California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 765 — Planning and zoning: housing.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 840, Statutes of 2018.

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 17, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · 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.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 13 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

(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2026, 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. Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that the development certify to the locality that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the development, if the development meets certain standards and depending on when the application is approved, including that the development consists of a specified number of units that are not 100% subsidized affordable housing and is located in a jurisdiction that meets specified requirements. This bill would modify those provisions by requiring a skilled and trained workforce to be used if the application for the development consists of a specified number of units with a residential component that is not 100% subsidized affordable housing. (2) Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that a development be subject to a minimum percentage of below market rate housing on the basis that, among other things, the locality failed to submit its latest production report by the applicable time period, or that the report submitted reflected that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, and that the project meets specified requirements. This bill would instead require that the development be subject to the above-described minimum percentage of below market rate housing by reason of the locality's latest production report reflecting that there were fewer units of housing issued building permits that were affordable to either very low income or low-income households by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. (3) Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that the development proponent has already recorded land use restrictions with specified durations if the development contains units that are subsidized, as specified. This bill would instead require the development proponent to commit to record, prior to issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower income housing units that are required pursuant to the minimum percentage of below market rate housing remain available at affordable housing costs or rent to persons and families of lower income for specified durations. (4) Existing law requires the objective planning standards include, among others, a requirement that the development not involve a subdivision of a parcel that is, or would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land unless the development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to specified requirements relating to prevailing wages, or the development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid and a skilled and trained workforce be used, as specified. This bill would instead require that the development not involve a subdivision of a parcel that is, or would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land unless the development is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance and the development either has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to specified requirements relating to prevailing wages, or is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid and a skilled and trained workforce be used, as specified. Existing law additionally authorizes the city, county, or city and county to conduct any design review or public oversight of the development and requires that design review or public oversight to be completed within specified periods of time. This bill would provide that if the development is subject to the Subdivision Map Act but the development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to specified requirements relating to prevailing wages, or the development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid and a skilled and trained workforce be used, the application for the subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and would require the application for the subdivision to be considered within the specified time periods. (5) Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that the development, excluding any additional density or any other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law, is consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government. This bill would also require the development to be consistent with objective subdivision standards. The bill would declare that these provisions are declaratory of existing law. (6) Existing law provides that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to an action taken by a state agency or local government to provide financial assistance to a development that was approved for streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income. This bill would additionally provide that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to an action taken by a state agency or local government to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local government or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by the local government to a development that was approved for streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income. (7) Existing law prohibits a local government, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing parking requirements in multifamily developments, from imposing parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to these provisions, as specified. This bill would specify that a local government is prohibited from imposing automobile parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to these provisions, as specified. (8) Existing law, until January 1, 2021, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, authorizes emergency housing to include homeless shelters in the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, respectively. Existing law, in lieu of compliance with local building approval procedures or state housing, health, habitability, planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, and laws, authorizes those jurisdictions to adopt by ordinance reasonable local standards for homeless shelters, as specified. This bill would provide that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to actions taken by a state agency or local government to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by a city, county, or city and county, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by a city, county, or city and county, for, or to provide financial assistance to, a homeless shelter constructed or allowed pursuant to these provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 840, Statutes of 2018.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 27. Noes 10. Page 6177.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 10. Noes 2. Page 6200.)

  6. From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on T. & H. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(d). (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 6145.) Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(d).

  8. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  9. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (August 28).

  12. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

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

  14. Ordered to third reading.

  15. Read third time and amended.

  16. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  17. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (August 8).

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

  19. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 27).

  20. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  21. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  22. Assembly Rule 56 suspended.

  23. From committee: Be re-referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 18). Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  24. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  25. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  26. July 12 hearing postponed by committee.

  27. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  28. Referred to Com. on ED.

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

  30. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 33. Noes 1. Page 1342.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  31. Reconsideration granted. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 1341.)

  32. Motion to reconsider made by Senator Wiener.

  33. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 26. Noes 1. Page 1340.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  34. Published May 26 at 2 p.m.

  35. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  36. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1190.) (May 25).

  37. Set for hearing May 25.

  38. May 15 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  39. Set for hearing May 15.

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

  41. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 849.) (April 26).

  42. Set for hearing April 26.

  43. Re-referred to Coms. on ED. and APPR.

  44. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  45. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  46. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

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

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 9 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Unfinished Business SB765 Wiener Concurrence

Passed 27 Yea · 10 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 25802
Democratic 2201
Total 271003
% of votes cast 68%25%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
De León — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Chang — Nay
Glazer — Nay
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Delgado — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Beall — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

That the Assembly amendments be concurred in

Passed 10 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8201
Democratic 2000
Total 10201
% of votes cast 77%15%0%8%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Not Voting
Vidak — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 765 Wiener Senate Third Reading By BLOOM

Passed 57 Yea · 14 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 431104
Democratic 12103
Republican 2202
Total 571409
% of votes cast 71%18%0%11%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Baker — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cunningham — Nay
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Rivas — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Salas — Yea
Harper — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gray — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Fong — Nay
Chávez — Nay
Kamlager-Dove — Not Voting
Kiley — Not Voting
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Voepel — Nay
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Nay
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 0001
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Gloria — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Wood — Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 4 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9400
Democratic 2001
Republican 0001
Total 11402
% of votes cast 65%24%0%12%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Nay
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3000
Unaffiliated 3002
Republican 0001
Total 6003
% of votes cast 67%0%0%33%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Rivas — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Voepel — Not Voting
Waldron — Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Be re-referred to the Committees on [Housing and Community Development] and [Local Government]

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5003
Republican 0001
Democratic 2000
Total 7004
% of votes cast 64%0%0%36%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Mayes — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Friedman — Not Voting
Salas — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Nazarian — Not Voting
Waldron — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Not Voting
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 33 Yea · 1 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 29105
Democratic 4001
Total 33106
% of votes cast 83%3%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Nay
Moorlach — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Galgiani — Not Voting
Hernandez — Not Voting
Hueso — Yea
Allen — Yea
De León — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Atkins — Not Voting
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Mendoza — Not Voting
Monning — Not Voting
Morrell — Yea
Newman — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Not Voting
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB765 Wiener Reconsider

Passed 33 Yea · 0 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 28007
Democratic 5000
Total 33007
% of votes cast 83%0%0%18%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Roth — Not Voting
Skinner — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Mitchell — Not Voting
De León — Not Voting
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Lara — Not Voting
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Not Voting
Newman — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hill — Yea
Beall — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing
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 765 do?
(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2026, 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. Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that the development certify to the locality that a skilled and trained workforce will be used to complete the development, if the development meets certain standards and depending on when the application is approved, including that the development consists of a specified number of units that are not 100% subsidized affordable housing and is located in a jurisdiction that meets specified requirements. This bill would modify those provisions by requiring a skilled and trained workforce to be used if the application for the development consists of a specified number of units with a residential component that is not 100% subsidized affordable housing. (2) Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that a development be subject to a minimum percentage of below market rate housing on the basis that, among other things, the locality failed to submit its latest production report by the applicable time period, or that the report submitted reflected that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income that were issued building permits than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period, and that the project meets specified requirements. This bill would instead require that the development be subject to the above-described minimum percentage of below market rate housing by reason of the locality's latest production report reflecting that there were fewer units of housing issued building permits that were affordable to either very low income or low-income households by income category than were required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period. (3) Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that the development proponent has already recorded land use restrictions with specified durations if the development contains units that are subsidized, as specified. This bill would instead require the development proponent to commit to record, prior to issuance of the first building permit, a land use restriction or covenant providing that any lower income housing units that are required pursuant to the minimum percentage of below market rate housing remain available at affordable housing costs or rent to persons and families of lower income for specified durations. (4) Existing law requires the objective planning standards include, among others, a requirement that the development not involve a subdivision of a parcel that is, or would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land unless the development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to specified requirements relating to prevailing wages, or the development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid and a skilled and trained workforce be used, as specified. This bill would instead require that the development not involve a subdivision of a parcel that is, or would otherwise be, subject to the Subdivision Map Act or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land unless the development is consistent with all objective subdivision standards in the local subdivision ordinance and the development either has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to specified requirements relating to prevailing wages, or is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid and a skilled and trained workforce be used, as specified. Existing law additionally authorizes the city, county, or city and county to conduct any design review or public oversight of the development and requires that design review or public oversight to be completed within specified periods of time. This bill would provide that if the development is subject to the Subdivision Map Act but the development has received or will receive financing or funding by means of a low-income housing tax credit and is subject to specified requirements relating to prevailing wages, or the development is subject to the requirement that prevailing wages be paid and a skilled and trained workforce be used, the application for the subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and would require the application for the subdivision to be considered within the specified time periods. (5) Existing law requires the objective planning standards to include, among others, a requirement that the development, excluding any additional density or any other concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards granted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law, is consistent with objective zoning standards and objective design review standards in effect at the time that the development is submitted to the local government. This bill would also require the development to be consistent with objective subdivision standards. The bill would declare that these provisions are declaratory of existing law. (6) Existing law provides that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to an action taken by a state agency or local government to provide financial assistance to a development that was approved for streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income. This bill would additionally provide that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to an action taken by a state agency or local government to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by the local government or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by the local government to a development that was approved for streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions to be used for housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income. (7) Existing law prohibits a local government, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing parking requirements in multifamily developments, from imposing parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to these provisions, as specified. This bill would specify that a local government is prohibited from imposing automobile parking standards for a streamlined development that was approved pursuant to these provisions, as specified. (8) Existing law, until January 1, 2021, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis by the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, authorizes emergency housing to include homeless shelters in the City of Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego, the County of Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco, respectively. Existing law, in lieu of compliance with local building approval procedures or state housing, health, habitability, planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures, and laws, authorizes those jurisdictions to adopt by ordinance reasonable local standards for homeless shelters, as specified. This bill would provide that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to actions taken by a state agency or local government to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by a city, county, or city and county, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by a city, county, or city and county, for, or to provide financial assistance to, a homeless shelter constructed or allowed pursuant to these provisions.
Who sponsors SB 765?
SB 765 is sponsored by Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 765?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 17, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 765?
Track SB 765 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 765

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 765

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →