California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 R cosponsors

AB 430 — Housing development: Camp Fire Housing Assistance Act of 2019.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 745, Statutes of 2019.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 07, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 76% · 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.

  • 3 sponsors

    1 primary, 2 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 R).

  • 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 authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development permit that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains 2 or more residential units. This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a residential development, or mixed-use development that includes residential units with a specified percentage of space designated for residential use, within the territorial boundaries or a specialized residential planning area identified in the general plan of, and adjacent to existing urban development within, specified cities that is subject to a similar streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expires automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would prohibit a city from imposing any automobile parking standards on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within 12 mile of a high-quality bus corridor, as defined, or major transit stop, as defined. 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 require a local government to file a notice of any approval of a development under these provisions with the Office of Planning and Research. The bill would prohibit a local government 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, except as provided. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026. This bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all of the specified cities, including charter cities. 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. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities specified in the bill. By imposing new duties on specified local agencies with respect to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described above, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 745, Statutes of 2019.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 1. Page 3014.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 5 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 33. Noes 1. Page 2454.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  11. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

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

  13. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 10).

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  15. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 3).

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

  17. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on EQ. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 18).

  18. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  19. Referred to Coms. on HOUSING, EQ. and GOV. & F.

  20. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  21. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 70. Noes 1. Page 1728.)

  22. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  23. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 15).

  24. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1609.)

  25. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  26. Read second time and amended.

  27. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (April 22).

  28. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  29. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended.

  30. In committee: Testimony taken. Hearing postponed by committee.

  31. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  32. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended.

  33. Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  34. From printer. May be heard in committee March 10.

  35. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (2)

  • Dahle
  • Nielsen

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"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 78 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 51100
Democratic 22000
Republican 5000
Total 78100
% of votes cast 99%1%0%0%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Mathis — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Low — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chu — Yea
Ting — Yea
McCarty — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Salas — Yea
Brough — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Weber — Yea
Fong — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Levine — Yea
Wood — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al 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
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 33 Yea · 1 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 23103
Democratic 7003
Republican 3000
Total 33106
% of votes cast 83%3%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Wieckowski — Nay
Allen — Not Voting
Monning — Not Voting
Mitchell — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Not Voting
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
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 →

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5001
Democratic 5000
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Moorlach — Yea
Bates — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — 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 →

Passed 70 Yea · 1 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 23002
Unaffiliated 40107
Republican 7000
Total 70109
% of votes cast 88%1%0%11%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Brough — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Salas — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Ting — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Levine — Yea
Melendez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Wood — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chu — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Frazier — Not Voting
Cooley — Not Voting
Weber — Not Voting
Gonzalez — Not Voting
Jones-Sawyer — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Not Voting
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al 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
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7000
Unaffiliated 9002
Total 16002
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Brough — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6101
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 9101
% of votes cast 82%9%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Friedman — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Melendez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chau — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

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 AB 430 do?
Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development permit that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains 2 or more residential units. This bill would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a residential development, or mixed-use development that includes residential units with a specified percentage of space designated for residential use, within the territorial boundaries or a specialized residential planning area identified in the general plan of, and adjacent to existing urban development within, specified cities that is subject to a similar streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would require a local government to notify the development proponent in writing if the local government determines that the development conflicts with any of those objective standards by a specified time; otherwise, the development is deemed to comply with those standards. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expires automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. The bill would prohibit a city from imposing any automobile parking standards on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within 12 mile of a high-quality bus corridor, as defined, or major transit stop, as defined. 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 require a local government to file a notice of any approval of a development under these provisions with the Office of Planning and Research. The bill would prohibit a local government 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, except as provided. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2026. This bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all of the specified cities, including charter cities. 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. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the cities specified in the bill. By imposing new duties on specified local agencies with respect to the streamlined, ministerial approval process described above, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 AB 430?
AB 430 is sponsored by Gallagher, James (Republican), Dahle, and Nielsen.
What is the current status of AB 430?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 07, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 430?
Track AB 430 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 430

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 AB 430

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →