SB 50 — Planning and zoning: housing development: streamlined approval: incentives.

Summary

(1) Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit. This bill would authorize a development proponent of a neighborhood multifamily project located on an eligible parcel to submit an application for a streamlined, ministerial approval process that is not subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would define a "neighborhood multifamily project" to mean a project to construct a multifamily structure on vacant land, or to convert an existing structure that does not require substantial exterior alteration into a multifamily structure, consisting of up to 4 residential dwelling units and that meets local height, setback, and lot coverage zoning requirements as they existed on July 1, 2019. The bill would also define "eligible parcel" to mean a parcel that meets specified requirements, including requirements relating to the location of the parcel and restricting the demolition of certain housing development that may already exist on the site. This bill would require a local agency to notify the development proponent in writing if the local agency determines that the development conflicts with any of the requirements provided for streamlined ministerial approval within 60 days of the submission of the development to the local agency. If the local agency does not notify the development proponent within this time period, the development would be deemed to comply with those requirements. The bill would limit the authority of a local agency to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that the approval of a project under these provisions expires automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would provide that approval pursuant to its provisions would remain valid for 3 years and remain valid thereafter, so long as vertical construction of the development has begun and is in progress, and would authorize a discretionary one-year extension, as provided. The bill would prohibit a local agency from adopting any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project receives ministerial or streamlined approval pursuant to these provisions. This bill would allow a local agency to exempt a project from the streamlined ministerial approval process described above by finding that the project will cause a specific adverse impact to public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. 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. This bill would establish a streamlined ministerial approval process for neighborhood multifamily projects, thereby exempting these projects from the CEQA approval process. (2) Existing law, known as the density bonus law, requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents. This bill, on or after January 1, 2023, would require a specified city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would impose additional requirements on a residential development located within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000. The bill would require that a residential development within a county with a population greater than 600,000 that is eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive, upon request, waivers from maximum controls on density; minimum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit; and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 12-mile or 14-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. For a residential development within a county with a population equal to or less than 600,000, the bill would instead require that the incentive provide waivers from maximum controls on density, subject to certain limitations; maximum height limitations less than or equal to one story, or 15 feet, above the highest allowable height for mixed use or residential use; certain requirements governing the size of the parcel and the area that the building may occupy; and minimum automobile parking requirements, as provided. The bill would require a local government to grant an equitable communities incentive unless it makes a specified finding regarding the effects of the incentive on any real property or historic district that is listed on a federal or state register of historical resources. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions. The bill would delay implementation of these provisions in potentially sensitive communities, as defined, until July 1, 2023. The bill would further delay implementation of these provisions in sensitive communities, determined as provided, until January 1, 2026, unless the city or county in which the area is located votes to make these provisions applicable after a specified petition and public hearing process. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would apply these provisions to a sensitive community unless the city or county adopts a community plan for the area that meets certain requirements. The bill would also exempt from these provisions a local government that has a local flexibility plan that has been reviewed and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as specified. The bill, on or before July 1, 2021, would require the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the Department of Housing and Community Development, to develop and publish on its internet website rules, regulations, or guidelines for the submission and approval of a local flexibility plan, as specified. The bill, on or after July 1, 2021, would authorize a local government to submit a local flexibility plan for review and approval by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to those rules, regulations, or guidelines. The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by these provisions address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That law provides that the receipt of a density bonus is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. This bill would additionally provide that the receipt of an equitable communities incentive is not a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision of that act. (3) By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) 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

• Amended 01/06/20 - Amended Senate Current pdf January 06, 2020
• Amended 06/04/19 - Amended Senate pdf June 04, 2019
• Amended 05/01/19 - Amended Senate pdf May 01, 2019
• Amended 03/11/19 - Amended Senate pdf March 11, 2019
• Introduced 12/03/18 - Introduced pdf December 03, 2018
• SB50 View text html

Action History

1. January 30, 2020

   Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 18. Noes 15. Page 3176.)

2. January 29, 2020

   Reconsideration granted. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 3170.)

3. January 29, 2020

   Motion to reconsider made by Senator Wiener.

4. January 29, 2020

   Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 18. Noes 15. Page 3169.)

5. January 28, 2020

   Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

6. January 27, 2020

   Ordered to second reading.

7. January 27, 2020

   Withdrawn from committee. (Ayes 29. Noes 10. Page 3146.)

8. January 17, 2020

   Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

9. January 17, 2020

   Withdrawn from committee.

10. January 06, 2020

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

11. June 04, 2019

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

12. May 16, 2019

    May 16 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

13. May 14, 2019

    Set for hearing May 16.

14. May 13, 2019

    May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

15. May 03, 2019

    Set for hearing May 13.

16. May 01, 2019

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

17. April 30, 2019

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 845.) (April 24).

18. April 04, 2019

    Set for hearing April 24.

19. April 03, 2019

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 9. Noes 1. Page 551.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

20. March 19, 2019

    Set for hearing April 2.

21. March 11, 2019

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

22. January 24, 2019

    Referred to Coms. on HOUSING and GOV. & F.

23. December 04, 2018

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 3.

24. December 03, 2018

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

Sponsors

• Scott D. Wiener · Primary
• Anna M. Caballero · Cosponsor
• Hueso · Cosponsor
• Mike McGuire · Cosponsor
• Moorlach · Cosponsor
• Roth · Cosponsor
• Skinner · Cosponsor
• Chu · Cosponsor
• Diep · Cosponsor
• Ash Kalra · Cosponsor
• Kiley · Cosponsor
• Low · Cosponsor
• McCarty · Cosponsor
• Sharon Quirk-Silva · Cosponsor
• Robert Rivas · Cosponsor
• Ting · Cosponsor
• Buffy Wicks · Cosponsor
• Vince Fong · Cosponsor

Votes

Subjects