California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 1 D cosponsors

SB 902 — Planning and zoning: housing development: density.

Last action — August 20 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

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

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would authorize a local government to pass an ordinance, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. In this regard, the bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research, to determine jobs-rich areas and publish a map of those areas every 5 years, commencing January 1, 2022, based on specified criteria. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. This 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 20 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 18 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (August 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

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

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 33. Noes 3. Page 3797.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 3766.) (June 18).

  9. Set for hearing June 18.

  10. June 9 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  11. Set for hearing June 9.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3595.) (May 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  14. Set for hearing May 26.

  15. March 31 hearing postponed by committee.

  16. Set for hearing March 31.

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

  18. Referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  19. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 1.

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

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Atkins

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

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

Passed 5 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1102
Total 5102
% of votes cast 63%13%0%25%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Voepel — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Not Voting
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
Ramos, James C. Democratic Not Voting
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB902 Wiener et al.

Passed 33 Yea · 3 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 22302
Democratic 8002
Republican 3000
Total 33304
% of votes cast 83%8%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Chang — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Roth — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Beall — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Monning — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Bates — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Not Voting
Allen — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Not Voting
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5100
Total 6100
% of votes cast 86%14%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hill — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 6000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hill — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4002
Democratic 5000
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Not Voting
Bates — Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic 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 902 do?
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would authorize a local government to pass an ordinance, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as those terms are defined. In this regard, the bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research, to determine jobs-rich areas and publish a map of those areas every 5 years, commencing January 1, 2022, based on specified criteria. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted under these provisions is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. This 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.
Who sponsors SB 902?
SB 902 is sponsored by Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic) and Atkins.
What is the current status of SB 902?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 902?
Track SB 902 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 902

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 902

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →