for both the scope and amount of wireless
facilities that can be batched in a single permit application.
Shot clocks may indirectly prioritize processing wireless permits. Shot clocks are
time periods during which agencies must take action on an application. Shot
clocks do not require agencies to approve applications; however, if an agency does
not approve or reject a permit within a shot clock, that agency may be forced to
issue a permit for the applicant. While there are no shot clocks for wireline
broadband permits, both state law and federal regulations have adopted shot clocks
for wireless permitting. In 2018, the FCC updated its wireless deployment orders
related to local government permitting. As part of this update, the FCC expanded
the types of wireless facilities covered by the FCC’s permit streamlining rules and
also shortened the shot clocks for local government permit application reviews.
The 2018 order adopted the following shot clocks for wireless permits:
60 days for applications for installations on existing infrastructure
90 days for all other applications.
Existing state law has codified these shot clocks and specified that wireless permits
that are not approved or rejected within the applicable shot clock are “deemed
approved.”
While this bill does not create a batched permit process exclusively for wireless or
establish new shot clocks for processing wireless permits, the bill applies existing
wireless shot clocks to batched wireless permits. The application of existing
wireless shot clocks to batched permitting could encourage local governments to
prioritize processing batched wireless permits ahead of wireline broadband projects
to comply with shot clock deadlines.
Double Referral. Should this bill pass out of this committee, it will be re-referred
to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance.
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 5 of 8
Prior/Related Legislation
SB 717 (Dodd, Chapter 813, Statutes of 2022) required the California Department
of Technology to submit a report to the Legislature by May 1, 2024, regarding
specified barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment, including the extent to
which obtaining state and local permits poses a barrier to deploying broadband
infrastructure.
SB 556 (Dodd, 2022) would have established permitting requirements for the
placement of small wireless facilities on street light and traffic signal poles owned
by local governments. The bill was vetoed.
AB 537 (Quirk, Chapter 467, Statutes of 2021) updated existing state law
regarding timelines and processes for approving wireless telecommunications
facility permits to reflect new federal deadlines.
SB 378 (Gonzalez, Chapter 677, Statutes of 2021) required local governments to
allow microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber optic equipment
unless the local government makes a specified finding.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
SUPPORT:
Bay Area Council
California African American Chamber of Commerce
California Apartment Association
California Asian Pacific Chambers of Commerce
California Association of Micro Enterprise Opportunity
California Broadband & Video Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Communications Association
California Emerging Technology Fund
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Wireless Association
Coalition of Small & Disabled Veteran Businesses
Consolidated Communications
Crown Castle
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 6 of 8
CTIA
Dev/Mission
Frontier Communications Corporation
Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco
INCOMPAS
Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Metropolitan Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Businesses
Orange County Business Council
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce
San Mateo County Economic Development Association
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
Southwest Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
USTelecom - The Broadband Association
Wireless Infrastructure Association
OPPOSITION:
5G Free California
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
As You Sow
Boyle Heights Community Garden
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
Californians for Safe Technology
Center for Environmental Health
City and County of San Francisco
Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Dietrick Institute for Applied Insect Ecology
Ecological Options Network
EMF Safety Network Education/Outreach
Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Working Group
FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Feather River Action!
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 7 of 8
GMOScience
Health & Habitat, Inc.
Keep Cell Antennas Away
Malibu for Safe Tech
Moms Across America
Mothers of East LA
Neighbors for Safe Metering
Parents for a Safer Environment
Physicians for Safe Technology
Plumas Wired!
Preserve Rural Sonoma County
Safe Tech for Santa Rosa
Safer 5G Moraga
Sonoma County Tomorrow
Sonoma Neighbors for Safe Tech
Sonoma Safe Agriculture Safe Schools
Stop Smart Meters!
Wine & Water Watch
Wire California
Wireless Radiation Education & Defense
20 Individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:
AB 965 will accelerate broadband deployment and help close our state’s
digital divide while retaining local control. The bill simply requires local
jurisdictions to make a decision on a group of broadband permits in a
reasonable amount of time (2-3 months) – they can approve, reject or extend
the amount of time needed for review.
Broadband permit batching is a best practice used by local jurisdictions,
state government and the private sector to streamline and expedite the
deployment of broadband infrastructure so local communities can more
quickly get connected to high-speed internet. It can make the difference
between connecting communities in months instead of years. When a
broadband project in a community involves dozens of nearly identical
permits for a variety of locations, the permits are submitted and processed at
the same time as one large group concurrently through various city
departments instead of individually.
AB 965 (Juan Carrillo) Page 8 of 8
This bill will ensure Californians will quickly benefit from high-speed
internet projects by allowing broadband installers to submit their nearly
identical broadband project applications at the same time and local
governments to process this batch of permits together within existing shot
clocks. Processing several substantially similar broadband permit
applications at the same time will allow local governments to still receive
permit fees, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume
broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the
digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet.
AB 965 will help the state meet the federal broadband funding deadline of
December 31, 2024.
A recent report conducted by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute
found that 75% of California voters support statewide streamlining of
broadband projects, while 70% support requiring all local governments to
follow a uniform state mandated review process for broadband projects.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition, Consumers for Safe Cell
Phones states:
… Wireless networks consume more energy than wired networks, property
values near antennas are declining, small wireless facilities increase the risk
of fires, telecom corporations are not insured for health claims, government
research proves that exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) causes
cancer, wireless networks are more easily hacked, and there’s already a
much better, safer, faster, more reliable and more affordable solution for
broadband connectivity.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Steven Bradford, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 1065 Hearing Date: 6/20/2023
Author: Jim Patterson
Version: 5/18/2023 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Sarah Smith
SUBJECT: Communications: California Advanced Services Fund
DIGEST: This bill clarifies that otherwise eligible wireless communications
providers may receive certain broadband infrastructure grants issued by the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), which is
administered by the CPUC to fund broadband infrastructure and adoption in
unserved and underserved communities. Existing law sets eligibility criteria for
CASF grants, sets speed requirements for CASF-funded infrastructure, and
authorizes the collection of a surcharge to fund the CASF until 2032. (Public
Utilities Code §281 and §281.1)
2) Existing law establishes various accounts within the CASF to fund broadband
projects, including the Infrastructure Grant Account (IGA) and the Federal
Funding Account (FFA) to fund last-mile broadband infrastructure projects.
Existing law allocates surcharge funds to the IGA and allocates federal funds to
the FFA to fund these broadband infrastructure projects. (Public Utilities Code
§281)
This bill clarifies that otherwise eligible wireless providers may receive grants
from the CASF IGA and FFA.
Background
Status of CPUC broadband infrastructure funds. In 2021, the Legislature passed
several bills that made a historic investment in broadband infrastructure. This
AB 1065 (Jim Patterson) Page 2 of 5
legislation included SB 156 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 112, Statutes of
2021), which allocated $6 billion in federal and state funds to build a state-owned
middle-mile broadband network. SB 156 also established the FFA and allocated
$2 billion to the FFA to fund last-mile broadband projects in urban and rural
counties. Since the passage of SB 156, the CPUC adopted rules for the FFA in in a
2022 decision (D.22-04-055). These rules established projects’ eligibility for FFA
grants. Under the CPUC’s decision, wireless projects are not eligible for FFA
grants.
In addition to passing SB 156, the Legislature also passed SB 4 (Gonzalez, Chapter
671, Statutes of 2021) and AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry, Chapter 658, Statutes of 2021).
These measures revised and extended the CASF, including increasing program
eligibility and raising speed standards for CASF-funded infrastructure. Following
the passage of these measures, the CPUC adopted new rules for the CASF IGA in
November 2022. Under the new CASF IGA rules, wireless infrastructure capable
of meeting other CASF standards is eligible for grants from the IGA.
Funding swaps have given the CPUC more time to spend broadband monies.
While the CPUC has adopted rules for its infrastructure programs, the CPUC has
yet to issue grants under these revised rules. Wireless projects are eligible for
CASF IGA grants, this bill would likely require the CPUC to revise its rules for the
FFA. Funding swaps have provided the CPUC with more time to create and
modify plans for broadband grants and evaluate applications for those monies. The
FFA was originally established to fund broadband projects using allocations of
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which must be encumbered
by December 31, 2024. However, in subsequent budget actions, this funding has
been swapped for a combination of General Fund monies and a grant from the
federal Capital Projects Fund. As a result, the CPUC now must only encumber
Capital Projects Fund monies in the FFA by December 31, 2026.
Bill clarifies that wireless infrastructure is eligible for broadband grants. Existing
statutes do not exclude wireless projects from CASF grant eligibility; however,
CPUC decisions regarding the FFA have specified that wireless projects are not
eligible for FFA funding. In April 2022, the CPUC adopted rules governing the
FFA (Decision 22-04-055). These rules defined an eligible project as one
“…capable of offering wireline broadband service at or above 100/100 Mbps, or
100/20 Mbps if symmetrical service is not practicable.” The CPUC’s exclusion of
wireless broadband reflected the federal Department of Treasury’s guidance to
states that urged states to prioritize funding fiber optic broadband projects. This
bill specifies that otherwise eligible wireless projects may receive grants from the
AB 1065 (Jim Patterson) Page 3 of 5
CASF IGA and FFA, but it does not specify which wireless projects meet the
federal and state standards.
Fixed wireless projects have had mixed results, but technology evolves.
Historically, state and federal broadband infrastructure grants have included
wireless projects; however, these projects have not always provided reliable
broadband service that meets modern needs. The federal Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund (RDOF) initially approved funds for multiple fixed wireless
projects that were later rescinded when the Federal Communications Commission
determined that the fixed wireless projects were unlikely to provide the services
promised. It is possible that some fixed wireless technologies are superior to
others and can provide speeds, latency, and reliability similar to those for wired
broadband. These technologies may be quicker and cheaper to deploy broadband
in areas where fiber installation is infeasible; however, it is unclear how the CPUC
can distinguish the technical capacities of different wireless projects unless the
CPUC adopts more specific criteria for wireless projects and devotes greater time
to reviewing the capacity of these technologies.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 2749 (Quirk-Silva, 2022) would have required the CPUC to take various steps
regarding applications for the FFA, and the bill would have clarified that otherwise
eligible wireless providers are eligible for grants from the FFA. The bill was
vetoed.
SB 4 (Gonzalez, Chapter 671, Statutes of 2021) and AB 14 (Aguiar-Curry, Chapter
658, Statutes of 2021) revised and extended the CASF by increasing speed
standards for CASF-funded infrastructure to 100/20 Mbps, expanded eligibility to
communities that lack broadband service meeting federal standards, expanded
local governments’ eligibility for CASF grants, and extended CASF’s operation
and funding until 2032.
SB 156 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 112, Statutes of 2021) implemented
broadband infrastructure spending approved in the 2021 Budget Act. The bill
established the FFA within CASF, set forth funding allocations for the FFA, and
created technical assistance and additional broadband funding opportunities for
local governments. The bill also established the Office of Broadband and Digital
Literacy and required the office to oversee the construction of a state-owned, open
access middle mile broadband network.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
AB 1065 (Jim Patterson) Page 4 of 5
SUPPORT:
Supervisor Jaron E. Brandon, Tuolumne County- District 5
Advanced Wireless
Cal.net, Inc.
OACYS
Tarana Wireless
OPPOSITION:
5G Free California
Alliance for Nurses for Healthy Environments
As You Sow
Boyle Heights Community Garden
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
California Brain Tumor Association
California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
Californians for Safe Technology
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Earth 4 Kids
Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
Dietrick Institute for Applied Insect Ecology
Ecological Options Network
EMF Safety Network Education/Outreach
Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Working Group
FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety
Feather River Action!
GMOScience
Health & Habitat, Inc.
Malibu for Safe Tech
Media Alliance
Moms Across America
Mothers of East LA
Neighbors for Safe Metering
Parents for a Safer Environment
Physicians for Safe Technology
Plumas Wired!
Preserve Rural Sonoma County
AB 1065 (Jim Patterson) Page 5 of 5
Safe Tech for Santa Rosa
Safer 5G Moraga
Sonoma County Tomorrow
Sonoma Neighbors for Safe Tech
Sonoma Safe Ag Safe Schools
Stop Smart Meters!
The Utility Reform Network
Towards an Internet of Living Beings
Wine & Water Watch
Wireless Radiation Education & Defense
Several Individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:
We have the shared goal of connecting as many households as possible with
broadband internet. AB 1065 supports the pursuit of that goal by making
wireless broadband projects eligible for state grants that fund broadband
deployment.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents largely oppose this measure
because they oppose wireless technology and the use of state grants to support the
expansion of wireless broadband service. Media Alliance opposes this bill because
it argues that fixed wireless technology is not sufficiently reliable. In opposition,
Media Alliance states:
Federal infrastructure funding, which California is heavily relying on to
supplement state funds supporting the fiber broadband middle mile project,
has clearly stated that their funding policy is to explicitly prioritize and favor
fiber infrastructure broadband projects. By asserting that California will not,
in fact, follow the federal guidelines, the state runs the not inconsiderable
risk of having allocated federal funds not disbursed or clawed back due to
the state’s insistence on using inferior technology options at the behest of
incumbent providers. This could be the undoing of the state’s ambitious
broadband expansion.
-- END --
AB 1318
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
AB 1318 (Luz Rivas) – As Introduced February 16, 2023
Policy Committee: Natural Resources Vote: 11 - 0
Local Government 8 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill increases the site limit, from four acres to five acres, for purposes of an existing
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for certain urban infill housing
projects and requires the lead agency to file a notice of exemption (NOE) with the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR).
FISCAL EFFECT:
Negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author, “AB 1318 provides a modest increase in the scope of an
existing CEQA exemption for infill housing projects, making the acreage limit for this
exemption the same as other existing CEQA exemptions for affordable and farmworker
housing.”
2) Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of
applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt
from CEQA, the lead agency prepares an initial study to determine whether the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows the project would not
have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative
declaration. If the initial study shows the project may have a significant effect, the lead
agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each
significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has
received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation
measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or
monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.
SB 1925 (Sher), Chapter 1039, Statutes of 2002, exempts from CEQA 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. The stated intent of the
Legislature in enacting those provisions included “creating a streamlined procedure for
AB 1318
Page 2
agricultural employee housing, affordable housing, and urban infill housing projects that do
not have an adverse effect on the environment.”
The change made by this bill has been recommended by the American Planning Association
and other CEQA practitioners to make the site limit for the urban infill exemption consistent
with the five-acre limits that apply to the other SB 1925 exemptions for affordable and
farmworker housing.
Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 19, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 4, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 10, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 393
Introduced by Senator Glazer
(Coauthors: Senators Dahle, Nguyen, Niello, Seyarto, and Stern)
February 9, 2023
An act to add Sections 21176 and 21176.5 to the Public Resources
Code, relating to environmental quality.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 393, as amended, Glazer. California Environmental Quality Act:
judicial challenge: identification of contributors: housing development
projects.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency, as
defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion
of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry
out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment,
or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not
have that effect. The act authorizes specified entities to file and maintain
with a court an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void,
or annul an act of a public agency on grounds of noncompliance with
the requirements of the act.
This bill would authorize a defendant, in an action brought pursuant
to the act relating to a housing development project, to file a motion
requesting the plaintiff or petitioner to identify every person or entity
that contributes in excess of $10,000, as specified, toward the plaintiff’s
95
or petitioner’s costs of the action. The bill would authorize the motion
to be heard on shortened time at the court’s discretion. The bill would
authorize a plaintiff or petitioner to request the court’s permission to
withhold the public disclosure of a person or entity who made a
monetary contribution. The bill also would require the plaintiff or
petitioner to use reasonable efforts to identify the actual persons or
entities that are the true source of the contributions, to include the exact
total amount contributed, and to identify any pecuniary or business
interest related to the housing development project of any person or
entity that contributes in excess of $10,000 to the costs of the action,
as specified. The bill would would, except as provided, prohibit those
disclosures from being admissible into evidence for any purpose. The
bill would provide that a failure to comply with these requirements may
be grounds for dismissal of the action by the court.
This bill would prohibit an action or proceeding from being brought
in the court to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an act of a public
agency for housing projects, included in a master environmental impact
report or other plan or project already approved following the completion
of an environmental review, on grounds of noncompliance with the
requirements of the act, as specified. The bill would provide that further
environmental reviews are not subject to this provision.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 21176 is added to the Public Resources
line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 21176. (a) (1) Any defendant in an action or proceeding to
line 4 attack, review, set aside, void, or annul any act or decision of a
line 5 public agency relating to a housing development project, as defined
line 6 in subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code,
line 7 on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, may file a
line 8 motion requesting the plaintiff or petitioner to identify every person
line 9 or entity who made a monetary contribution of ten thousand dollars
line 10 ($10,000) or more, or committed to contribute ten thousand dollars
line 11 ($10,000) or more, for the preparation of the petition and
line 12 subsequent action or proceeding. The motion may be heard on
line 13 shortened time at the court’s discretion.
95
— 2 — SB 393
line 1 (2) Upon a motion by the defendant pursuant to paragraph (1),
line 2 a plaintiff or petitioner shall provide the information specified in
line 3 this section within seven days.
line 4 (3) Any information disclosed to the defendant by the plaintiff
line 5 or petitioner pursuant to this section shall be kept confidential and
line 6 shall not be disclosed to anyone for 30 days.
line 7 (4) A plaintiff or petitioner may request the court’s permission
line 8 to withhold the public disclosure of a person or entity who made
line 9 a monetary contribution. The court may grant the request if it finds
line 10 that the public interest in keeping that information confidential
line 11 clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. If the court
line 12 grants a request pursuant to this paragraph, the information
line 13 disclosed to the defendant shall be kept confidential.
line 14 (b) If the defendant makes a motion pursuant to subdivision (a),
line 15 the plaintiff or petitioner shall have a continuing obligation
line 16 throughout the course of the proceeding to identify any person or
line 17 entity that has made a single or multiple contributions or
line 18 commitments, the sum of which is ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
line 19 or more, and that were intended to fund the action or proceeding
line 20 within seven days of receiving the contribution. All other
line 21 provisions of this section shall apply to a disclosure pursuant to
line 22 this subdivision.
line 23 (c) In complying with subdivisions (a) and (b), the plaintiff or
line 24 petitioner shall use reasonable efforts to identify the actual persons
line 25 or entities that are the true source of the contributions.
line 26 (d) The disclosures required pursuant to subdivisions (a) and
line 27 (b) shall include the exact total amount contributed and also include
line 28 the identity of any pecuniary or business interest that the person
line 29 or entity has related to the proposed housing development project.
line 30 (e) The (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the information
line 31 disclosed by a plaintiff or petitioner upon a motion by a defendant
line 32 pursuant to this section shall not be admissible into evidence for
line 33 any purpose.
line 34 (2) The information disclosed pursuant to this section shall be
line 35 admissible for purposes of Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil
line 36 Procedure.
line 37 (f) A court may, upon its own motion or the motion of any party,
line 38 take any action necessary to compel compliance with the
line 39 requirements of this section, up to and including dismissal of the
line 40 action or proceeding.
95
SB 393 — 3 —
line 1 (g) An individual contributing funds to file an action or
line 2 proceeding pursuant to this division in that individual’s individual
line 3 capacity, and not as a representative for an organization or
line 4 association, has the right to limit disclosure of that individual’s
line 5 personal information to an in-camera review by the court.
line 6 (h) This section does not limit or prohibit the independent
line 7 discovery of funding sources based on any other provision of law,
line 8 including postjudgment motions related to recovery of attorney’s
line 9 fees.
line 10 SEC. 2. Section 21176.5 is added to the Public Resources Code,
line 11 to read:
line 12 21176.5. (a) An action or proceeding shall not be brought
line 13 pursuant to Section 21167 challenging the approval of a housing
line 14 project included in a master environmental impact report, pursuant
line 15 to Article 2 (commencing with Section 21157) of Chapter 4.5, or
line 16 other plan or project already approved following the completion
line 17 of an environmental review conducted pursuant to this division,
line 18 including the resolution of any action or proceeding brought against
line 19 that prior master environmental impact report or environmental
line 20 review.
line 21 (b) This section does not affect the obligations of a housing
line 22 project included in a previously approved master environmental
line 23 impact report, or other plan or project, to comply with the
line 24 requirements pursuant to this division for completing further
line 25 environmental reviews, including complying with all applicable
line 26 public notice and comment requirements associated with that
line 27 environmental review.
line 28 (c) Further environmental reviews relating to the housing project
line 29 are subject to an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside,
line 30 void, or annul any act or decision of a public agency on the grounds
line 31 of noncompliance with this division, pursuant to Section 21167.
O
95
— 4 — SB 393
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 894 Hearing Date: 6/21/23
Author: Friedman Tax Levy: No
Version: 4/20/23 Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Peterson
PARKING REQUIREMENTS: SHARED PARKING
Requires public agencies to allow developments to count underutilized and shared parking
spaces toward a parking requirement imposed by the agency.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California
Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police,
sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this
fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their
authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including
land use authority.
Planning and Zoning Law. State law provides additional powers and duties to cities and
counties regarding land use. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to
adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all areas covered by the plan. A general plan
must include specified 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. The Planning and Zoning Law also establishes a
planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning commission,
administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself. Cities and counties must
provide a path to appeal a decision to the planning commission and/or the city council or county
board of supervisors. Local governments have broad authority to define the specific approval
processes needed to satisfy these considerations. Some housing projects can be permitted by city
or county planning staff “ministerially” or without further approval from elected officials, but
most large housing projects require “discretionary” approvals from local governments, such as a
conditional use permit or a change in zoning laws. This process requires hearings by the local
planning commission and public notice, and may require additional approvals.
Local governments use their police power to enact zoning ordinances that shape development,
such as setting maximum heights and densities for housing units, minimum numbers of required
parking spaces, setbacks to preserve privacy, lot coverage ratios to increase open space, and
others. These ordinances can also include conditions on development to address aesthetics,
community impacts, or other particular site-specific considerations.
Parking standards. Cities and counties generally establish requirements for a minimum amount
of parking developers must provide for a given facility or use, known as parking minimums or
AB 894 (Friedman) 4/20/23 Page 2 of 7
parking ratios. Local governments commonly index parking minimums to conditions related to
the building or facility with which they are associated. For example, shopping centers may have
parking requirements linked to total floor space, restaurant parking may be linked to the total
number of seats, and hotels may have parking spaces linked to the number of beds or rooms.
In 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reviewed over 200 municipal codes and
found for nonresidential construction, an average of at least one parking space is installed for
every 275 square feet of nonresidential building floor space. Accounting for the fact that
approximately 60% of reviewed municipal codes already allow developers to reduce parking by
an average of 30%, CARB staff estimated that between 1.4 million and 1.7 million new
nonresidential parking spaces may be constructed from 2021-2024.
CARB also conducted a limited review of minimum parking requirements and found parking
requirements often result in an over-supply of parking. In reviewing 10 developments in
Southern California, CARB noted that while most sites built exactly the minimum parking
required by the local agency, the peak parking utilization at these sites ranged from 56% to 72%
at each development.
Both CARB reviews suggest the minimum requirements are too high, creating an unnecessary
oversupply of parking. In response, the Legislature has enacted several policies limiting
minimum parking requirements. Last year, AB 2097 (Friedman) prohibited public agencies from
imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on specified residential, commercial and
other developments located within one-half mile of public transit.
Research on parking and its impacts. Although challenging to quantify, parking minimums
are thought to encourage automobile use. For example, in a recent journal article, (What do
Residential Lotteries Show us About Transportation Choices?), researchers from the University
of California found data from affordable housing lotteries in San Francisco provided a unique
setting that effectively randomized housing assignments for housing lottery applicants. The
study found “a building’s parking ratio not only influences car ownership, vehicle travel and
public transport use, but has a stronger effect than public transport accessibility. Buildings with
at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most US cities, and in San
Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no
parking… In buildings with no on-site parking, only 38% of households own a car. In buildings
with at least one parking space per unit, more than 81% of households own automobiles.”
A number of sources have documented the harms associated with imposing parking
requirements. Of particular interest given California’s housing challenges is parking
requirements can increase the cost of building homes and make some projects infeasible, whether
financially due to the cost of constructing parking or physically due to capacity limitations of
some sites. For example, the City and County of San Francisco eliminated parking minimums in
2018. According to the San Francisco Planning Department:
“San Francisco eliminated mandatory parking requirements in 2018, recognizing
that these requirements can lead to an oversupply of parking spaces that
encourages car dependence, discourages mass transit usage, and increases the cost
of housing. According to estimates by SF Planning Department, at the time
parking minimums were eliminated, minimum parking rules added as much as
$50,000 to the cost of the housing unit. They undermined pedestrian safety,
requiring dangerous driveways to be built in some of the most densely populated,
AB 894 (Friedman) 4/20/23 Page 3 of 7
walkable areas of the City. Parking minimums also contributed to traffic
congestion, encouraging residents to own private cars, instead of taking transit,
walking, or biking.”
A recent study by Santa Clara University found the cost of garage parking to renter households is
approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent. Others note
parking requirements can reduce the number of buildable units on a site by taking up space that
could be devoted to housing.
Research has documented other harms associated with parking minimums outside the housing
context. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation:
“Parking requirements have also been linked to a variety of negative secondary impacts,
in particular the environmental costs for cities. Parking contributes to the urban heat
island effect and does not support any biodiversity. Land coverage by asphalt increases
stormwater runoff, which raises the risk of flooding and causes higher pollution levels in
freshwater systems. Chemical compounds used to seal parking lots can seep into
groundwater and freshwater systems, which contributes to pollution and decreases the
health of these ecosystems. Because it encourages automobile usage, parking also
hinders the effectiveness and usage of alternative forms of transit (public transportation,
biking, etc.), increases congestion, and causes externalities like air pollution, noise
pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
To spur greater use of underutilizined parking, and to make it easier for entities to meet
minimum parking requirements, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research
Association (SPUR) wants to require local agencies to allow underutilized parking spaces to be
shared with other land uses and the public, and to count shared parking toward meeting parking
requirements.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 894 requires a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share
their underutilized parking spaces with the public, public agencies, or other entities.
Underutilized parking means parking where 20% or more of a development’s parking spaces are
available during the period the parking is needed by another user, group, development, or the
public.
A public agency must allow parking spaces identified in shared parking agreements to count
toward meeting any parking requirement for a new or existing development or use, including
shared parking in underutilized spaces and in parking lots and garages that will be built as part of
developments under any of the following conditions:
The entities that will share the parking are located on the same, or contiguous, parcels;
The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by no more than 2,000 feet
of travel by the shortest walking route; or
The sites of the entities that will share parking are separated by more than 2,000 feet of
travel by the shortest walking route, but there is a plan for shuttles or other
accommodations to move between the parking and site.
AB 894 (Friedman) 4/20/23 Page 4 of 7
Entities wanting to share parking must enter into a shared parking agreement outlining the terms
under which parking will be shared.
When determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared between different
uses, a public agency must accept a parking analysis using peer-reviewed methodologies
developed by a professional planning association, such as the methodology established by the
Urban Land Institute, National Parking Association, and the International Council of Shopping
Centers.
Public agencies cannot require the curing of preexisting deficits of the number of parking spaces
as a condition for approval of the sharing of underutilized parking spaces. An agency cannot
deny a shared parking agreement solely on the basis that it will temporarily reduce or eliminate
the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. For a
development project in which a designated historical resource is being converted or adapted, a
public agency shall allow the project applicant to meet minimum parking requirements through
the use of offsite shared parking.
The measure provides its provisions cannot be used to reduce, eliminate, or preclude the
enforcement of any requirement imposed on a development to provide parking spaces accessible
to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development.
Public agencies, private landowners, or lessors must examine the feasibility of shared parking
agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new parking spaces that
will be constructed:
When state funds are being used on a proposed new development;
Before a parking structure or surface parking lot is developed using public funds.
AB 894 provides it must not be interpreted to require parking be offered at no or reduced cost.
AB 894 makes findings and declarations to further its intent, and defines its terms.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Assessments recently quantified the number of
parking spaces in the state’s most populous regions and found abundant parking even in areas
where parking is perceived to be in short supply. The results of these assessments confirm that
what is often lacking in many communities is not parking, but rather tools and regulations that
allow existing parking to be shared more effectively. At the same time, new technologies make it
easier than ever to share existing parking resources, reducing the need to build new parking.
“Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have not updated their policies to reflect evidence on the
benefits of shared parking, and the existence new tools that make it easy to manage shared
parking resources. This bill requires that jurisdictions accept shared parking as a legitimate
strategy to meet parking demands in a manner that supports more affordable development and
AB 894 (Friedman) 4/20/23 Page 5 of 7
avoids wasteful excessive parking construction which contributes to congestion, greenhouse gas
emissions, and neighborhood safety.”
2. Home rule. Local officials are elected to represent the interests of all their constituents and to
look broadly at how new development might impact their community. For example, concerns
over the encroachment of wildfire may prompt some local governments to impose parking
requirements to ensure streets are open for evacuation and emergency response. Some public
agencies have developed policies for multiple entities to share parking spaces and count those
parking spaces when determining whether a development meets minimum parking requirements.
For example, the City of San Diego has a form available on its website for entities that want to
request all or a portion of parking to be permitted off-site subject to certain restrictions.
Regardless of the decisions local officials have made regarding shared parking agreements, AB
894 requires all public agencies to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their
underutilized parking spaces. It also requires all public agencies to examine the feasibility of
shared parking agreements to replace new parking construction or limit the number of new
parking spaces that will be built when the project uses public funds. Should the Legislature
require all public entities to adopt shared parking agreement policies?
3. Who makes the call? AB 894 requires public agencies to allow entities with underutilized
parking to share their underutilized parking spaces based on a shared parking agreement. While
the measure requires entities sharing parking to enter into an agreement that outlines the terms
under which parking will be shared, it does not require those entities to submit their agreement to
the relevant public agency, or receive its approval. However, some provisions appear to provide
public agencies with the power to approve or deny these agreements. For example, AB 894 says
a public agency cannot deny a shared parking agreement because it will temporarily reduce or
eliminate the number of parking spaces available at the entity sharing underutilized parking. It
also provides, when determining the number of parking spaces that can be reasonably shared, a
public agency must accept certain types of parking analyses. It is unclear whether AB 894
intends to allow local agencies to decide whether to approve or modify these agreements, or
simply accept them. The Committee may wish to clarify whether public agencies should have to
approve these agreements, or simply be notified of their existence.
4. In the public eye. Shared parking agreements could have impacts on other business and
properties that surround parking lots not subject to the agreement. However, AB 894 does not
provide a process for the public to weigh in on an agreement before a public agency approves.
Without a notice requirement or a public meeting, they won’t find out about the changes until the
agreement goes into effect. On the other hand, a shared parking agreement does not affect the
parking spaces available to parties not subject to the agreement. The Committee may wish to
consider whether shared parking agreements should be subject to greater public scrutiny.
5. An alternative approach. To clarify the role public agencies play in approving shared parking
agreements, and give the public an opportunity to weigh in on these agreements, the Committee
may wish to consider amending the bill to:
Require a public agency to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their
underutilized parking spaces, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement to the
public agency.
Require public agencies to accept shared parking agreements that include a parking
analysis using certain peer-reviewed methodologies.
AB 894 (Friedman) 4/20/23 Page 6 of 7
For shared parking agreements that do not include a peer-reviewed parking analysis,
require the public agency to notify nearby property owners of the proposed agreement,
and hold a public meeting if a property owner requests it. In these cases, the public
agency could decide whether to approve the agreement, and determine the number of
spaces that can counted towards minimum parking requirements.
Provide these requirements do not apply to shared parking agreements entered into before
January 1, 2024.
Define shared parking agreements.
6. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for
the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 894 imposes new
duties on local officials, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. AB 894
disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’
authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill's provisions.
7. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own
“municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.
Because the Constitution doesn't define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic
is a municipal affair or an issue of statewide concern. AB 894 says that its statutory provisions
apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding that
preserving land and lowering the cost of housing production by sharing parking is a matter of
statewide concern.
8. Related legislation. AB 1308 (Quirk-Silva & Friedman) prohibits a public agency from
increasing the minimum parking requirement that applies to a single-family residence as a
condition of approval of a project to remodel, renovate, or add to a single-family residence,
provided the project does not cause the residence to exceed any maximum size limit imposed by
the applicable zoning regulations. The bill is also scheduled for the Committee’s June 21st
meeting.
9. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a double-referral of AB 894: first,
to the Governance and Finance Committee to consider its impact on local governments, and
second to the Housing Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-2
Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 6-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 12-3
Assembly Floor: 62-10
Support and Opposition (6/9/23)
Support:
Civicwell (formally the Local Government Commission) (Sponsor)
Spur (Sponsor)
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
350 Bay Area Action
Active San Gabriel Valley
AB 894 (Friedman) 4/20/23 Page 7 of 7
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Yimby
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay Yimby
Grow the Richmond
How to Adu
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View Yimby
Move LA
Napa-solano for Everyone
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northern Neighbors
Parkade
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
San Francisco Yimby
San Luis Obispo Yimby
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Seamless Bay Area
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Streets for All
Streets for People
Transform
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action
Opposition: City of Eastvale
New Livable California Dba Livable California
-- END --
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 30, 2023
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1
Introduced by Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Berman, and
Haney
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Addis, Arambula, Grayson,
Robert Rivas, Santiago, Ward, and Wood)
December 5, 2022
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1—A resolution to propose
to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, by amending Sections 1 and 4 of Article XIII A thereof,
by amending Section 2 of, and by adding Section 2.5 to, Article XIIIC
thereof, by amending Section 3 of Article XIII D thereof, and by
amending Section 18 of Article XVI thereof, relating to local finance.
legislative counsel’s digest
ACA 1, as amended, Aguiar-Curry. Local government financing:
affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.
(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on
real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property,
subject to certain exceptions.
This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit
that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district
to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to
fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive
housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes,
if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters
98
of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition
includes specified accountability requirements. The measure would
specify that these provisions apply to any city, county, city and county,
or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to pay the interest
and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness for these purposes that
is submitted at the same election as this measure.
(2) The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special
tax by a local government upon the approval of 2⁄3 of the voters of the
local government voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from
imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales
tax on the sale of real property. tax.
This measure would authorize a local government to impose, extend,
or increase a sales and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed in
accordance with specified law or a parcel tax, as defined, for the
purposes of funding the construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive
housing if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of its
voters voting on the proposition and the proposition includes specified
accountability requirements. This measure would also make conforming
changes to related provisions. The measure would specify that these
provisions apply to any local measure imposing, extending, or increasing
a sales and use tax, transactions and use tax, or parcel tax for these
purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.
(3) The California Constitution prohibits specified local government
agencies from incurring any indebtedness exceeding in any year the
income and revenue provided in that year, without the assent of 2⁄3 of
the voters and subject to other conditions. In the case of a school district,
community college district, or county office of education, the California
Constitution permits a proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness
in the form of general obligation bonds for the construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,
including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the
acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, to be adopted
upon the approval of 55% of the voters of the district or county, as
appropriate, voting on the proposition at an election.
This measure would expressly prohibit a special district, other than
a board of education or school district, from incurring any indebtedness
or liability exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by
the statutes governing the special district. The measure would also
similarly require the approval of 55% of the voters of the city, county,
98
— 2 — ACA 1
city and county, or special district, as applicable, to incur bonded
indebtedness, exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided
in that year, that is in the form of general obligation bonds issued to
fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive
housing projects, if the proposition proposing that bond includes
specified accountability requirements. The measure would specify that
this 55% threshold applies to any proposition for the incurrence of
indebtedness by a city, county, city and county, or special district for
these purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
line 1 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the
line 2 Legislature of the State of California at its 2023–24 Regular
line 3 Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds
line 4 of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to
line 5 the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the
line 6 State be amended as follows:
line 7 First—That Section 1 of Article XIII A thereof is amended to
line 8 read:
line 9 SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem
line 10 tax on real property shall not exceed 1 percent of the full cash
line 11 value of that property. The 1 percent tax shall be collected by the
line 12 counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within
line 13 the counties.
line 14 (b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply
line 15 to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and
line 16 redemption charges on any of the following:
line 17 (1) Indebtedness approved by the voters before July 1, 1978.
line 18 (2) Bonded indebtedness to fund the acquisition or improvement
line 19 of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds
line 20 of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
line 21 (3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district,
line 22 community college district, or county office of education for the
line 23 construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
line 24 school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school
line 25 facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
line 26 facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or
line 27 county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after
98
ACA 1 — 3 —
line 1 November 8, 2000. This paragraph shall apply only if the
line 2 proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded
line 3 indebtedness includes all of the following accountability
line 4 requirements:
line 5 (A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 6 be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not
line 7 for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries
line 8 and other school operating expenses.
line 9 (B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded
line 10 and certification that the school district board, community college
line 11 board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class
line 12 size reduction, and information technology needs in developing
line 13 that list.
line 14 (C) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 15 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 16 independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been
line 17 expended only on the specific projects listed.
line 18 (D) A requirement that the school district board, community
line 19 college board, or county office of education conduct an annual,
line 20 independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the
line 21 bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school
line 22 facilities projects.
line 23 (4) (A) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, city
line 24 and county, or special district for the construction, reconstruction,
line 25 rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable
line 26 housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons at risk of
line 27 chronic homelessness, including persons with mental illness, or
line 28 the acquisition or lease of real property for public infrastructure,
line 29 affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing for persons
line 30 at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with mental
line 31 illness, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the city, county,
line 32 city and county, or special district, as appropriate, voting on the
line 33 proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding
line 34 this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition
line 35 approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness
line 36 includes all of the following accountability requirements:
line 37 (i) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds
line 38 be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not
line 39 for any other purpose, including city, county, city and county, or
line 40 special district employee salaries and other operating expenses.
98
— 4 — ACA 1
line 1 (ii) A list of the specific projects to be funded, and a certification
line 2 that the city, county, city and county, or special district has
line 3 evaluated alternative funding sources.
line 4 (ii) The specific local program or ordinance through which
line 5 projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county,
line 6 city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative
line 7 funding sources.
line 8 (iii) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 9 special district conduct an annual, independent performance audit
line 10 to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific
line 11 projects listed. pursuant to the local program or ordinance
line 12 specified in clause (ii).
line 13 (iv) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 14 special district conduct an annual, independent financial audit of
line 15 the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds
line 16 have been expended for the public infrastructure or affordable
line 17 housing projects, as applicable.
line 18 (v) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 19 special district post the audits required by clauses (iii) and (iv) in
line 20 a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
line 21 (vi) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or
line 22 special district appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure
line 23 that bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described
line 24 in the measure approved by the voters.
line 25 (B) For purposes of this paragraph:
line 26 (i) “Affordable housing” shall include housing developments,
line 27 or portions of housing developments, that provide workforce
line 28 housing affordable to households earning up to 150 percent of
line 29 countywide median income, and housing developments, or portions
line 30 of housing developments, that provide housing affordable to lower,
line 31 low-, or very low income households, as those terms are defined
line 32 in state law.
line 33 (ii) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited
line 34 to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent
line 35 homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting
line 36 institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and
line 37 mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission,
line 38 transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant
line 39 barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program
line 40 guidelines.
98
ACA 1 — 5 —
line 1 (iii) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no
line 2 limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
line 3 and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents
line 4 in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and
line 5 maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
line 6 community. “Permanent supportive housing” includes associated
line 7 facilities, if those facilities are used to provide services to housing
line 8 residents.
line 9 (iv) “Public infrastructure” shall include, but is not limited to,
line 10 projects that provide any of the following:
line 11 (I) Water or protect water quality.
line 12 (II) Sanitary sewer.
line 13 (III) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from
line 14 stormwater runoff.
line 15 (IV) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise.
line 16 (V) Parks and recreation facilities.
line 17 (VI) Open space.
line 18 (VII) Improvements to transit and streets and highways.
line 19 (VIII) Flood control.
line 20 (IX) Broadband internet access service expansion in underserved
line 21 areas.
line 22 (X) Local hospital construction.
line 23 (XI) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to
line 24 fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable
line 25 communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire,
line 26 emergency response, policy, or sheriff personnel.
line 27 (XII) Public library facilities.
line 28 (v) “Special district” has the same meaning as provided in
line 29 subdivision (c) of Section 1 of Article XIII C and specifically
line 30 includes a transit district, a regional transportation commission,
line 31 and an association of governments, except that “special district”
line 32 does not include a school district, redevelopment agency, or
line 33 successor agency to a dissolved redevelopment agency.
line 34 (C) This paragraph shall apply to any city, county, city and
line 35 county, or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to
line 36 pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness
line 37 for those purposes described in this paragraph that is submitted at
line 38 the same election as the measure adding this paragraph.
line 39 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this
line 40 Constitution, a school district, community college district, or
98
— 6 — ACA 1
line 1 county office of education may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem
line 2 tax pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
line 3 (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or this
line 4 Constitution, a city, county, city and county, or special district
line 5 may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to paragraph
line 6 (4) of subdivision (b).
line 7 Second—That Section 4 of Article XIII A thereof is amended
line 8 to read:
line 9 SEC. 4. Except as provided by Section 2.5 of Article XIII C,
line 10 a city, county, or special district, by a two-thirds vote of its voters
line 11 voting on the proposition, may impose a special tax within that
line 12 city, county, or special district, except an ad valorem tax on real
line 13 property or a transactions tax or sales tax on the sale of real
line 14 property within that city, county, or special district.
line 15 Third—That Section 2 of Article XIII C thereof is amended to
line 16 read:
line 17 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
line 18 Constitution:
line 19 (a) Any tax imposed by a local government is either a general
line 20 tax or a special tax. A special district or agency, including a school
line 21 district, has no authority to levy a general tax.
line 22 (b) A local government may not impose, extend, or increase
line 23 any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the
line 24 electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax is not
line 25 deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher
line 26 than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this
line 27 subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general
line 28 election for members of the governing body of the local
line 29 government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous
line 30 vote of the governing body.
line 31 (c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without
line 32 voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1,
line 33 1995, and before the effective date of this article, may continue to
line 34 be imposed only if that general tax is approved by a majority vote
line 35 of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition,
line 36 which election shall be held no later than November 6, 1996, and
line 37 in compliance with subdivision (b).
line 38 (d) Except as provided by Section 2.5, a local government may
line 39 not impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until
line 40 that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds
98
ACA 1 — 7 —
line 1 vote. A special tax is not deemed to have been increased if it is
line 2 imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.
line 3 Fourth—That Section 2.5 is added to Article XIII C thereof, to
line 4 read:
line 5 SEC. 2.5. (a) The imposition, extension, or increase of a sales
line 6 and use tax imposed in accordance with the Bradley-Burns Uniform
line 7 Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section
line 8 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) or a
line 9 successor law, a transactions and use tax imposed in accordance
line 10 with the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing
line 11 with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
line 12 Code) or a successor law, or a parcel tax imposed by a local
line 13 government for the purpose of funding the construction,
line 14 reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public
line 15 infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
line 16 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with
line 17 mental illness, or the acquisition or lease of real property for public
line 18 infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing
line 19 for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including persons with
line 20 mental illness, is subject to approval by 55 percent of the voters
line 21 in the local government voting on the proposition, if both of the
line 22 following conditions are met:
line 23 (1) The proposition is approved by a majority vote of the
line 24 membership of the governing board of the local government.
line 25 (2) The proposition contains all of the following accountability
line 26 requirements:
line 27 (A) A requirement that the proceeds of the tax only be used for
line 28 the purposes specified in the proposition, and not for any other
line 29 purpose, including general employee salaries and other operating
line 30 expenses of the local government.
line 31 (B) A list of the specific projects that are to be funded by the
line 32 tax, and a certification that the local government has evaluated
line 33 alternative funding sources.
line 34 (B) The specific local program or ordinance through which
line 35 projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county,
line 36 city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative
line 37 funding sources.
line 38 (C) A requirement that the local government conduct an annual,
line 39 independent performance audit to ensure that the proceeds of the
line 40 special tax have been expended only on the specific projects listed
98
— 8 — ACA 1
line 1 in the proposition. pursuant to the local program or ordinance
line 2 specified in subparagraph (B).
line 3 (D) A requirement that the local government conduct an annual,
line 4 independent financial audit of the proceeds from the tax during
line 5 the lifetime of that tax.
line 6 (E) A requirement that the local government post the audits
line 7 required by subparagraphs (C) and (D) in a manner that is easily
line 8 accessible to the public.
line 9 (F) A requirement that the local government appoint a citizens’
line 10 oversight committee to ensure the proceeds of the special tax are
line 11 expended only for the purposes described in the measure approved
line 12 by the voters.
line 13 (b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
line 14 following meanings:
line 15 (1) “Affordable housing” shall include housing developments,
line 16 or portions of housing developments, that provide workforce
line 17 housing affordable to households earning up to 150 percent of
line 18 countywide median income, and housing developments, or portions
line 19 of housing developments, that provide housing affordable to lower,
line 20 low-, or very low income households, as those terms are defined
line 21 in state law.
line 22 (2) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited
line 23 to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent
line 24 homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting
line 25 institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and
line 26 mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission,
line 27 transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant
line 28 barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program
line 29 guidelines.
line 30 (3) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no
line 31 limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
line 32 and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents
line 33 in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and
line 34 maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
line 35 community. “Permanent supportive housing” includes associated
line 36 facilities, if those facilities are used to provide services to housing
line 37 residents.
line 38 (4) “Local government” has the same meaning as provided in
line 39 subdivision (b) of Section 1 of this article and specifically includes
98
ACA 1 — 9 —
line 1 a transit district, a regional transportation commission, and an
line 2 association of governments.
line 3 (4)
line 4 (5) “Public infrastructure” shall include, but is not limited to,
line 5 the projects that provide any of the following:
line 6 (A) Water or protect water quality.
line 7 (B) Sanitary sewer.
line 8 (C) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from
line 9 stormwater runoff.
line 10 (D) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise.
line 11 (E) Parks and recreation facilities.
line 12 (F) Open space.
line 13 (G) Improvements to transit and streets and highways.
line 14 (H) Flood control.
line 15 (I) Broadband internet access service expansion in underserved
line 16 areas.
line 17 (J) Local hospital construction.
line 18 (K) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to
line 19 fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable
line 20 communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire,
line 21 emergency response, policy, or sheriff personnel.
line 22 (L) Public library facilities.
line 23 (c) This section shall apply to any local measure imposing,
line 24 extending, or increasing a sales and use tax imposed pursuant to
line 25 the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, a
line 26 transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with the
line 27 Transactions and Use Tax Law, or a parcel tax imposed by a local
line 28 government for those purposes described in subdivision (a) that
line 29 is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this section.
line 30 Fifth—That Section 3 of Article XIII D thereof is amended to
line 31 read:
line 32 SEC. 3. (a) An agency shall not assess a tax, assessment, fee,
line 33 or charge upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an
line 34 incident of property ownership except:
line 35 (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article
line 36 XIII and Article XIIIA.
line 37 (2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to
line 38 Section 4 of Article XIII A or receiving a 55-percent approval
line 39 pursuant to Section 2.5 of Article XIII C.
line 40 (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
98
— 10 — ACA 1
line 1 (4) Fees or charges for property-related services as provided by
line 2 this article.
line 3 (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical
line 4 or gas service are not deemed charges or fees imposed as an
line 5 incident of property ownership.
line 6 Sixth—That Section 18 of Article XVI thereof is amended to
line 7 read:
line 8 SEC. 18. (a) A county, city, town, township, board of
line 9 education, or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or
line 10 liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year
line 11 the income and revenue provided for that year, without the assent
line 12 of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election
line 13 to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any such
line 14 public entity that is authorized to incur indebtedness for public
line 15 school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness
line 16 in the form of general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing,
line 17 reconstructing, or replacing public school buildings determined,
line 18 in the manner prescribed by law, to be structurally unsafe for school
line 19 use, shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the voters
line 20 of the public entity voting on the proposition at the election; nor
line 21 unless before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness
line 22 provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax
line 23 sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due,
line 24 and to provide for a sinking fund for the payment of the principal
line 25 thereof, on or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty years
line 26 from the time of contracting the indebtedness. A special district,
line 27 other than a board of education or school district, shall not incur
line 28 any indebtedness or liability exceeding any applicable statutory
line 29 limit, as prescribed by the statutes governing the special district
line 30 as they currently read or may thereafter be amended by the
line 31 Legislature.
line 32 (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any proposition for
line 33 the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation
line 34 bonds for the purposes described in paragraph (3) or (4) of
line 35 subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A shall be adopted
line 36 upon the approval of 55 percent of the voters of the school district,
line 37 community college district, county office of education, city, county,
line 38 city and county, or other special district, as appropriate, voting on
line 39 the proposition at an election. This subdivision shall apply to a
line 40 proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of
98
ACA 1 — 11 —
line 1 general obligation bonds for the purposes specified in this
line 2 subdivision only if the proposition meets all of the accountability
line 3 requirements of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b), as
line 4 appropriate, of Section 1 of Article XIII A.
line 5 (2) The amendments made to this subdivision by the measure
line 6 adding this paragraph shall apply to any proposition for the
line 7 incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds
line 8 pursuant to this subdivision for the purposes described in paragraph
line 9 (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A that is
line 10 submitted at the same election as the measure adding this
line 11 paragraph.
line 12 (c) When two or more propositions for incurring any
line 13 indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election, the
line 14 votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted
line 15 separately, and if two-thirds or a majority or 55 percent of the
line 16 voters, as the case may be, voting on any one of those propositions,
line 17 vote in favor thereof, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.
O
98
— 12 — ACA 1
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 43
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 43
Author: Eggman (D), et al.
Amended: 4/27/23
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 12-0, 3/29/23
AYES: Eggman, Nguyen, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, Menjivar,
Roth, Rubio, Wahab, Wiener
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/25/23
AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Min, Niello,
Stern, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener
SUBJECT: Behavioral health
SOURCE: Big City Mayors Coalition
California State Association of Psychiatrists
NAMI California
Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California
DIGEST: This bill expands the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of
involuntarily detaining an individual, as a condition that will result in substantial
risk of serious harm, as defined, to the physical or mental health of an individual
due to a mental health or substance use disorder (MH/SUD), as specified. This bill
prohibits the existence of a MH/SUD alone from establishing a substantial risk of
serious harm, as specified. This bill deems statements of specified health
practitioners, for purposes of an expert witness in a proceeding relating to the
appointment or reappointment of a conservator, as not hearsay, as specified.
SB 43
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Involuntary Commitment
1) Establishes the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act to end the inappropriate,
indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with MH disorders,
developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard a
person’s rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services
in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the needs of each person. Permits
involuntary detention of a person deemed to be a danger to self or others, or
“gravely disabled,” as defined, for periods of up to 72 hours for evaluation and
treatment, or for up-to 14 days and up-to 30 days for additional intensive
treatment in county-designated facilities. [WIC §5000, et seq.]
2) Permits a conservator of a person, or the estate, or of both the person and the
estate, to be appointed for someone who is gravely disabled as a result of a MH
disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, and who remains gravely
disabled after periods of intensive treatment. [WIC §5350]
3) Defines “gravely disabled,” for purposes of evaluating and treating an
individual who has been involuntarily detained or for placing an individual in
conservatorship, as a condition in which a person, as a result of a MH disorder
or impairment by chronic alcoholism, is unable to provide for his or her basic
personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. [WIC §5008]
4) Requires the phrase “a danger to himself or herself or others, or gravely
disabled” throughout the LPS Act to refer also to the condition of being a
danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, as a result of the use of controlled
substances rather than by MH disorder. [WIC §5342]
5) Defines a “designated facility” or “facility designated by the county for
evaluation and treatment” as a facility that is licensed or certified as a MH
treatment facility or a hospital, as specified, by the Department of Public
Health, and includes a licensed psychiatric hospital, a licensed psychiatric
health facility, and a certified crisis stabilization unit. [WIC §5008]
6) Prohibits licensed general acute care hospitals or licensed acute psychiatric
hospitals that are not county-designated facilities (NDFs) for purposes of
involuntarily detaining a person; licensed professional staff of those hospitals;
or, any physician providing emergency medical services in those hospitals
from being civilly or criminally liable for involuntarily detaining a person for
SB 43
Page 3
more than eight hours but less than 24 hours who is gravely disabled, using the
same definition of “gravely disabled” as is used in the LPS Act.
[HSC §1799.111]
7) Permits, until January 1, 2024, Los Angeles and San Diego counties and the
City and County of San Francisco to place in a housing conservatorship, as
specified, a person who is chronically homeless and incapable of caring for his
or her own health and well-being due to serious MH/SUD, as specified. [WIC
§5450, et seq.]
8) Permits the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), until January 1,
2027, to establish the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program for
the purpose of awarding competitive grants to qualified entities, as specified, to
construct, acquire, and rehabilitate real estate assets or to invest in needed
mobile crisis infrastructure to expand the community continuum of behavioral
health treatment resources to build new capacity or expand existing capacity
for short-term crisis stabilization; acute and subacute care; crisis residential;
community-based MH residential; SUD residential; peer respite; mobile crisis;
community and outpatient behavioral health services; and other clinically
enriched longer term treatment and rehabilitation options for persons with
behavioral health disorders in the least restrictive and least costly setting. [WIC
§5960, et seq.]
9) Enacts the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE)
Court Act to help connect an individual with a court-ordered care plan for up
to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months, that
provides a clinically appropriate, community-based set of services and
supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, which include short-
term stabilization medications, wellness and recovery supports, a CARE
navigator, connection to social services, and a housing plan. [WIC §5970, et
seq.]
Hearsay
10) Defines “hearsay evidence” as evidence of a statement that was made other
than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the
truth of the matter stated. Establishes the hearsay rule, which states that, except
as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. [EVID §1200]
SB 43
Page 4
This bill:
Involuntary Commitment
1) Expands the definition of “gravely disabled,” for purposes of the LPS Act and
NDFs, to include a condition that will result in substantial risk of serious harm
to the physical or MH of an individual due to one of more of the following:
a) A MH disorder; or,
b) A SUD, including alcohol use disorder.
2) Defines “serious harm” as significant deterioration, debilitation, or illness due
to the individual’s inability to do one or more of the following:
a) Satisfy the need for nourishment;
b) Attend to necessary personal or medical care;
c) Seek adequate shelter;
d) Be appropriately or adequately clothed; or,
e) Attend to self-protection or personal safety.
3) Permits a substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or MH of the
individual to be evidenced by one or more of the following:
a) The individual is presently suffering adverse effects to their physical or
MH; or,
b) The individual previously suffered adverse effects to their physical or MH
in the historical course of their MH/SUD and their condition is again
deteriorating.
4) Prohibits the existence of a MH/SUD diagnosis alone from establishing a
substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or MH of an individual.
5) Requires an individual’s inability to appreciate the nature of their disorder and
that their decision making is impaired due to their lack of insight into their
mental or medical disorders to be considered by the court when evaluating a
substantial risk of serious harm.
SB 43
Page 5
Hearsay
6) Deems the statements of specified health practitioners, for purposes of an
expert witness in a proceeding relating to the appointment or reappointment of
a conservator, as specified, that are included in the medical record, as not
hearsay.
7) Specifies that deeming statements of specified health practitioners as not
hearsay does not prevent a party from calling as a witness the author of any
statement contained in the medical records, whether or not the author was
relied on by the expert witness.
8) Permits the court to grant a reasonable continuance if an expert witness in a
proceeding relied on the medical record and the medical record has not been
provided to the parties or their counsel.
Comments
1) Author’s statement. According to the author, this bill modernizes the definition
of “gravely disabled” within the LPS Act to provide for the needs, more
accurately and comprehensively, of individuals experiencing a substantial risk
of serious harm due to a MH/SUD. This bill includes under the definition of
“gravely disabled” a condition in which a person is unable to provide for the
basic needs for nourishment, personal or medical care, adequate shelter,
adequate clothing, self-protection, or personal safety. Involuntary treatment is
a serious intervention, and one that should only be used as a last resort. This
bill also ensures that the court is considering the contents of the medical record
and that, during conservatorship proceedings, relevant testimony regarding
medical history can be considered in order to provide the most appropriate and
timely care. Our current model is leaving too many people suffering with
significant psychotic disorders in incredibly unsafe situations, leading to severe
injury, incarceration, homelessness, or death. This bill will help to provide
dignity and treatment to those who are the most difficult to reach.
2) LPS Act involuntary detentions. The LPS Act provides for involuntary
detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and
treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is
taken to a county-designated facility. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS
Act through a 5150 hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized
by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the
standard for a 5150 hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then
involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and
SB 43
Page 6
treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a MH disorder, a danger to
self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the
county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the
appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual.
Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or
others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an
initial up-to 14 days for intensive treatment, an additional 14 days (or up to an
additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to
30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is
typically for up to a year and may be extended as appropriate. (According to
DHCS’s website, the following counties offer additional up-to 30 days of
intensive treatment: Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Los Angeles,
Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Benito, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara,
Shasta, Tulare, Yolo and Sutter/Yuba.) Throughout this process, existing law
requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the
detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a
person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests
that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to
be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention
with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are
both willing and able to help. A person can also be released prior to the end of
intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are
prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.
3) Support if amended. The Sutter County Board of Supervisors agrees that many
individuals with MH/SUDs fail to receive necessary medical treatment because
of the narrow legal definition of the term “gravely disabled” but has concerns
about the impact this bill will have on county resources and community medical
resources, not just in Sutter but across the state. They argue this bill will
mandate changes that include an increased workload on law enforcement,
public guardians, courts, health care, and behavioral health workforce, which
are already strained under a firehose of new laws and responsibilities aimed at
mitigating the impact of homelessness in the state (such as CARE Court)
without providing counties with the necessary resources to meet the new
mandates. They are further concerned about the chronic underinvestment of
ongoing support in public and private treatment resources, housing facilities,
and public guardians to absorb millions of individuals into the health care
system who will likely need expensive, long-term care. They support this bill if
amendments are made to guarantee sufficient funding to cover the increased
SB 43
Page 7
costs necessary to humanely meet the needs of the population who will be
impacted by the expanded definition.
4) Concerns. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California
(CBHDA) states its membership agrees with concerns expressed by the author
and sponsors that too many individuals suffer without adequate and appropriate
treatment and housing, and they share in the urgency to bring about real change
to address the needs of unhoused individuals with serious MH/SUD. Counties
specialize in providing a full continuum of prevention, outpatient, intensive
outpatient, crisis and inpatient, and residential MH/SUD primarily to low-
income Californians who have Medi-Cal or are uninsured. Counties also have
responsibility for involuntary commitments under the LPS Act. CBHDA states
they found that for a small subset of their clients, conservatorships can be
effective in helping individuals with significant MH conditions by compelling
inpatient treatment. CBHDA has concerns about this bill on the basis that the
proposed expansion of LPS is overly broad and ultimately would not benefit the
clients and communities they serve. These changes would also further
stigmatize behavioral health conditions and frustrate clients and the public, who
want to see real action to meaningfully address the needs of those with
MH/SUDs. CBHDA expresses additional concerns when it comes to
involuntarily detaining and treating those with SUDS, such as that involuntary
SUD treatment could result in overrepresentation of people or color, LGBTQ+,
and other historically marginalized people being forced into more coercive
treatment, which is often traumatizing; that a peer reviewed study of research
from around the world suggests that coerced and involuntary treatment is
actually less effective in terms of long-term substance use outcomes, and more
dangerous in terms of overdose risk, and voluntary treatment is more effective;
and, a build out of delivery networks to support this policy change would take
years, with new, sustained dedicated state resources needed above and beyond
investments already made by the state, with a significant increase in residential
and inpatient SUD treatment capacity.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Unknown, potentially significant workload costs in the millions, to the courts to
adjudicate conservatorship petitions, by trial if demanded by the petition
subject, and review the progress reports for established conservatorships based
upon the expanded definition of gravely disabled (Trial Court Trust Fund,
General Fund). While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis,
SB 43
Page 8
an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put
pressure on the General Fund to increase the amount appropriated for trial court
operations.
Unknown, potentially significant costs for an increase in the use of mental
health and substance abuse treatment services for individuals involuntarily
detained and individuals under conservatorship based upon the expanded
definition of gravely disabled (General Fund, federal funds, county funds). Cost
to counties for administration would be potentially reimbursable by the state,
subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)
Big City Mayors Coalition (co-source)
California State Association of Psychiatrists (co-source)
NAMI California (co-source)
Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California (co-source)
AEsynergy
Alameda County Families Advancing for the Seriously Mental Ill
Bay Area Council
California Contract Cities Association
California Medical Association
City of Bakersfield
City of Carlsbad
Cloverdale Community Outreach Committee
City of Eureka
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Lake Forest
City of Moorpark
City of Murrieta
City of Palo Alto
City of Riverside
City of Redwood City
City of Rosmead
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Monica
City of South Gate
City of West Hollywood
City of Whittier Mayor Joe Vinatieri
County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
Govern for California
SB 43
Page 9
Heart Forward
NAMI – Contra Costa County
NAMI – Nevada County
NAMI – Urban LA LPS Conservativeship Program
Psynergy
San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Stories from the Frontline
Treatment Advocacy Coalition
Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of
Danville
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/24/23)
API Equality-LA
Black Women for Wellness
Cal Voices
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Association of Mental Health Patients’ Rights Advocates
California Black Health Network
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Public Defenders Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Youth Empowerment Network
CAMHPRO
Caravan 4 Justice
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
Disability Rights California
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Hmong Cultural Center of Butte County
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
LGBTQ+ Collaboration
Lift Up Love Always
Mental Health American of California
National Health Law
Native American Health Center
Orange County Equality Coalition
SB 43
Page 10
Pacific Asian Counseling Services
Peers Envisioning and Engaging in Recovery Services
Project Amiga
Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition
Sacramento Homeless Union
Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness
Safe Black Space
San Bernardino Free Them All
South Asian Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Western Regional Advocacy Project
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The co-sponsors of this bill, largely psychiatrist
groups, local governments, and family of those with MH conditions, state that
despite all efforts to reduce the need for conservatorship the reality is that they can
sometimes be the last resort to provide critical treatment to those who are gravely
disabled. As such, the current definition and interpretation of gravely disabled does
not accurately reflect the realities they are seeing in communities and on the
streets. Additionally, supporters state they continue to see the struggles of
community members that cycle in and out of hospitalizations, shelters, and jails
without getting the concrete connections to needed medication and treatment.
These aforementioned problems point to the fact that legislation like this bill is
needed. Supporters argue the focus on a person’s ability to provide for their own
personal or medical care, or self-protection and safety, is important because it
ensures that those who are truly vulnerable receive the help they need.
Furthermore, supporters encourage support of the provision that ensures relevant
history can be considered by the court in a uniform manner across the state, and
state that tools focused on acute symptoms are not suited for chronic and severe
conditions that are seen on the streets. This bill will also ensure that a complete and
accurate picture is presented in court when considering the very serious step of
conservatorship. California currently has the largest concentration of homelessness
in the United States, both in absolute and per-capita figures, and people
experiencing homelessness in California are less likely to have access to shelter
than in any other state. Supporters state an estimated 23% of people experiencing
homelessness in California—approximately 40,000 individuals—suffer a severe
MH/SUD and can no longer care for themselves. The Psychiatric Physicians
Alliance of California (PPAC) argues that serious mental illnesses disrupt a
person’s ability to engage in activities of daily living that the rest of us take for
granted, which is why in California 24% of emergency medical service encounters
are for people with severe mental illness. Among those, nearly 40% of these are
SB 43
Page 11
attributed to patients who are arguably gravely disabled. These individuals
comprise the majority of a conservatively estimated 30% of homeless individuals.
Many counties whose coroners track homeless deaths, such as Sacramento,
Alameda, Los Angeles, and the City and County of San Francisco report a large
uptick in deaths in the homeless population—in some cases 89% annual increases.
PPAC states that clearly business as usual is no longer tolerable, as the above
statistics will attest.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of other opponents, largely
comprised of disability rights and racial and ethnic minority group advocates, echo
some of the arguments made by CBHDA. The coalition further argues that
voluntary, community-based treatment and services, as well as the expansion of
choices, rights, and liberties for people living with MH disabilities are what the
state needs. The coalition states that the Legislature should invest in evidence-
based programs and services that are proven to meet the needs of Californians, and
that the state should exercise greater oversight over local jurisdictions to ensure
that unhoused people are actually offered and placed in appropriate affordable,
accessible housing with voluntary supports. The coalition further points out that
while the state has made investment, such as BHCIP, that infrastructure will not be
available soon enough to absorb additional involuntary detentions that will result if
the expanded definition of “gravely disabled” is enacted.
Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111
5/24/23 11:15:36
**** END ****
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 19, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 23, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 423
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks)
(Coauthor: Senator Hurtado)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Grayson)
February 13, 2023
An act to amend Section 65913.4 of the Government Code, relating
to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 423, as amended, Wiener. Land use: streamlined housing
approvals: multifamily housing developments.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development
proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing
development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval
process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the
development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including,
among others, that the development proponent has committed to record,
prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction
or covenant providing that any lower or moderate-income housing units
required, as specified, remain available at affordable housing costs, as
defined, or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income
for no less than specified periods of time. Existing law repeals these
provisions on January 1, 2026.
96
This bill would authorize the Department of General Services to act
in the place of a locality or local government, at the discretion of that
department, for purposes of the ministerial, streamlined review for
development in compliance with the above-described requirements on
property owned by or leased to the state. The bill would extend the
operation of the streamlined, ministerial approval process to January
1, 2036. The bill would provide that the streamlined, ministerial approval
process does not apply to applications for developments proposed on
qualified sites, defined as a site that is located within an equine or
equestrian district and meets certain other requirements, that are
submitted on or after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025.
This bill would modify the above-described objective planning
standards, including by deleting the standard that prohibits a multifamily
housing development from being subject to the streamlined, ministerial
approval process if the development is located in a coastal zone, and
by providing an alternative definition for “affordable housing costs”
rent” for a development that dedicates 100% of units, exclusive of a
manager’s unit or units, to lower income households. The bill would,
among other modifications, delete the objective planning standards
requiring development proponents to pay at least the general prevailing
rate of per diem wages and utilize a skilled and trained workforce and
would instead require a development proponent to certify to the local
government that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including
a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general
prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require the Labor
Commissioner to enforce the obligation to pay prevailing wages. By
expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program. The bill would specify that the requirements to pay
prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an apprenticeship,
or provide health care expenditures do not apply to a project that consists
of 10 or fewer units and is not otherwise a public work.
Existing law requires a local government to approve a development
if the local government determines the development is consistent with
the objective planning standards. Existing law requires, if the local
government determines a submitted development is in conflict with any
of the objective planning standards, the local government to provide
the development proponent written documentation of the standards the
development conflicts with and an explanation for the conflict within
certain timelines depending on the size of the development. Existing
law, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits a local agency from
96
— 2 — SB 423
disapproving a housing development project, as described, unless it
makes specified written findings.
This bill would instead require approval if a local government’s
planning director or equivalent position determines the development is
consistent with the objective planning standards. The bill would make
conforming changes. The bill would require all departments of the local
government that are required to issue an approval of the development
prior to the granting of an entitlement to also comply with the
above-described streamlined approval requirements within specified
time periods. The bill would prohibit a local government from requiring,
prior to approving a development that meets the requirements of the
above-described streamlining provisions, compliance with any standards
necessary to receive a postentitlement permit or studies, information,
or other materials that do not pertain directly to determining whether
the development is consistent with the objective planning standards
applicable to the development.
The bill would, for purposes of these provisions, establish that the
total number of units in a development includes (1) all projects
developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur, and
(2) all projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant
to these provisions if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site had been
subdivided from the site developed pursuant to these provisions.
Existing law requires, before submitting an application for a
development subject to the above-described streamlined, ministerial
approval process, the development proponent to submit to the local
government a notice of its intent to submit an application, as described.
For developments proposed in a census tract that is designated either
as a moderate resource area, low resource area, or an area of high
segregation and poverty, as described, this bill would require local
governments to provide, within 45 days of receiving a notice of intent
and before the development proponent submits an application for the
proposed development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial
approval process, for a public meeting, as described, to provide an
opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the
development.
Existing law authorizes the local government’s planning commission
or any equivalent board or commission responsible for review and
approval of development projects, or as otherwise specified, to conduct
any design review or public oversight of the development.
96
SB 423 — 3 —
This bill would remove the above-described authorization to conduct
public oversight of the development and would only authorize design
review to be conducted by the local government’s planning commission
or any equivalent board or commission responsible for design review.
By imposing additional duties on local officials, the bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for specified reasons.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has
line 2 provided reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the
line 3 construction of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives
line 4 can be found in the following provisions:
line 5 (a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with
line 6 Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
line 7 Government Code).
line 8 (b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the
line 9 housing element and brought in support of affordable housing
line 10 (subdivision (d) of Section 65009 of the Government Code).
line 11 (c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments
line 12 (Section 65589.5 of the Government Code).
line 13 (d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and
line 14 sewer hookups (Section 65589.7 of the Government Code).
line 15 (e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1 of the Government
line 16 Code).
line 17 (f) Density Bonus Law (Section 65915 of the Government
line 18 Code).
line 19 (g) Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2
line 20 of the Government Code).
96
— 4 — SB 423
line 1 (h) By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing is
line 2 designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4 of the Government
line 3 Code).
line 4 (i) No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and
line 5 density reductions (Section 65863 of the Government Code).
line 6 (j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay
line 7 attorney’s fees (Section 65914 of the Government Code) or post
line 8 a bond (Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
line 9 (k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications
line 10 under the approval of development permits process (Article 5
line 11 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5 of Division 1
line 12 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
line 13 (l) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 65858
line 14 of the Government Code).
line 15 (m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing
line 16 (Section 65008 of the Government Code).
line 17 (n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
line 18 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
line 19 Government Code).
line 20 (o) Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with
line 21 Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and
line 22 in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413 of the Health and Safety
line 23 Code).
line 24 (p) Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage
line 25 (Section 65913.4 of the Government Code).
line 26 (q) Housing sustainability districts (Chapter 11 (commencing
line 27 with Section 66200) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government
line 28 Code).
line 29 (r) Streamlining agricultural employee housing development
line 30 approvals (Section 17021.8 of the Health and Safety Code).
line 31 (s) The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330 (Chapter
line 32 654 of the Statutes of 2019)).
line 33 (t) Allowing four units to be built on single-family parcels
line 34 statewide (Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162 of the Statutes of 2021)).
line 35 (u) The Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 (Section 65852.24
line 36 of the Government Code).
line 37 (v) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022
line 38 (Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 65912.100) of Division
line 39 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code).
96
SB 423 — 5 —
line 1 SEC. 2. Section 65913.4 of the Government Code is amended
line 2 to read:
line 3 65913.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (r), a
line 4 development proponent may submit an application for a
line 5 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 6 process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a
line 7 conditional use permit or any other nonlegislative discretionary
line 8 approval if the development complies with subdivision (b) and
line 9 satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
line 10 (1) The development is a multifamily housing development that
line 11 contains two or more residential units.
line 12 (2) The development and the site on which it is located satisfy
line 13 all of the following:
line 14 (A) It is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only
line 15 if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized
line 16 area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census
line 17 Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels
line 18 wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster,
line 19 as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
line 20 (B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels
line 21 that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section,
line 22 parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be
line 23 considered to be adjoined.
line 24 (C) (i) A site that meets the requirements of clause (ii) and
line 25 satisfies any of the following:
line 26 (I) The site is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use
line 27 development.
line 28 (II) The site has a general plan designation that allows residential
line 29 use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses.
line 30 (III) The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use and
line 31 meets the requirements of Section 65852.24.
line 32 (ii) At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development
line 33 is designated for residential use. Additional density, floor area,
line 34 and units, and any other concession, incentive, or waiver of
line 35 development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law
line 36 in Section 65915 shall be included in the square footage
line 37 calculation. The square footage of the development shall not
line 38 include underground space, such as basements or underground
line 39 parking garages.
96
— 6 — SB 423
line 1 (3) (A) The development proponent has committed to record,
line 2 prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a land use
line 3 restriction or covenant providing that any lower or moderate
line 4 income housing units required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of
line 5 paragraph (4) shall remain available at affordable housing costs
line 6 or rent to persons and families of lower or moderate-income for
line 7 no less than the following periods of time:
line 8 (i) Fifty-five years for units that are rented.
line 9 (ii) Forty-five years for units that are owned.
line 10 (B) The city or county shall require the recording of covenants
line 11 or restrictions implementing this paragraph for each parcel or unit
line 12 of real property included in the development.
line 13 (4) The development satisfies clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
line 14 (A) and satisfies subparagraph (B) below:
line 15 (A) (i) For a development located in a locality that is in its sixth
line 16 or earlier housing element cycle, the development is located in
line 17 either of the following:
line 18 (I) In a locality that the department has determined is subject
line 19 to this clause on the basis that the number of units that have been
line 20 issued building permits, as shown on the most recent production
line 21 report received by the department, is less than the locality’s share
line 22 of the regional housing needs, by income category, for that
line 23 reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under this
line 24 subclause until the department’s determination for the next
line 25 reporting period.
line 26 (II) In a locality that the department has determined is subject
line 27 to this clause on the basis that the locality did not adopt a housing
line 28 element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing
line 29 element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
line 30 Chapter 3) by the department. A locality shall remain eligible under
line 31 this subclause until such time as the locality adopts a housing
line 32 element that has been found in substantial compliance with housing
line 33 element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
line 34 Chapter 3) by the department.
line 35 (ii) For a development located in a locality that is in its seventh
line 36 or later housing element cycle, is located in a locality that the
line 37 department has determined is subject to this clause on the basis
line 38 that the locality did not adopt a housing element that has been
line 39 found in substantial compliance with housing element law (Article
line 40 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3) by the
96
SB 423 — 7 —
line 1 department by the statutory deadline, or that the number of units
line 2 that have been issued building permits, as shown on the most recent
line 3 production report received by the department, is less than the
line 4 locality’s share of the regional housing needs, by income category,
line 5 for that reporting period. A locality shall remain eligible under
line 6 this subparagraph until the department’s determination for the next
line 7 reporting period.
line 8 (B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a
line 9 minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on one
line 10 of the following:
line 11 (i) The locality did not adopt a housing element pursuant to
line 12 Section 65588 that has been found in substantial compliance with
line 13 the housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section
line 14 65580) of Chapter 3) by the department, did not submit its latest
line 15 production report to the department by the time period required
line 16 by Section 65400, or that production report submitted to the
line 17 department reflects that there were fewer units of above
line 18 moderate-income housing issued building permits than were
line 19 required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that
line 20 reporting period. In addition, if the project contains more than 10
line 21 units of housing, the project does either of the following:
line 22 (I) The project dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total
line 23 number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing
line 24 affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area
line 25 median income. However, if the locality has adopted a local
line 26 ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be
line 27 dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80
line 28 percent of the area median income, that local ordinance applies.
line 29 (II) (ia) If the project is located within the San Francisco Bay
line 30 area, the project, in lieu of complying with subclause (I), dedicates
line 31 20 percent of the total number of units, before calculating any
line 32 density bonus, to housing affordable to households making below
line 33 120 percent of the area median income with the average income
line 34 of the units at or below 100 percent of the area median income.
line 35 However, a local ordinance adopted by the locality applies if it
line 36 requires greater than 20 percent of the units be dedicated to housing
line 37 affordable to households making at or below 120 percent of the
line 38 area median income, or requires that any of the units be dedicated
line 39 at a level deeper than 120 percent. In order to comply with this
line 40 subclause, the rent or sale price charged for units that are dedicated
96
— 8 — SB 423
line 1 to housing affordable to households between 80 percent and 120
line 2 percent of the area median income shall not exceed 30 percent of
line 3 the gross income of the household.
line 4 (ib) For purposes of this subclause, “San Francisco Bay area”
line 5 means the entire area within the territorial boundaries of the
line 6 Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo,
line 7 Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San
line 8 Francisco.
line 9 (ii) The locality’s latest production report reflects that there
line 10 were fewer units of housing issued building permits affordable to
line 11 either very low income or low-income households by income
line 12 category than were required for the regional housing needs
line 13 assessment cycle for that reporting period, and the project seeking
line 14 approval dedicates 50 percent of the total number of units, before
line 15 calculating any density bonus, to housing affordable to households
line 16 making at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
line 17 However, if the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires
line 18 that greater than 50 percent of the units be dedicated to housing
line 19 affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area
line 20 median income, that local ordinance applies.
line 21 (iii) The locality did not submit its latest production report to
line 22 the department by the time period required by Section 65400, or
line 23 if the production report reflects that there were fewer units of
line 24 housing affordable to both income levels described in clauses (i)
line 25 and (ii) that were issued building permits than were required for
line 26 the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting
line 27 period, the project seeking approval may choose between utilizing
line 28 clause (i) or (ii).
line 29 (C) (i) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable
line 30 housing to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B) may also
line 31 satisfy any other local or state requirement for affordable housing,
line 32 including local ordinances or the Density Bonus Law in Section
line 33 65915, provided that the development proponent complies with
line 34 the applicable requirements in the state or local law. If a local
line 35 requirement for affordable housing requires units that are restricted
line 36 to households with incomes higher than the applicable income
line 37 limits required in subparagraph (B), then units that meet the
line 38 applicable income limits required in subparagraph (B) shall be
line 39 deemed to satisfy those local requirements for higher income units.
96
SB 423 — 9 —
line 1 (ii) A development proponent that uses a unit of affordable
line 2 housing to satisfy any other state or local affordability requirement
line 3 may also satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (B), provided
line 4 that the development proponent complies with applicable
line 5 requirements of subparagraph (B).
line 6 (iii) A development proponent may satisfy the affordability
line 7 requirements of subparagraph (B) with a unit that is restricted to
line 8 households with incomes lower than the applicable income limits
line 9 required in subparagraph (B).
line 10 (D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding
line 11 this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory
line 12 of, existing law.
line 13 (5) The development, excluding any additional density or any
line 14 other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards
line 15 for which the development is eligible pursuant to the Density Bonus
line 16 Law in Section 65915, is consistent with objective zoning
line 17 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
line 18 review standards in effect at the time that the development is
line 19 submitted to the local government pursuant to this section, or at
line 20 the time a notice of intent is submitted pursuant to subdivision (b),
line 21 whichever occurs earlier. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective
line 22 zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and
line 23 “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve
line 24 no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are
line 25 uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
line 26 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
line 27 development applicant or proponent and the public official before
line 28 submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative
line 29 objective land use specifications adopted by a city or county, and
line 30 may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific
line 31 plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus
line 32 ordinances, subject to the following:
line 33 (A) A development shall be deemed consistent with the objective
line 34 zoning standards related to housing density, as applicable, if the
line 35 density proposed is compliant with the maximum density allowed
line 36 within that land use designation, notwithstanding any specified
line 37 maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing
line 38 being permitted.
line 39 (B) In the event that objective zoning, general plan, subdivision,
line 40 or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, a
96
— 10 — SB 423
line 1 development shall be deemed consistent with the objective zoning
line 2 and subdivision standards pursuant to this subdivision if the
line 3 development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general
line 4 plan.
line 5 (C) It is the intent of the Legislature that the objective zoning
line 6 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
line 7 review standards described in this paragraph be adopted or
line 8 amended in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 905 of
line 9 the Statutes of 2004.
line 10 (D) The amendments to this subdivision made by the act adding
line 11 this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory
line 12 of, existing law.
line 13 (E) A project that satisfies the requirements of Section 65852.24
line 14 shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards,
line 15 objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if
line 16 the project is consistent with the provisions of subdivision (b) of
line 17 Section 65852.24 and if none of the square footage in the project
line 18 is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other
line 19 transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel. For purposes
line 20 of this subdivision, “residential hotel” shall have the same meaning
line 21 as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 22 (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the
line 23 following:
line 24 (A) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance,
line 25 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture
line 26 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California,
line 27 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping
line 28 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or
line 29 land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation
line 30 by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that
line 31 jurisdiction.
line 32 (B) Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife
line 33 Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993), unless the
line 34 development within the wetlands has been authorized by a permit
line 35 or other approval issued pursuant to federal or other state law.
line 36 1993).
line 37 (C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined
line 38 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to
line 39 Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity
line 40 zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry
96
SB 423 — 11 —
line 1 and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public
line 2 Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites
line 3 excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency,
line 4 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have
line 5 adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing
line 6 building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to
line 7 the development.
line 8 (D) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section
line 9 65962.5 or a hazardous substances release site designated by the
line 10 Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356
line 11 of the Health and Safety Code, unless either of the following apply:
line 12 (i) The site is an underground storage tank site that received a
line 13 uniform closure letter issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section
line 14 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria
line 15 established by the State Water Resources Control Board for
line 16 residential use or residential mixed uses. This section does not
line 17 alter or change the conditions to remove a site from the list of
line 18 hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5.
line 19 (ii) The State Department of Public Health, State Water
line 20 Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control,
line 21 or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision
line 22 (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has
line 23 otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or
line 24 residential mixed uses.
line 25 (E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by
line 26 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State
line 27 Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic
line 28 protection building code standards adopted by the California
line 29 Building Standards Commission under the California Building
line 30 Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of
line 31 Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local
line 32 building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section
line 33 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.
line 34 (F) Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by
line 35 the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined
line 36 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official
line 37 maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
line 38 If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal
line 39 qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this
line 40 subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval
96
— 12 — SB 423
line 1 under this section, a local government shall not deny the application
line 2 on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with
line 3 any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by
line 4 that local government that is applicable to that site. A development
line 5 may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either
line 6 of the following are met:
line 7 (i) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision
line 8 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
line 9 issued to the local jurisdiction.
line 10 (ii) The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency
line 11 requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management
line 12 criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part
line 13 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing
line 14 with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the
line 15 Code of Federal Regulations.
line 16 (G) Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal
line 17 Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published
line 18 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the
line 19 development has received a no-rise certification in accordance
line 20 with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal
line 21 Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all
line 22 applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the
line 23 site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for
line 24 streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall
line 25 not deny the application on the basis that the development
line 26 proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement,
line 27 standard, or action adopted by that local government that is
line 28 applicable to that site.
line 29 (H) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural
line 30 community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community
line 31 Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
line 32 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat
line 33 conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act
line 34 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural
line 35 resource protection plan.
line 36 (I) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate,
line 37 sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies,
line 38 fully protected species, or species protected by the federal
line 39 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.),
line 40 the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing
96
SB 423 — 13 —
line 1 with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or
line 2 the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with
line 3 Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), unless
line 4 the development within the habitat has been authorized by a permit
line 5 or approval issued pursuant to federal or other state law. Code).
line 6 (J) Lands under conservation easement.
line 7 (7) The development is not located on a site where any of the
line 8 following apply:
line 9 (A) The development would require the demolition of the
line 10 following types of housing:
line 11 (i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance,
line 12 or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and
line 13 families of moderate, low, or very low income.
line 14 (ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control
line 15 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
line 16 (iii) Housing that has been occupied by tenants within the past
line 17 10 years.
line 18 (B) The site was previously used for housing that was occupied
line 19 by tenants that was demolished within 10 years before the
line 20 development proponent submits an application under this section.
line 21 (C) The development would require the demolition of a historic
line 22 structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic
line 23 register.
line 24 (D) The property contains housing units that are occupied by
line 25 tenants, and units at the property are, or were, subsequently offered
line 26 for sale to the general public by the subdivider or subsequent owner
line 27 of the property.
line 28 (8) Except as provided in paragraph (9), a proponent of a
line 29 development project approved by a local government pursuant to
line 30 this section shall require in contracts with construction contractors,
line 31 and shall certify to the local government, that the following
line 32 standards specified in this paragraph will be met in project
line 33 construction, as applicable:
line 34 (A) A development that is not in its entirety a public work for
line 35 purposes of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7
line 36 of Division 2 of the Labor Code and approved by a local
line 37 government pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section
line 38 65912.110) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 65912.120)
line 39 shall be subject to all of the following:
96
— 14 — SB 423
line 1 (i) All construction workers employed in the execution of the
line 2 development shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of
line 3 per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as
line 4 determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to
line 5 Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that
line 6 apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the
line 7 Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the
line 8 applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
line 9 (ii) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing
line 10 wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance
line 11 of the work for those portions of the development that are not a
line 12 public work.
line 13 (iii) All contractors and subcontractors for those portions of the
line 14 development that are not a public work shall comply with both of
line 15 the following:
line 16 (I) Pay to all construction workers employed in the execution
line 17 of the work at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages,
line 18 except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the
line 19 Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at
line 20 least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
line 21 (II) Maintain and verify payroll records pursuant to Section
line 22 1776 of the Labor Code and make those records available for
line 23 inspection and copying as provided in that section. This subclause
line 24 does not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing
line 25 work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement
line 26 that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction
line 27 workers employed in the execution of the development and
line 28 provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration
line 29 procedure. For purposes of this subclause, “project labor
line 30 agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of
line 31 subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code.
line 32 (B) (i) The obligation of the contractors and subcontractors to
line 33 pay prevailing wages pursuant to this paragraph may be enforced
line 34 by any of the following:
line 35 (I) The Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a civil
line 36 wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor
line 37 Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of the
line 38 Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the
line 39 development.
96
SB 423 — 15 —
line 1 (II) An underpaid worker through an administrative complaint
line 2 or civil action.
line 3 (III) A joint labor-management committee through a civil action
line 4 under Section 1771.2 of the Labor Code.
line 5 (ii) If a civil wage and penalty assessment is issued pursuant to
line 6 this paragraph, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond
line 7 or bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the
line 8 assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to
line 9 Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code.
line 10 (iii) This paragraph does not apply if all contractors and
line 11 subcontractors performing work on the development are subject
line 12 to a project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing
line 13 wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of
line 14 the development and provides for enforcement of that obligation
line 15 through an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this clause,
line 16 “project labor agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in
line 17 paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public
line 18 Contract Code.
line 19 (C) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the
line 20 Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce
line 21 the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages
line 22 found to be prevailing does not apply to those portions of
line 23 development that are not a public work if otherwise provided in a
line 24 bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker.
line 25 (D) The requirement of this paragraph to pay at least the general
line 26 prevailing rate of per diem wages does not preclude use of an
line 27 alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511
line 28 or 514 of the Labor Code.
line 29 (E) A development of 50 or more housing units approved by a
line 30 local government pursuant to this section shall meet all of the
line 31 following labor standards:
line 32 (i) The development proponent shall require in contracts with
line 33 construction contractors and shall certify to the local government
line 34 that each contractor of any tier who will employ construction craft
line 35 employees or will let subcontracts for at least 1,000 hours shall
line 36 satisfy the requirements in clauses (ii) and (iii). A construction
line 37 contractor is deemed in compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii) if it
line 38 is signatory to a valid collective bargaining agreement that requires
line 39 utilization of registered apprentices and expenditures on health
line 40 care for employees and dependents.
96
— 16 — SB 423
line 1 (ii) A contractor with construction craft employees shall either
line 2 participate in an apprenticeship program approved by the California
line 3 Division of Apprenticeship Standards pursuant to Section 3075 of
line 4 the Labor Code, or request the dispatch of apprentices from a
line 5 state-approved apprenticeship program under the terms and
line 6 conditions set forth in Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code. A
line 7 contractor without construction craft employees shall show a
line 8 contractual obligation that its subcontractors comply with this
line 9 clause.
line 10 (iii) Each contractor with construction craft employees shall
line 11 make health care expenditures for each employee in an amount
line 12 per hour worked on the development equivalent to at least the
line 13 hourly pro rata cost of a Covered California Platinum level plan
line 14 for two adults 40 years of age and two dependents 0 to 14 years
line 15 of age for the Covered California rating area in which the
line 16 development is located. A contractor without construction craft
line 17 employees shall show a contractual obligation that its
line 18 subcontractors comply with this clause. Qualifying expenditures
line 19 shall be credited toward compliance with prevailing wage payment
line 20 requirements set forth in this paragraph.
line 21 (iv) (I) The development proponent shall provide to the local
line 22 government, on a monthly basis while its construction contracts
line 23 on the development are being performed, a report demonstrating
line 24 compliance with clauses (ii) and (iii). The reports shall be
line 25 considered public records under the California Public Records Act
line 26 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1), and
line 27 shall be open to public inspection.
line 28 (II) A development proponent that fails to provide the monthly
line 29 report shall be subject to a civil penalty for each month for which
line 30 the report has not been provided, in the amount of 10 percent of
line 31 the dollar value of construction work performed by that contractor
line 32 on the development in the month in question, up to a maximum
line 33 of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Any contractor or subcontractor
line 34 that fails to comply with clauses (ii) and (iii) shall be subject to a
line 35 civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker
line 36 employed in contravention of clauses (ii) and (iii).
line 37 (III) Penalties may be assessed by the Labor Commissioner
line 38 within 18 months of completion of the development using the
line 39 procedures for issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments
line 40 specified in Section 1741 of the Labor Code, and may be reviewed
96
SB 423 — 17 —
line 1 pursuant to Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Penalties shall be
line 2 deposited in the State Public Works Enforcement Fund established
line 3 pursuant to Section 1771.3 of the Labor Code.
line 4 (v) Each construction contractor shall maintain and verify
line 5 payroll records pursuant to Section 1776 of the Labor Code. Each
line 6 construction contractor shall submit payroll records directly to the
line 7 Labor Commissioner at least monthly in a format prescribed by
line 8 the Labor Commissioner in accordance with subparagraph (A) of
line 9 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1771.4 of the Labor
line 10 Code. The records shall include a statement of fringe benefits.
line 11 Upon request by a joint labor-management cooperation committee
line 12 established pursuant to the Federal federal Labor Management
line 13 Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), the records shall
line 14 be provided pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1776 of the
line 15 Labor Code.
line 16 (vi) All construction contractors shall report any change in
line 17 apprenticeship program participation or health care expenditures
line 18 to the local government within 10 business days, and shall reflect
line 19 those changes on the monthly report. The reports shall be
line 20 considered public records pursuant to the California Public Records
line 21 Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1)
line 22 and shall be open to public inspection.
line 23 (vii) A joint labor-management cooperation committee
line 24 established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management Cooperation
line 25 Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) shall have standing to sue a
line 26 construction contractor for failure to make health care expenditures
line 27 pursuant to clause (iii) in accordance with Section 218.7 or 218.8
line 28 of the Labor Code.
line 29 (F) For any project over 85 feet in height above-grade, having
line 30 floors used for human occupancy that are located more than 85
line 31 feet above the grade plane, the following skilled and trained
line 32 workforce provisions apply:
line 33 (i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the developer shall enter
line 34 into construction contracts with prime contractors only if both all
line 35 of the following are satisfied:
line 36 (I) The contract contains an enforceable commitment that the
line 37 prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled
line 38 and trained workforce, as defined in Chapter 2.9 (commencing
line 39 with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Section 2601 of
line 40 the Public Contract Code, to perform work on the project that falls
96
— 18 — SB 423
line 1 within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and
line 2 construction trades. However, this enforceable commitment
line 3 requirement shall not apply to any scopes of work where new bids
line 4 are accepted pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (ii).
line 5 (II) The developer or prime contractor shall establish minimum
line 6 bidding requirements for subcontractors that are objective to the
line 7 maximum extent possible. The developer or prime contractor shall
line 8 not impose any obstacles in the bid process for subcontractors
line 9 that go beyond what is reasonable and commercially customary.
line 10 The developer or prime contractor must accept bids submitted by
line 11 any bidder that meets the minimum criteria set forth in the bid
line 12 solicitation.
line 13 (II)
line 14 (III) The prime contractor has provided an affidavit under
line 15 penalty of perjury that, for each scope of work, they included an
line 16 enforceable commitment to require, in compliance with this
line 17 subparagraph, its subcontractors to use a skilled and trained
line 18 workforce or that they did not receive at least three responsive
line 19 bids in any license category from subcontractors that attest to
line 20 satisfying the skilled and trained workforce requirements. in
line 21 compliance with this subparagraph, it will use a skilled and trained
line 22 workforce and will obtain from its subcontractors an enforceable
line 23 commitment to use a skilled and trained workforce for each scope
line 24 of work in which it receives at least three bids attesting to
line 25 satisfaction of the skilled and trained workforce requirements.
line 26 (IV) When a prime contractor or subcontractor is required to
line 27 provide an enforceable commitment that a skilled and trained
line 28 workforce will be used to complete a contract or project, the
line 29 commitment shall be made in an enforceable agreement with the
line 30 developer that provides the following:
line 31 (ia) The prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will
line 32 comply with this chapter.
line 33 (ib) The prime contractor will provide the developer, on a
line 34 monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed, a
line 35 report demonstrating compliance by the prime contractor.
line 36 (ic) The prime contractor shall provide the developer, on a
line 37 monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed,
line 38 the monthly reports demonstrating compliance submitted to the
line 39 prime contractor by the affected subcontractors.
96
SB 423 — 19 —
line 1 (ii) (I) If a prime contractor fails to receive at least three
line 2 responsive bids in a construction license classification or scope of
line 3 construction work from subcontractors that attest to satisfying the
line 4 skilled and trained workforce requirements as described in this
line 5 subparagraph, the prime contractor may rebid accept new bids for
line 6 that scope of work. The prime contractor need not require that a
line 7 skilled and trained workforce be used by the subcontractors for
line 8 that scope of work.
line 9 (II) The requirements of this subparagraph shall not apply if all
line 10 contractors, subcontractors and craft unions performing work on
line 11 the development are subject to a multicraft project labor agreement
line 12 that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction
line 13 workers employed in the execution of the development and
line 14 provides for enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration
line 15 procedure. The multicraft project labor agreement shall include
line 16 all construction crafts with applicable coverage determinations for
line 17 the specified scopes of work on the project pursuant to Section
line 18 1773 of the Labor Code and shall be executed by all applicable
line 19 labor organizations regardless of affiliation. For purposes of this
line 20 clause, “project labor agreement” means a prehire collective
line 21 bargaining agreement that establishes terms and conditions of
line 22 employment for a specific construction project or projects and is
line 23 an agreement described in Section 158(f) of Title 29 of the United
line 24 States Code.
line 25 (III) Requirements set forth in this subparagraph shall not apply
line 26 to projects where 100 percent of the units are subsidized affordable
line 27 housing. units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are dedicated
line 28 to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the
line 29 Health and Safety Code.
line 30 (iii) If the skilled and trained workforce requirements of this
line 31 subparagraph apply, the prime contractor shall require
line 32 subcontractors to provide, and subcontractors on the project shall
line 33 provide, the following to the prime contractor:
line 34 (I) An affidavit signed under penalty of perjury that a skilled
line 35 and trained workforce shall be employed on the project.
line 36 (II) Performance bonds on which the prime contractor or
line 37 development proponent may make a claim if the subcontractor
line 38 fails to satisfy its skilled and trained workforce requirements. The
line 39 purpose of the performance bond shall be to indemnify the prime
line 40 contractor for any loss sustained by the prime contractor due to
96
— 20 — SB 423
line 1 any failure by the subcontractor to comply with this subparagraph.
line 2 However, a prime contractor or development proponent shall be
line 3 prohibited from making a claim on the bonds if the subcontractor
line 4 was not properly notified of the skilled and trained workforce
line 5 requirements prior to the submission of their bid. Proper notice
line 6 includes, but is not limited to, the words “skilled and trained
line 7 workforce required” in any notice to potential bidders,
line 8 correspondence, offer of contract, or contract between the prime
line 9 contractor or development proponent and subcontractor at any
line 10 time before the work is performed.
line 11 (II) Reports on a monthly basis, while the project or contract
line 12 is being performed, demonstrating compliance with this chapter.
line 13 (iv) At least seven days before Upon issuing any invitation or
line 14 bid solicitation for the project, but no less than seven days before
line 15 the bid is due, the developer shall send a notice of the invitation
line 16 or solicitation that describes the project to the following entities
line 17 within the jurisdiction of the proposed project site:
line 18 (I) Any bona fide labor organization representing workers in
line 19 the building and construction trades who may perform work
line 20 necessary to complete the project and the local building and
line 21 construction trades council.
line 22 (II) Any organization representing contractors that may perform
line 23 work necessary to complete the project, including any contractors’
line 24 association or regional builders’ exchange.
line 25 (v) The developer or prime contractor shall, within three
line 26 business days of a request by a joint labor-management cooperation
line 27 committee established pursuant to the Federal Labor Management
line 28 Cooperation 8 Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a), provide all of
line 29 the following:
line 30 (I) The names and Contractors State License Board numbers of
line 31 the prime contractor and any subcontractors that submitted a
line 32 proposal or bid for the development project.
line 33 (II) The names and Contractors State License Board numbers
line 34 of contractors and subcontractors that are under contract to perform
line 35 construction work.
line 36 (vi) (I) For all projects subject to this subparagraph, the
line 37 development proponent shall provide to the local agency, locality,
line 38 on a monthly basis while the project or contract is being performed,
line 39 a report demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing
line 40 with Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 that the self-performing
96
SB 423 — 21 —
line 1 prime contractor and all subcontractors used a skilled and trained
line 2 workforce, as defined in Section 2601 of the Public Contract Code.
line 3 Code, unless otherwise exempt under this subparagraph. A
line 4 monthly report provided to the local government locality pursuant
line 5 to this subclause shall be a public record under the California
line 6 Public Records Act (Division Division 10 (commencing with
line 7 Section 7920.000) of Title 1 and shall be open to public inspection.
line 8 A developer that fails to provide a complete monthly report
line 9 demonstrating compliance with Chapter 2.9 (commencing with
line 10 Section 2600) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code
line 11 shall be subject to a civil penalty of 10 percent of the dollar value
line 12 of construction work performed by that contractor on the project
line 13 in the month in question, up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars
line 14 ($10,000) per month for each month for which the report has not
line 15 been provided.
line 16 (II) Any subcontractors or prime contractor self-performing
line 17 work subject to the skilled and trained workforce requirements
line 18 under this subparagraph that fail to use a skilled and trained
line 19 workforce shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars
line 20 ($200) per day for each worker employed in contravention of the
line 21 skilled and trained workforce requirement. Penalties may be
line 22 assessed by the Labor Commissioner within 18 months of
line 23 completion of the project using the same issuance of civil wage
line 24 and penalty assessments pursuant to Section 1741 of the Labor
line 25 Code and may be reviewed pursuant to the same procedures in
line 26 Section 1742 of the Labor Code. Prime contractors shall not be
line 27 jointly liable for violations of this subparagraph by subcontractors.
line 28 Penalties shall be paid to the State Public Works Enforcement
line 29 Fund. Fund or the locality or its labor standards enforcement
line 30 agency, depending on the lead entity performing the enforcement
line 31 work.
line 32 (III) Any provision of a contract or agreement of any kind
line 33 between a developer and a prime contractor that purports to
line 34 delegate, transfer, or assign to a prime contractor any obligations
line 35 of or penalties incurred by a developer shall be deemed contrary
line 36 to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable.
line 37 (G) A locality, and any labor standards enforcement agency
line 38 the locality lawfully maintains, shall have standing to take
line 39 administrative action or sue a construction contractor for failure
line 40 to comply with this paragraph. A prevailing locality or labor
96
— 22 — SB 423
line 1 standards enforcement agency shall distribute any wages and
line 2 penalties to workers in accordance with law and retain any fees,
line 3 additional penalties, or assessments.
line 4 (9) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), a development that is subject
line 5 to approval pursuant to this section is exempt from any requirement
line 6 to pay prevailing wages, use a workforce participating in an
line 7 apprenticeship, or provide health care expenditures if it satisfies
line 8 both of the following:
line 9 (A) The project consists of 10 or fewer units.
line 10 (B) The project is not a public work for purposes of Chapter 1
line 11 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the
line 12 Labor Code.
line 13 (10) The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of
line 14 land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law
line 15 (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2
line 16 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park
line 17 Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20)
line 18 of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the
line 19 Mobilehome Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200)
line 20 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), or the Special
line 21 Occupancy Parks Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860)
line 22 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code).
line 23 (b) (1) (A) (i) Before submitting an application for a
line 24 development subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 25 process described in subdivision (c), the development proponent
line 26 shall submit to the local government a notice of its intent to submit
line 27 an application. The notice of intent shall be in the form of a
line 28 preliminary application that includes all of the information
line 29 described in Section 65941.1, as that section read on January 1,
line 30 2020.
line 31 (ii) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to submit an application
line 32 described in clause (i), the local government shall engage in a
line 33 scoping consultation regarding the proposed development with
line 34 any California Native American tribe that is traditionally and
line 35 culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in
line 36 Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, of the proposed
line 37 development. In order to expedite compliance with this subdivision,
line 38 the local government shall contact the Native American Heritage
line 39 Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native
96
SB 423 — 23 —
line 1 American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with
line 2 the geographic area of the proposed development.
line 3 (iii) The timeline for noticing and commencing a scoping
line 4 consultation in accordance with this subdivision shall be as follows:
line 5 (I) The local government shall provide a formal notice of a
line 6 development proponent’s notice of intent to submit an application
line 7 described in clause (i) to each California Native American tribe
line 8 that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic
line 9 area of the proposed development within 30 days of receiving that
line 10 notice of intent. The formal notice provided pursuant to this
line 11 subclause shall include all of the following:
line 12 (ia) A description of the proposed development.
line 13 (ib) The location of the proposed development.
line 14 (ic) An invitation to engage in a scoping consultation in
line 15 accordance with this subdivision.
line 16 (II) Each California Native American tribe that receives a formal
line 17 notice pursuant to this clause shall have 30 days from the receipt
line 18 of that notice to accept the invitation to engage in a scoping
line 19 consultation.
line 20 (III) If the local government receives a response accepting an
line 21 invitation to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to this
line 22 subdivision, the local government shall commence the scoping
line 23 consultation within 30 days of receiving that response.
line 24 (B) The scoping consultation shall recognize that California
line 25 Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with
line 26 a geographic area have knowledge and expertise concerning the
line 27 resources at issue and shall take into account the cultural
line 28 significance of the resource to the culturally affiliated California
line 29 Native American tribe.
line 30 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant
line 31 to this subdivision shall be the local government and any California
line 32 Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with
line 33 the geographic area of the proposed development. More than one
line 34 California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally
line 35 affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development
line 36 may participate in the scoping consultation. However, the local
line 37 government, upon the request of any California Native American
line 38 tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area
line 39 of the proposed development, shall engage in a separate scoping
line 40 consultation with that California Native American tribe. The
96
— 24 — SB 423
line 1 development proponent and its consultants may participate in a
line 2 scoping consultation process conducted pursuant to this subdivision
line 3 if all of the following conditions are met:
line 4 (i) The development proponent and its consultants agree to
line 5 respect the principles set forth in this subdivision.
line 6 (ii) The development proponent and its consultants engage in
line 7 the scoping consultation in good faith.
line 8 (iii) The California Native American tribe participating in the
line 9 scoping consultation approves the participation of the development
line 10 proponent and its consultants. The California Native American
line 11 tribe may rescind its approval at any time during the scoping
line 12 consultation, either for the duration of the scoping consultation or
line 13 with respect to any particular meeting or discussion held as part
line 14 of the scoping consultation.
line 15 (D) The participants to a scoping consultation pursuant to this
line 16 subdivision shall comply with all of the following confidentiality
line 17 requirements:
line 18 (i) Section 7927.000.
line 19 (ii) Section 7927.005.
line 20 (iii) Subdivision (c) of Section 21082.3 of the Public Resources
line 21 Code.
line 22 (iv) Subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the
line 23 California Code of Regulations.
line 24 (v) Any additional confidentiality standards adopted by the
line 25 California Native American tribe participating in the scoping
line 26 consultation.
line 27 (E) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
line 28 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code)
line 29 shall not apply to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to
line 30 this subdivision.
line 31 (2) (A) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties
line 32 find that no potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by
line 33 the proposed development, the development proponent may submit
line 34 an application for the proposed development that is subject to the
line 35 streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision
line 36 (c).
line 37 (B) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties
line 38 find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by
line 39 the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is
line 40 documented between the California Native American tribe and the
96
SB 423 — 25 —
line 1 local government on methods, measures, and conditions for tribal
line 2 cultural resource treatment, the development proponent may submit
line 3 the application for a development subject to the streamlined,
line 4 ministerial approval process described in subdivision (c). The local
line 5 government shall ensure that the enforceable agreement is included
line 6 in the requirements and conditions for the proposed development.
line 7 (C) If, after concluding the scoping consultation, the parties
line 8 find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by
line 9 the proposed development and an enforceable agreement is not
line 10 documented between the California Native American tribe and the
line 11 local government regarding methods, measures, and conditions
line 12 for tribal cultural resource treatment, the development shall not
line 13 be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process
line 14 described in subdivision (c).
line 15 (D) For purposes of this paragraph, a scoping consultation shall
line 16 be deemed to be concluded if either of the following occur:
line 17 (i) The parties to the scoping consultation document an
line 18 enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and
line 19 conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural
line 20 resources that are or may be present.
line 21 (ii) One or more parties to the scoping consultation, acting in
line 22 good faith and after reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual
line 23 agreement on methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or
line 24 address impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be
line 25 present cannot be reached.
line 26 (E) If the development or environmental setting substantially
line 27 changes after the completion of the scoping consultation, the local
line 28 government shall notify the California Native American tribe of
line 29 the changes and engage in a subsequent scoping consultation if
line 30 requested by the California Native American tribe.
line 31 (3) A local government may only accept an application for
line 32 streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to this section if one of
line 33 the following applies:
line 34 (A) A California Native American tribe that received a formal
line 35 notice of the development proponent’s notice of intent to submit
line 36 an application pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (iii) of
line 37 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) did not accept the invitation to
line 38 engage in a scoping consultation.
line 39 (B) The California Native American tribe accepted an invitation
line 40 to engage in a scoping consultation pursuant to subclause (II) of
96
— 26 — SB 423
line 1 clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) but substantially
line 2 failed to engage in the scoping consultation after repeated
line 3 documented attempts by the local government to engage the
line 4 California Native American tribe.
line 5 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation pursuant to this
line 6 subdivision find that no potential tribal cultural resource will be
line 7 affected by the proposed development pursuant to subparagraph
line 8 (A) of paragraph (2).
line 9 (D) A scoping consultation between a California Native
line 10 American tribe and the local government has occurred in
line 11 accordance with this subdivision and resulted in agreement
line 12 pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2).
line 13 (4) A project shall not be eligible for the streamlined, ministerial
line 14 process described in subdivision (c) if any of the following apply:
line 15 (A) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state,
line 16 tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project.
line 17 (B) There is a potential tribal cultural resource that could be
line 18 affected by the proposed development and the parties to a scoping
line 19 consultation conducted pursuant to this subdivision do not
line 20 document an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and
line 21 conditions for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in
line 22 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2).
line 23 (C) The parties to a scoping consultation conducted pursuant
line 24 to this subdivision do not agree as to whether a potential tribal
line 25 cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development.
line 26 (5) (A) If, after a scoping consultation conducted pursuant to
line 27 this subdivision, a project is not eligible for the streamlined,
line 28 ministerial process described in subdivision (c) for any or all of
line 29 the following reasons, the local government shall provide written
line 30 documentation of that fact, and an explanation of the reason for
line 31 which the project is not eligible, to the development proponent
line 32 and to any California Native American tribe that is a party to that
line 33 scoping consultation:
line 34 (i) There is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state,
line 35 tribal, or local historic register list located on the site of the project,
line 36 as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4).
line 37 (ii) The parties to the scoping consultation have not documented
line 38 an enforceable agreement on methods, measures, and conditions
line 39 for tribal cultural resource treatment, as described in subparagraph
line 40 (C) of paragraph (2) and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4).
96
SB 423 — 27 —
line 1 (iii) The parties to the scoping consultation do not agree as to
line 2 whether a potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the
line 3 proposed development, as described in subparagraph (C) of
line 4 paragraph (4).
line 5 (B) The written documentation provided to a development
line 6 proponent pursuant to this paragraph shall include information on
line 7 how the development proponent may seek a conditional use permit
line 8 or other discretionary approval of the development from the local
line 9 government.
line 10 (6) This section is not intended, and shall not be construed, to
line 11 limit consultation and discussion between a local government and
line 12 a California Native American tribe pursuant to other applicable
line 13 law, confidentiality provisions under other applicable law, the
line 14 protection of religious exercise to the fullest extent permitted under
line 15 state and federal law, or the ability of a California Native American
line 16 tribe to submit information to the local government or participate
line 17 in any process of the local government.
line 18 (7) For purposes of this subdivision:
line 19 (A) “Consultation” means the meaningful and timely process
line 20 of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of
line 21 others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values
line 22 and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between
line 23 local governments and Native American tribes shall be conducted
line 24 in a way that is mutually respectful of each party’s sovereignty.
line 25 Consultation shall also recognize the tribes’ potential needs for
line 26 confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal
line 27 cultural importance. A lead agency shall consult the tribal
line 28 consultation best practices described in the “State of California
line 29 Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to the General Plan
line 30 Guidelines” prepared by the Office of Planning and Research.
line 31 (B) “Scoping” means the act of participating in early discussions
line 32 or investigations between the local government and California
line 33 Native American tribe, and the development proponent if
line 34 authorized by the California Native American tribe, regarding the
line 35 potential effects a proposed development could have on a potential
line 36 tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public
line 37 Resources Code, or California Native American tribe, as defined
line 38 in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code.
line 39 (8) This subdivision shall not apply to any project that has been
line 40 approved under the streamlined, ministerial approval process
96
— 28 — SB 423
line 1 provided under this section before the effective date of the act
line 2 adding this subdivision.
line 3 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any local law, if a local government’s
line 4 planning director or equivalent position determines that a
line 5 development submitted pursuant to this section is consistent with
line 6 the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a) and
line 7 pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subdivision, the local government
line 8 shall approve the development. Upon a determination that a
line 9 development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with
line 10 any of the objective planning standards specified in subdivision
line 11 (a), the local government staff or relevant local planning and
line 12 permitting department that made the determination shall provide
line 13 the development proponent written documentation of which
line 14 standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an
line 15 explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts
line 16 with that standard or standards, as follows:
line 17 (A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local
line 18 government pursuant to this section if the development contains
line 19 150 or fewer housing units.
line 20 (B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local
line 21 government pursuant to this section if the development contains
line 22 more than 150 housing units.
line 23 (2) If the local government’s planning director or equivalent
line 24 position fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to
line 25 paragraph (1), the development shall be deemed to satisfy the
line 26 objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a).
line 27 (3) For purposes of this section, a development is consistent
line 28 with the objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a)
line 29 if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person
line 30 to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective
line 31 planning standards. The local government shall not determine that
line 32 a development, including an application for a modification under
line 33 subdivision (h), is in conflict with the objective planning standards
line 34 on the basis that application materials are not included, if the
line 35 application contains substantial evidence that would allow a
line 36 reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent
line 37 with the objective planning standards.
line 38 (4) Upon submittal of an application for streamlined, ministerial
line 39 approval pursuant to this section to the local government, all
line 40 departments of the local government that are required to issue an
96
SB 423 — 29 —
line 1 approval of the development prior to the granting of an entitlement
line 2 shall comply with the requirements of this section within the time
line 3 periods specified in paragraph (1).
line 4 (d) (1) Any design review of the development may be conducted
line 5 by the local government’s planning commission or any equivalent
line 6 board or commission responsible for design review. That design
line 7 review shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing
line 8 compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well
line 9 as any reasonable objective design standards published and adopted
line 10 by ordinance or resolution by a local jurisdiction before submission
line 11 of a development application, and shall be broadly applicable to
line 12 development within the jurisdiction. That design review shall be
line 13 completed, and if the development is consistent with all objective
line 14 standards, the local government shall approve the development as
line 15 follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the
line 16 ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as
line 17 applicable:
line 18 (A) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local
line 19 government pursuant to this section if the development contains
line 20 150 or fewer housing units.
line 21 (B) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the
line 22 local government pursuant to this section if the development
line 23 contains more than 150 housing units.
line 24 (2) If the development is consistent with the requirements of
line 25 subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) and
line 26 is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local
line 27 subdivision ordinance, an application for a subdivision pursuant
line 28 to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section
line 29 66410)) shall be exempt from the requirements of the California
line 30 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section
line 31 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and shall be subject to the
line 32 public oversight timelines set forth in paragraph (1).
line 33 (3) If a local government determines that a development
line 34 submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the
line 35 standards imposed pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall provide the
line 36 development proponent written documentation of which objective
line 37 standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an
line 38 explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts
line 39 with that objective standard or standards consistent with the
line 40 timelines described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).
96
— 30 — SB 423
line 1 (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local government,
line 2 whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing automobile
line 3 parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not
line 4 impose automobile parking standards for a streamlined
line 5 development that was approved pursuant to this section in any of
line 6 the following instances:
line 7 (A) The development is located within one-half mile of public
line 8 transit.
line 9 (B) The development is located within an architecturally and
line 10 historically significant historic district.
line 11 (C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered
line 12 to the occupants of the development.
line 13 (D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block
line 14 of the development.
line 15 (2) If the development does not fall within any of the categories
line 16 described in paragraph (1), the local government shall not impose
line 17 automobile parking requirements for streamlined developments
line 18 approved pursuant to this section that exceed one parking space
line 19 per unit.
line 20 (f) Notwithstanding any law, a local government shall not
line 21 require any of the following prior to approving a development that
line 22 meets the requirements of this section:
line 23 (1) Studies, information, or other materials that do not pertain
line 24 directly to determining whether the development is consistent with
line 25 the objective planning standards applicable to the development.
line 26 (2) (A) Compliance with any standards necessary to receive a
line 27 postentitlement permit.
line 28 (B) This paragraph does not prohibit a local agency from
line 29 requiring compliance with any standards necessary to receive a
line 30 postentitlement permit after a permit has been issued pursuant to
line 31 this section.
line 32 (C) For purposes of this paragraph, “postentitlement permit”
line 33 has the same meaning as provided in subparagraph (A) of
line 34 paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 65913.3.
line 35 (g) (1) If a local government approves a development pursuant
line 36 to this section, then, notwithstanding any other law, that approval
line 37 shall not expire if the project satisfies both of the following
line 38 requirements:
line 39 (A) The project includes public investment in housing
line 40 affordability, beyond tax credits.
96
SB 423 — 31 —
line 1 (B) At least 50 percent of the units are affordable to households
line 2 making at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
line 3 (2) (A) If a local government approves a development pursuant
line 4 to this section, and the project does not satisfy the requirements
line 5 of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), that approval shall
line 6 remain valid for three years from the date of the final action
line 7 establishing that approval, or if litigation is filed challenging that
line 8 approval, from the date of the final judgment upholding that
line 9 approval. Approval shall remain valid for a project provided
line 10 construction activity, including demolition and grading activity,
line 11 on the development site has begun pursuant to a permit issued by
line 12 the local jurisdiction and is in progress. For purposes of this
line 13 subdivision, “in progress” means one of the following:
line 14 (i) The construction has begun and has not ceased for more than
line 15 180 days.
line 16 (ii) If the development requires multiple building permits, an
line 17 initial phase has been completed, and the project proponent has
line 18 applied for and is diligently pursuing a building permit for a
line 19 subsequent phase, provided that once it has been issued, the
line 20 building permit for the subsequent phase does not lapse.
line 21 (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local government may
line 22 grant a project a one-time, one-year extension if the project
line 23 proponent can provide documentation that there has been
line 24 significant progress toward getting the development construction
line 25 ready, such as filing a building permit application.
line 26 (3) If the development proponent requests a modification
line 27 pursuant to subdivision (h), then the time during which the approval
line 28 shall remain valid shall be extended for the number of days
line 29 between the submittal of a modification request and the date of its
line 30 final approval, plus an additional 180 days to allow time to obtain
line 31 a building permit. If litigation is filed relating to the modification
line 32 request, the time shall be further extended during the pendency of
line 33 the litigation. The extension required by this paragraph shall only
line 34 apply to the first request for a modification submitted by the
line 35 development proponent.
line 36 (4) The amendments made to this subdivision by the act that
line 37 added this paragraph shall also be retroactively applied to
line 38 developments approved prior to January 1, 2022.
line 39 (h) (1) (A) A development proponent may request a
line 40 modification to a development that has been approved under the
96
— 32 — SB 423
line 1 streamlined, ministerial approval process provided in subdivision
line 2 (c) if that request is submitted to the local government before the
line 3 issuance of the final building permit required for construction of
line 4 the development.
line 5 (B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the local government
line 6 shall approve a modification if it determines that the modification
line 7 is consistent with the objective planning standards specified in
line 8 subdivision (a) that were in effect when the original development
line 9 application was first submitted.
line 10 (C) The local government shall evaluate any modifications
line 11 requested pursuant to this subdivision for consistency with the
line 12 objective planning standards using the same assumptions and
line 13 analytical methodology that the local government originally used
line 14 to assess consistency for the development that was approved for
line 15 streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to subdivision (c).
line 16 (D) A guideline that was adopted or amended by the department
line 17 pursuant to subdivision (n) after a development was approved
line 18 through the streamlined, ministerial approval process described in
line 19 subdivision (c) shall not be used as a basis to deny proposed
line 20 modifications.
line 21 (2) Upon receipt of the development proponent’s application
line 22 requesting a modification, the local government shall determine
line 23 if the requested modification is consistent with the objective
line 24 planning standard and either approve or deny the modification
line 25 request within 60 days after submission of the modification, or
line 26 within 90 days if design review is required.
line 27 (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the local government may
line 28 apply objective planning standards adopted after the development
line 29 application was first submitted to the requested modification in
line 30 any of the following instances:
line 31 (A) The development is revised such that the total number of
line 32 residential units or total square footage of construction changes
line 33 by 15 percent or more. The calculation of the square footage of
line 34 construction changes shall not include underground space.
line 35 (B) The development is revised such that the total number of
line 36 residential units or total square footage of construction changes
line 37 by 5 percent or more and it is necessary to subject the development
line 38 to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the
line 39 development application was submitted in order to mitigate or
line 40 avoid a specific, adverse impact, as that term is defined in
96
SB 423 — 33 —
line 1 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section
line 2 65589.5, upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible
line 3 alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
line 4 impact. The calculation of the square footage of construction
line 5 changes shall not include underground space.
line 6 (C) (i) Objective building standards contained in the California
line 7 Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of
line 8 Regulations), including, but not limited to, building plumbing,
line 9 electrical, fire, and grading codes, may be applied to all
line 10 modification applications that are submitted prior to the first
line 11 building permit application. Those standards may be applied to
line 12 modification applications submitted after the first building permit
line 13 application if agreed to by the development proponent.
line 14 (ii) The amendments made to clause (i) by the act that added
line 15 clause (i) shall also be retroactively applied to modification
line 16 applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022.
line 17 (4) The local government’s review of a modification request
line 18 pursuant to this subdivision shall be strictly limited to determining
line 19 whether the modification, including any modification to previously
line 20 approved density bonus concessions or waivers, modify the
line 21 development’s consistency with the objective planning standards
line 22 and shall not reconsider prior determinations that are not affected
line 23 by the modification.
line 24 (i) (1) A local government shall not adopt or impose any
line 25 requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or
line 26 inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely
line 27 or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive
line 28 ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section.
line 29 (2) (A) A local government shall issue a subsequent permit
line 30 required for a development approved under this section if the
line 31 application substantially complies with the development as it was
line 32 approved pursuant to subdivision (c). Upon receipt of an
line 33 application for a subsequent permit, the local government shall
line 34 process the permit without unreasonable delay and shall not impose
line 35 any procedure or requirement that is not imposed on projects that
line 36 are not approved pursuant to this section. The local government
line 37 shall consider the application for subsequent permits based upon
line 38 the objective standards specified in any state or local laws that
line 39 were in effect when the original development application was
line 40 submitted, unless the development proponent agrees to a change
96
— 34 — SB 423
line 1 in objective standards. Issuance of subsequent permits shall
line 2 implement the approved development, and review of the permit
line 3 application shall not inhibit, chill, or preclude the development.
line 4 For purposes of this paragraph, a “subsequent permit” means a
line 5 permit required subsequent to receiving approval under subdivision
line 6 (c), and includes, but is not limited to, demolition, grading,
line 7 encroachment, and building permits and final maps, if necessary.
line 8 (B) The amendments made to subparagraph (A) by the act that
line 9 added this subparagraph shall also be retroactively applied to
line 10 subsequent permit applications submitted prior to January 1, 2022.
line 11 (3) (A) If a public improvement is necessary to implement a
line 12 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 13 pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, a bicycle
line 14 lane, sidewalk or walkway, public transit stop, driveway, street
line 15 paving or overlay, a curb or gutter, a modified intersection, a street
line 16 sign or street light, landscape or hardscape, an above-ground or
line 17 underground utility connection, a water line, fire hydrant, storm
line 18 or sanitary sewer connection, retaining wall, and any related work,
line 19 and that public improvement is located on land owned by the local
line 20 government, to the extent that the public improvement requires
line 21 approval from the local government, the local government shall
line 22 not exercise its discretion over any approval relating to the public
line 23 improvement in a manner that would inhibit, chill, or preclude the
line 24 development.
line 25 (B) If an application for a public improvement described in
line 26 subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local
line 27 government shall do all of the following:
line 28 (i) Consider the application based upon any objective standards
line 29 specified in any state or local laws that were in effect when the
line 30 original development application was submitted.
line 31 (ii) Conduct its review and approval in the same manner as it
line 32 would evaluate the public improvement if required by a project
line 33 that is not eligible to receive ministerial or streamlined approval
line 34 pursuant to this section.
line 35 (C) If an application for a public improvement described in
line 36 subparagraph (A) is submitted to a local government, the local
line 37 government shall not do either of the following:
line 38 (i) Adopt or impose any requirement that applies to a project
line 39 solely or partially on the basis that the project is eligible to receive
line 40 ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to this section.
96
SB 423 — 35 —
line 1 (ii) Unreasonably delay in its consideration, review, or approval
line 2 of the application.
line 3 (j) (1) This section shall not affect a development proponent’s
line 4 ability to use any alternative streamlined by right permit processing
line 5 adopted by a local government, including the provisions of
line 6 subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2.
line 7 (2) This section shall not prevent a development from also
line 8 qualifying as a housing development project entitled to the
line 9 protections of Section 65589.5. This paragraph does not constitute
line 10 a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
line 11 (k) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
line 12 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code)
line 13 does not apply to actions taken by a state agency, local government,
line 14 or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to:
line 15 (1) Lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local
line 16 government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
line 17 or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land
line 18 owned by the local government, or for the lease of land owned by
line 19 the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District in association
line 20 with an eligible TOD project, as defined pursuant to Section
line 21 29010.1 of the Public Utilities Code, nor to any decisions
line 22 associated with that lease, or to provide financial assistance to a
line 23 development that receives streamlined approval pursuant to this
line 24 section that is to be used for housing for persons and families of
line 25 very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093
line 26 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 27 (2) Approve improvements located on land owned by the local
line 28 government or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
line 29 that are necessary to implement a development that receives
line 30 streamlined approval pursuant to this section that is to be used for
line 31 housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate
line 32 income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 33 (l) For purposes of establishing the total number of units in a
line 34 development under this chapter, a development or development
line 35 project includes both of the following:
line 36 (1) All projects developed on a site, regardless of when those
line 37 developments occur.
line 38 (2) All projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed
line 39 pursuant to this chapter if, after January 1, 2023, the adjacent site
96
— 36 — SB 423
line 1 had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to this
line 2 chapter.
line 3 (m) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
line 4 following meanings:
line 5 (1) “Affordable housing cost” has the same meaning as set forth
line 6 in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 7 (2) (A) Subject to the qualification provided by subparagraphs
line 8 (B) and (C), “affordable rent” has the same meaning as set forth
line 9 in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 10 (B) For a development for which an application pursuant to this
line 11 section was submitted prior to January 1, 2019, that includes 500
line 12 units or more of housing, and that dedicates 50 percent of the total
line 13 number of units, before calculating any density bonus, to housing
line 14 affordable to households making at, or below, 80 percent of the
line 15 area median income, affordable rent for at least 30 percent of these
line 16 units shall be set at an affordable rent as defined in subparagraph
line 17 (A) and “affordable rent” for the remainder of these units shall
line 18 mean a rent that is consistent with the maximum rent levels for a
line 19 housing development that receives an allocation of state or federal
line 20 low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit
line 21 Allocation Committee.
line 22 (C) For a development that dedicates 100 percent of units,
line 23 exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, to lower income households,
line 24 “affordable rent” shall mean a rent that is consistent with the
line 25 maximum rent levels stipulated by the public program providing
line 26 financing for the development.
line 27 (3) “Department” means the Department of Housing and
line 28 Community Development.
line 29 (4) “Development proponent” means the developer who submits
line 30 a housing development project application to a local government
line 31 under the streamlined, ministerial review process pursuant to this
line 32 section.
line 33 (5) “Completed entitlements” means a housing development
line 34 that has received all the required land use approvals or entitlements
line 35 necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
line 36 (6) “Health care expenditures” include contributions under
line 37 Section 401(a), 501(c), or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code
line 38 and payments toward “medical care,” as defined in Section
line 39 213(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
96
SB 423 — 37 —
line 1 (7) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as in
line 2 Section 65589.5.
line 3 (8) “Locality” or “local government” means a city, including a
line 4 charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and
line 5 county, including a charter city and county.
line 6 (9) “Moderate-income housing units” means housing units with
line 7 an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for persons and
line 8 families of moderate income, as that term is defined in Section
line 9 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 10 (10) “Production report” means the information reported
line 11 pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a)
line 12 of Section 65400.
line 13 (11) “State agency” includes every state office, officer,
line 14 department, division, bureau, board, and commission, but does not
line 15 include the California State University or the University of
line 16 California.
line 17 (12) “Reporting period” means either of the following:
line 18 (A) The first half of the regional housing needs assessment
line 19 cycle.
line 20 (B) The last half of the regional housing needs assessment cycle.
line 21 (13) “Urban uses” means any current or former residential,
line 22 commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger
line 23 facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
line 24 (n) The department may review, adopt, amend, and repeal
line 25 guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that
line 26 supplement or clarify the terms, references, or standards set forth
line 27 in this section. Any guidelines or terms adopted pursuant to this
line 28 subdivision shall not be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with
line 29 Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government
line 30 Code.
line 31 (o) The determination of whether an application for a
line 32 development is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval
line 33 process provided by subdivision (c) is not a “project” as defined
line 34 in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.
line 35 (p) Notwithstanding any law, for purposes of this section and
line 36 for development in compliance with the requirements of this section
line 37 on property owned by or leased to the state, the Department of
line 38 General Services may act in the place of a locality or local
line 39 government, at the discretion of the department.
96
— 38 — SB 423
line 1 (q) (1) For developments proposed in a census tract that is
line 2 designated either as a moderate resource area, low resource area,
line 3 or an area of high segregation and poverty on the most recent
line 4 “CTAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax
line 5 Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and
line 6 Community Development, within 45 days after receiving a notice
line 7 of intent, as described in subdivision (b), and before the
line 8 development proponent submits an application for the proposed
line 9 development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval
line 10 process described in subdivision (c), the local government shall
line 11 provide for a public meeting to be held by the city council or
line 12 county board of supervisors to provide an opportunity for the public
line 13 and the local government to comment on the development.
line 14 (2) The public meeting shall be held at a regular meeting and
line 15 be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing
line 16 with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
line 17 (3) Comments may be provided by testimony during the meeting
line 18 or in writing at any time before the meeting concludes.
line 19 (4) The development proponent shall attest in writing that it
line 20 attended the meeting described in paragraph (1) and reviewed the
line 21 public testimony and written comments from the meeting in its
line 22 application for the proposed development that is subject to the
line 23 streamlined, ministerial approval process described in subdivision
line 24 (c).
line 25 (5) If the local government fails to hold the hearing described
line 26 in paragraph (1) within 45 days after receiving the notice of intent,
line 27 the development proponent shall hold a public meeting on the
line 28 proposed development before submitting an application pursuant
line 29 to this section.
line 30 (r) (1) This section shall not apply to applications for
line 31 developments proposed on qualified sites that are submitted on or
line 32 after January 1, 2024, but before July 1, 2025.
line 33 (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “qualified site” means a
line 34 site that meets the following requirements:
line 35 (A) The site is located within an equine or equestrian district
line 36 designated by a general plan or specific or master plan, which may
line 37 include a specific narrative reference to a geographically
line 38 determined area or map of the same. Parcels adjoined and only
line 39 separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be within
line 40 an equestrian district.
96
SB 423 — 39 —
line 1 (B) As of January 1, 2024, the general plan applicable to the
line 2 site contains, and has contained for five or more years, an equine
line 3 or equestrian district designation where the site is located.
line 4 (C) As of January 1, 2024, the equine or equestrian district
line 5 applicable to the site is not zoned to include residential uses, but
line 6 authorizes residential uses with a conditional use permit.
line 7 (D) The applicable local government has an adopted housing
line 8 element that is compliant with applicable law.
line 9 (3) The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of this
line 10 subdivision is to allow local governments to conduct general plan
line 11 updates to align their general plan with applicable zoning changes.
line 12 (s) The provisions of clause (iii) of subparagraph (E) of
line 13 paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) relating to health care expenditures
line 14 are distinct and severable from the remaining provisions of this
line 15 section. However, the remaining portions of paragraph (8) of
line 16 subdivision (a) are a material and integral part of this section and
line 17 are not severable. If any provision or application of paragraph (8)
line 18 of subdivision (a) is held invalid, this entire section shall be null
line 19 and void.
line 20 (t) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and
line 21 implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to
line 22 the interest of, and the approval and provision of, increased housing
line 23 supply.
line 24 (u) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2036,
line 25 and as of that date is repealed.
line 26 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access
line 27 to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and is not
line 28 a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI
line 29 of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act
line 30 amending Section 65913.4 of the Government Code applies to all
line 31 cities, including charter cities.
line 32 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 33 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 34 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 35 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
line 36 level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be
line 37 incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred
line 38 because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a
line 39 crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
line 40 within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or
96
— 40 — SB 423
line 1 changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6
line 2 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
O
96
SB 423 — 41 —
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 15, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 10, 2023
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 20, 2023
SENATE BILL No. 746
Introduced by Senator Eggman
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan)
February 17, 2023
An act to amend Sections 4217.11, 4217.12, 4217.13, and 4217.14
of add Section 4217.19 to the Government Code, relating to public
contracts.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 746, as amended, Eggman. Energy conservation contracts:
alternate energy equipment: hydrogen. green hydrogen: Tri-Valley-San
Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority.
Under existing law, a public agency, as defined, may enter into
specified energy conservation contracts, including into contracts for
the sale of electricity, electrical generating capacity, or thermal energy
produced by the energy conservation facility facility, as defined, at such
rates and on such terms as are approved by its governing body. Existing
law defines “energy conservation facility” as alternate energy equipment,
cogeneration equipment, or conservation measures located in public
buildings or on land owned by public agencies. Existing law defines
“alternate energy equipment” as equipment for the production or
conversion of energy from alternate sources as its primary fuel source,
such as solar, biomass, wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity under 30
megawatts, remote natural gas of less than one billion cubic feet
estimated reserves per mile from an existing gas gathering line, natural
96
gas containing 850 or fewer British thermal units per standard cubic
foot, or any other source of energy, the efficient use of which will reduce
the use of fossil or nuclear fuels. Existing law also defines “public
agency” to mean the state, a county, city and county, city, district, and
other specified entities.
This bill would add hydrogen to the list of examples of primary fuel
sources under the definition of “alternate energy equipment.” The bill
also would revise the definition of “public agency” to include a transit
district.
Existing law authorizes a public agency to enter into an energy service
contract and related facility ground lease if the governing body finds,
among other things, that the anticipated cost to the public agency for
thermal or electrical energy or conservation services provided by the
energy conservation facility under the contract will be less than the
anticipated marginal cost to the agency of thermal, electrical, or other
energy that would have been consumed by the public agency in the
absence of those purchases.
This bill would include hydrogen within the above provision
referencing the anticipated cost to the public agency for thermal or
electrical energy.
Existing law additionally authorizes a public agency to enter into a
facility financing contract and a facility ground lease upon meeting
certain requirements and finding that funds for the repayment of the
financing or other specified contract costs are projected to be available
from revenues resulting from sales of electricity or thermal energy from
the facility or other sources.
This bill would include within those provisions revenues resulting
from sales of hydrogen.
Existing law authorizes a public agency to enter into contracts for the
sale of electricity, electrical generating capacity, or thermal energy
produced by the energy conservation facility at such rates and terms as
are approved by its governing body.
This bill would authorize a public agency to also enter into contracts
for the sale of hydrogen.
This bill would authorize the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional
Rail Authority, in addition to its authority to enter into contracts
described above, to enter into energy service contracts, facility financing
contracts, and contracts for the sale of specified energy resources
relating to green electrolytic hydrogen, as defined, for use by the
96
— 2 — SB 746
authority for purposes of financing the construction and operation of
passenger rail service through the Altamont Pass Corridor.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley
Regional Rail Authority.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 4217.19 is added to the Government Code,
line 2 immediately following Section 4217.18, to read:
line 3 4217.19. The Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail
line 4 Authority, as established in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
line 5 132651) of Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, in addition
line 6 to the authority to enter into energy service contracts, facility
line 7 financing contracts, and contracts for the sale of specified energy
line 8 resources, as specified in Sections 4217.12 to 4217.14, inclusive,
line 9 may enter into energy service contracts, facility financing
line 10 contracts, and contracts for the sale of energy resources relating
line 11 to green electrolytic hydrogen, as that term is defined in Section
line 12 400.2 of the Public Utilities Code, for use by the authority for
line 13 purposes of financing the construction and operation of passenger
line 14 rail service through the Altamont Pass Corridor.
line 15 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute
line 16 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable
line 17 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
line 18 Constitution because of the unique nature of the Valley Link
line 19 project, and the potential concerns if the exceptions made
line 20 applicable to this specific project were expanded statewide.
line 21 SECTION 1. Section 4217.11 of the Government Code is
line 22 amended to read:
line 23 4217.11. The following terms, whenever used in this chapter,
line 24 have the meanings given in this section, except where the context
line 25 clearly indicates otherwise:
line 26 (a) “Alternate energy equipment” means equipment for the
line 27 production or conversion of energy from alternate sources as its
line 28 primary fuel source, such as hydrogen, solar, biomass, wind,
line 29 geothermal, hydroelectricity under 30 megawatts, remote natural
line 30 gas of less than one billion cubic feet estimated reserves per mile
96
SB 746 — 3 —
line 1 from an existing gas gathering line, natural gas containing 850 or
line 2 fewer British thermal units per standard cubic foot, or any other
line 3 source of energy, the efficient use of which will reduce the use of
line 4 fossil or nuclear fuels.
line 5 (b) “Cogeneration equipment” means equipment for
line 6 cogeneration, as defined in Section 216.6 of the Public Utilities
line 7 Code.
line 8 (c) “Conservation measures” means equipment, maintenance,
line 9 load management techniques and equipment, or other measures
line 10 to reduce energy use or make for a more efficient use of energy.
line 11 (d) “Conservation services” means the electrical, thermal, or
line 12 other energy savings resulting from conservation measures, which
line 13 shall be treated as a supply of such energy.
line 14 (e) “Energy conservation facility” means alternate energy
line 15 equipment, cogeneration equipment, or conservation measures
line 16 located in public buildings or on land owned by public agencies.
line 17 (f) “Energy service contract” means a contract entered into by
line 18 a public agency with any person, pursuant to which the person will
line 19 provide electrical or thermal energy or conservation services to a
line 20 public agency from an energy conservation facility.
line 21 (g) “Facility financing contract” means a contract entered into
line 22 by a public agency with any person whereby the person provides
line 23 financing for an energy conservation facility in exchange for
line 24 repayment of the financing and all costs and expenses related
line 25 thereto by the public agency. A facility financing contract may
line 26 provide for the person with whom the public agency contracts to
line 27 provide any combination of feasibility studies for, and design and
line 28 construction of, all or part of the energy conservation facility in
line 29 addition to the financing and other related services, and may
line 30 provide for an installment sale purchase, another form of purchase,
line 31 or amortized lease of the energy conservation facility by the public
line 32 agency.
line 33 (h) “Facility ground lease” means a lease of all, or any portion
line 34 of, land or a public building owned by, or under lease to, a public
line 35 agency to a person in conjunction with an energy service contract
line 36 or a facility financing contract. A facility ground lease may include,
line 37 in addition to the land on which energy conservation facilities will
line 38 be located, easements, rights-of-way, licenses, and rights of access,
line 39 for the construction, use, or ownership by the person of the facility
line 40 and all related utility lines not owned or controlled by the
96
— 4 — SB 746
line 1 interconnecting utility, and offsite improvements related thereto.
line 2 A facility ground lease may also include the addition or
line 3 improvement of utility lines and equipment owned by the
line 4 interconnecting utility which are necessary to permit
line 5 interconnection between that utility and an energy conservation
line 6 facility.
line 7 (i) “Person” means, but is not limited to, any individual,
line 8 company, corporation, partnership, limited liability company,
line 9 public agency, association, proprietorship, trust, joint venture, or
line 10 other entity or group of entities.
line 11 (j) “Public agency” means the state, a county, city and county,
line 12 city, district, community college district, transit district, school
line 13 district, joint powers authority or other entity designated or created
line 14 by a political subdivision relating to energy development projects,
line 15 and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the
line 16 state.
line 17 (k) “Public building” includes any structure, building, facility,
line 18 or work which a public agency is authorized to construct or use,
line 19 and automobile parking lots, landscaping, and other facilities,
line 20 including furnishings and equipment, incidental to the use of any
line 21 structure, building, facility, or work, and also includes the site
line 22 thereof, and any easements, rights-of-way appurtenant thereto, or
line 23 necessary for its full use.
line 24 SEC. 2. Section 4217.12 of the Government Code is amended
line 25 to read:
line 26 4217.12. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a public agency
line 27 may enter into an energy service contract and any necessarily
line 28 related facility ground lease on terms that its governing body
line 29 determines are in the best interests of the public agency if the
line 30 determination is made at a regularly scheduled public hearing,
line 31 public notice of which is given at least two weeks in advance, and
line 32 if the governing body finds:
line 33 (1) That the anticipated cost to the public agency for thermal
line 34 or electrical energy, including hydrogen, or conservation services
line 35 provided by the energy conservation facility under the contract
line 36 will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the public agency
line 37 of thermal, electrical, or other energy that would have been
line 38 consumed by the public agency in the absence of those purchases.
line 39 (2) That the difference, if any, between the fair rental value for
line 40 the real property subject to the facility ground lease and the agreed
96
SB 746 — 5 —
line 1 rent, is anticipated to be offset by below-market energy purchases
line 2 or other benefits provided under the energy service contract.
line 3 (b) State agency heads may make these findings without holding
line 4 a public hearing.
line 5 SEC. 3. Section 4217.13 of the Government Code is amended
line 6 to read:
line 7 4217.13. Notwithstanding any other law, a public agency may
line 8 enter into a facility financing contract and a facility ground lease
line 9 on terms that its governing body determines are in the best interest
line 10 of the public agency if the determination is made at a regularly
line 11 scheduled public hearing, public notice of which is given at least
line 12 two weeks in advance, and if the governing body finds that funds
line 13 for the repayment of the financing or the cost of design,
line 14 construction, and operation of the energy conservation facility, or
line 15 both, as required by the contract, are projected to be available from
line 16 revenues resulting from sales of electricity, hydrogen, or thermal
line 17 energy from the facility or from funding that otherwise would have
line 18 been used for purchase of electrical, thermal, or other energy
line 19 required by the public agency in the absence of the energy
line 20 conservation facility, or both. State agency heads may make these
line 21 findings without holding a public hearing.
line 22 SEC. 4. Section 4217.14 of the Government Code is amended
line 23 to read:
line 24 4217.14. Notwithstanding any other law, the public agency
line 25 may enter into contracts for the sale of electricity, electrical
line 26 generating capacity, hydrogen, or thermal energy produced by the
line 27 energy conservation facility at such rates and on such terms as are
line 28 approved by its governing body. Any such contract may provide
line 29 for a commitment of firm electrical capacity.
O
96
— 6 — SB 746
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • SAN RAMON
June 22, 2023
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 423 (Wiener) Land Use: Streamlined Housing Approvals: Multifamily Housing
Developments.
Cities of Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville – Oppose Unless Amended
Dear Senator Wiener,
As the Mayors of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, we write
in respectful opposition to SB 423 unless amended, and to express concerns and suggest some
amendments which we hope to discuss further with your office.
SB 423 extends the sunset associated with SB 35 (Statutes of 2017) and would pre-empt local
discretionary land use authority by making approvals of multifamily developments ministerial
actions under a number of circumstances.
We have concerns with many of the bill’s provisions, and ask that you consider amending SB 423
accordingly:
•Sensitive Areas Surrounded by VHFSZ and HFSZ: Cities in the Tri-Valley, like many cities
throughout the state, are partially in or are proximate to the State’s Very-High and High-
Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
We respectfully request that you incorporate language to ensure that communities
closely encapsulated by those specified fire zones can include additional objective
standards related to fire codes and specific egress requirements, which are
currently excluded from the text of the bill.
Additionally, we request that you consider amending the bill’s language to prohibit
ministerially or by-right approved developments on sites excluded from the
specified hazard zones by a local agency or sites that have adopted fire hazard
mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation
measures applicable to the development.
The unfortunate reality of volatile weather patterns means that the state will inevitably
experience catastrophic wildfires once again. Developments designed to be marketed as
affordable will have the burdens of obtaining skyrocketing fire insurance policies whose
prices will likely eclipse the cost of reasonable rents.
•Exclude Areas that are within the Federal Responsibility Area (FRA): As you know, Federal
Responsibility Areas (FRA), in the context of California’s State Fire Maps, are areas for
which the Federal Agencies are responsible for wildland fire protection under various
federal laws.
ATTACHMENT B
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • SAN RAMON
We would respectfully request that you consider amending the bill’s language to
prohibit ministerially or by-right approved developments on these FRA sites.
• Reevaluate and modify parking standards: Under current law, notwithstanding any other
law, a local government, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing automobile
parking requirements in multifamily developments, shall not impose automobile parking
standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to SB 35 in any of
the following instances:
(A) The development is located within one-half mile of public transit.
(B) The development is located within an architecturally and historically significant
historic district.
(C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants
of the development.
(D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the development.
Lack of parking is already a very serious issue in our communities, most of which do not
have adequate public transit that can take people to the grocery store, doctors’ offices, or
other necessities.
We would request that SB 423 amend the statutory provisions of SB 35 with regard
to parking by eliminating the reference to (A), listed above, since not all “public
transit” is adequate or meets the needs of residents in certain communities.
Alternatively, we would request that you consider amending the reference to (A),
listed above, and instead, state that “The development is located within one-half
mile off a ‘Major Transit Stop’ pursuant to Government Code Section 21064.3”.
• Modify The Standards that Trigger SB 35 Provisions: These provisions apply when cities
are not in substantial compliance with their Housing Element and specifically when income
targets, such as Low and Very Low, are not being met. Unfortunately, it is almost
impossible for most cities to meet the Low and Very Low-income targets established by
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which are incorporated into Housing Elements.
The market does not provide these Low and Very Low-Income units in much of the Tri-
Valley area. The vast majority of units, in some of our cities, are provided through
compliance with inclusionary ordinances, which unfortunately are not always sufficient to
meet RHNA requirements.
There have been cases in recent Housing Element efforts, where the State identified that
inclusionary ordinance affordability requirements should be limited so as not to pose a
burden on development. This scenario creates a catch 22, whereby most cities will quickly
be found to be out of compliance and a subject to a 60-day ministerial approval process
for multi-family housing projects that precludes well intentioned land use planning efforts
to ensure quality design and compatibility with surrounding uses.
As such, we would suggest that provisions be triggered instead by lack of
compliance across three- or four-income categories or that provisions be added to
allow cities to have more robust inclusionary requirements, which are capable of
meeting the expectations established by RHNA.
DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • SAN RAMON
While we commend you for being a strong affordable housing advocate, we feel that SB 423
ignores several fundamental issues and that efforts are needed to revisit the provisions laid out
in SB 35.
For the reasons stated above, we must respectfully oppose SB 423, unless amended, and we
look forward to engaging in conversations with your office as you work this bill through the
legislative process.
Sincerely,
___________________
City of San Ramon
Vice-Mayor Mark Armstrong
CC: Senator Steve Glazer
Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
__________________ ____________________ ____________________
Town of Danville City of Dublin City of Livermore
Mayor Robert Storer Mayor Melissa Hernandez Mayor John Marchand