California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Enacted 3 D cosponsors

SB 684 — Land use: streamlined approval processes: development projects of 10 or fewer residential units on urban lots under 5 acres.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2023. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (Democratic) on October 11, 2023.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 78% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 4 sponsors

    1 primary, 3 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (3 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. The Planning and Zoning Law contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, requires a city or county to approve an application for a small home lot housing development project, as defined, on a proposed site to be subdivided unless the city or county makes a finding related to the development's compliance with certain requirements or the development's specific, adverse public health or safety impact. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets specified requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the proposed subdivision to result in 10 or fewer parcels and the housing development project to, among other things, consist of 10 or fewer residential units, meet certain minimum parcel size and density requirements, and be located on a lot zoned for multifamily residential development that is no larger than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses. The bill would exempt the housing development project from certain requirements relating to minimum parcel size and dimensions and the formation of a homeowners' association, except as specified. This bill also would require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, an application for a housing development project on a lot that is subdivided pursuant to the provisions of the bill described above. The bill would authorize a local agency to impose on the housing development objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, or objective design standards that are related to a housing development or to the design or improvement of a parcel, as specified. However, the bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing on the housing development certain standards, including those that physically preclude the development of a project built to specified densities, impose a requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the subdivision or housing development receives approval pursuant to the bill's provision, or impose certain requirements related to parking, setbacks, or floor area ratios, as specified. This bill would impose streamlining requirements with regard to consideration of an application for a parcel map or a tentative and final map pursuant to the first set of provisions described above or an application for a housing development project pursuant to the 2nd set of provisions described above. Specifically, the bill would require a local agency to approve or deny a completed application submitted to a local agency pursuant to these provisions within 60 days from the date the local agency receives it. Under the bill, if the local agency does not approve or deny the application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. If the local agency denies the application, the bill would require the local agency, within 60 days of receipt of the application, to return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the applicant can remedy the application. This bill would also require, except as specified, a local agency to issue a building permit for one or more residential units that are part of a housing development project consisting of 10 or fewer units on a lot proposed to be subdivided as part of a subdivision if the applicant meets certain requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the applicant to have received a tentative map approval or parcel map approval for the subdivision, to have submitted a building permit application that the local agency deemed complete pursuant to a provision governing local agency review of postentitlement phase permit applications. The bill would authorize a local agency to condition the issuance of the building permit on the applicant submitting a recorded covenant and agreement that conditions the issuance of the building permit on the recording of the final map, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Under this bill, a local agency would not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority provided by the bill, as described above. The Subdivision Map Act requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, as specified. Under this bill, the above-described existing law provisions would not apply to a site that is located within a single-family residential horsekeeping zone designated in a specified master plan if the applicable local government has an adopted housing element that is compliant with applicable law. Under the bill, a local agency would not be required to permit an urban lot split on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority provided by the bill, as described above. This bill would make the exemption for a site located within a single-family residential horsekeeping zone designated in a specified master plan operative on January 1, 2024, and would make all of the other above-described provisions operative on July 1, 2024. This bill would make related findings and declarations. 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. Because this bill would impose new duties on local governments related to the review and approval of parcel maps, tentative and final maps, and housing development projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By establishing a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain housing developments, this bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. Under the bill, an ordinance adopted by a local agency to implement certain provisions of the bill would not be considered a project under CEQA. 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 a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 2825.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3526.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Action rescinded whereby bill was re-referred to H. & C.D. pursuant to Assembly rule 77.2.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  10. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read third time and amended.

  12. Assembly Rule 69 suspended.

  13. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  14. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (September 1).

  16. August 16 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  17. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  18. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (July 12).

  19. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  20. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  21. Coauthors revised.

  22. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.

  23. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  24. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 1268.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  25. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  26. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  27. Set for hearing May 15.

  28. May 8 hearing postponed by committee.

  29. Set for hearing May 8.

  30. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 875.) (April 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  31. Set for hearing April 24.

  32. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  33. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 684.) (April 12). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  34. Set for hearing April 12.

  35. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  36. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  37. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 19.

  38. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Democratic 21001
Republican 6001
Total 37003
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 46001
Republican 13000
Unaffiliated 20000
Total 79001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Villapudua — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Essayli — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9001
Unaffiliated 2001
Republican 0003
Total 11005
% of votes cast 69%0%0%31%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Not Voting
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Dixon, Diane Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Democratic 6000
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 8000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Waldron — Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Republican 2000
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 8000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 34 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9002
Democratic 20002
Republican 5002
Total 34006
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Dodd — Yea
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Not Voting
Glazer — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Not Voting
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 0002
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Not Voting
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4000
Unaffiliated 1001
Republican 0002
Total 5003
% of votes cast 63%0%0%38%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Glazer — Not Voting
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 684 do?
Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. The Planning and Zoning Law contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, requires a city or county to approve an application for a small home lot housing development project, as defined, on a proposed site to be subdivided unless the city or county makes a finding related to the development's compliance with certain requirements or the development's specific, adverse public health or safety impact. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets specified requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the proposed subdivision to result in 10 or fewer parcels and the housing development project to, among other things, consist of 10 or fewer residential units, meet certain minimum parcel size and density requirements, and be located on a lot zoned for multifamily residential development that is no larger than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses. The bill would exempt the housing development project from certain requirements relating to minimum parcel size and dimensions and the formation of a homeowners' association, except as specified. This bill also would require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, an application for a housing development project on a lot that is subdivided pursuant to the provisions of the bill described above. The bill would authorize a local agency to impose on the housing development objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, or objective design standards that are related to a housing development or to the design or improvement of a parcel, as specified. However, the bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing on the housing development certain standards, including those that physically preclude the development of a project built to specified densities, impose a requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the subdivision or housing development receives approval pursuant to the bill's provision, or impose certain requirements related to parking, setbacks, or floor area ratios, as specified. This bill would impose streamlining requirements with regard to consideration of an application for a parcel map or a tentative and final map pursuant to the first set of provisions described above or an application for a housing development project pursuant to the 2nd set of provisions described above. Specifically, the bill would require a local agency to approve or deny a completed application submitted to a local agency pursuant to these provisions within 60 days from the date the local agency receives it. Under the bill, if the local agency does not approve or deny the application within 60 days, the application would be deemed approved. If the local agency denies the application, the bill would require the local agency, within 60 days of receipt of the application, to return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the applicant can remedy the application. This bill would also require, except as specified, a local agency to issue a building permit for one or more residential units that are part of a housing development project consisting of 10 or fewer units on a lot proposed to be subdivided as part of a subdivision if the applicant meets certain requirements. In this regard, the bill would require the applicant to have received a tentative map approval or parcel map approval for the subdivision, to have submitted a building permit application that the local agency deemed complete pursuant to a provision governing local agency review of postentitlement phase permit applications. The bill would authorize a local agency to condition the issuance of the building permit on the applicant submitting a recorded covenant and agreement that conditions the issuance of the building permit on the recording of the final map, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Under this bill, a local agency would not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority provided by the bill, as described above. The Subdivision Map Act requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, as specified. Under this bill, the above-described existing law provisions would not apply to a site that is located within a single-family residential horsekeeping zone designated in a specified master plan if the applicable local government has an adopted housing element that is compliant with applicable law. Under the bill, a local agency would not be required to permit an urban lot split on a parcel created through the exercise of the authority provided by the bill, as described above. This bill would make the exemption for a site located within a single-family residential horsekeeping zone designated in a specified master plan operative on January 1, 2024, and would make all of the other above-described provisions operative on July 1, 2024. This bill would make related findings and declarations. 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. Because this bill would impose new duties on local governments related to the review and approval of parcel maps, tentative and final maps, and housing development projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. By establishing a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain housing developments, this bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. Under the bill, an ordinance adopted by a local agency to implement certain provisions of the bill would not be considered a project under CEQA. 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 a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 684?
SB 684 is sponsored by Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic), Boerner, Tasha (Democratic), Quirk-Silva, Sharon (Democratic), and Garcia.
What is the current status of SB 684?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2023. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 684?
Track SB 684 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 684

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of SB 684

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →