California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 2 D cosponsors

SB 899 — Planning and zoning: housing development: higher education institutions and religious institutions.

Last action — August 18 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

Track this bill free

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

  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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an independent institution of higher education or religious institution that partners with a qualified developer on any land owned in fee simple by the applicant on or before January 1, 2020, if the development satisfies specified criteria. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. Among other things, the bill would require that 100% of the units, exclusive of manager units, in a housing development project eligible for approval as a use by right under these provisions be affordable to lower income households, except that 20% of the units may be for moderate-income households, provided that all the units are provided at affordable rent or affordable housing cost, as specified. The bill would authorize the development to include ancillary uses on the ground floor of the development, as specified. This bill would specify that a housing development project that is eligible for approval as a use by right under the bill is also eligible for a density bonus or other incentives or concessions, except as specified. The bill would require a development subject to these provisions to provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the ordinance applies. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any parking requirement on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within one-half mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, as those terms are defined, and within one block of a car share vehicle. 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. 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 does not apply to the ministerial approval of projects. This bill, by requiring approval of certain development projects as a use by right, would expand the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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. August 18 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

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

  3. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (July 29).

  4. July 28 hearing postponed by committee.

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

  6. Referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

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

  8. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 3862.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3766.) (June 18).

  12. Set for hearing June 18.

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

  14. Set for hearing June 9.

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

  16. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 3595.) (May 26).

  17. Set for hearing May 26.

  18. Referral to Coms. on EQ., and GOV. & F. rescinded due to the shortened 2020 Legislative Calendar.

  19. Re-referred to Coms. on HOUSING, EQ., and GOV. & F.

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

  21. Referred to Com. on RLS.

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

  23. 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

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (1)

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

3rd Reading SB899 Wiener et al.

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 26001
Democratic 10000
Republican 3000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Chang — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Beall — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Yea
Monning — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hueso — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
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 as amended

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 →

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 as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

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
Morrell — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Roth — Yea
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 education
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 899 do?
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards. This bill would require that a housing development project be a use by right upon the request of an independent institution of higher education or religious institution that partners with a qualified developer on any land owned in fee simple by the applicant on or before January 1, 2020, if the development satisfies specified criteria. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. Among other things, the bill would require that 100% of the units, exclusive of manager units, in a housing development project eligible for approval as a use by right under these provisions be affordable to lower income households, except that 20% of the units may be for moderate-income households, provided that all the units are provided at affordable rent or affordable housing cost, as specified. The bill would authorize the development to include ancillary uses on the ground floor of the development, as specified. This bill would specify that a housing development project that is eligible for approval as a use by right under the bill is also eligible for a density bonus or other incentives or concessions, except as specified. The bill would require a development subject to these provisions to provide off-street parking of up to one space per unit, unless a local ordinance provides for a lower standard of parking, in which case the ordinance applies. The bill would prohibit a local government from imposing any parking requirement on a development subject to these provisions if the development is located within one-half mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop, as those terms are defined, and within one block of a car share vehicle. 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. 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 does not apply to the ministerial approval of projects. This bill, by requiring approval of certain development projects as a use by right, would expand the exemption for ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to approving certain development projects, 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 SB 899?
SB 899 is sponsored by Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic) and Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 899?
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 899?
Track SB 899 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 899

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 899

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →