California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 330 — Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019.

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 19, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · 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.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 10 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) The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. The act specifies that one way to satisfy that requirement is to make findings that the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The act requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria that were in effect at the time the application was deemed to be complete, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, and places the burden of proof on the local agency to that effect. The act requires a court to impose a fine on a local agency under certain circumstances and requires that the fine be at least $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would specify that an application is deemed complete for these purposes if a preliminary application was submitted, as described below. Existing law authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the Housing Accountability Act. If, in that action, a court finds that a local agency failed to satisfy the requirement to make the specified findings described above, existing law requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with the act within 60 days, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would additionally require a court to issue the order or judgment previously described if the local agency required or attempted to require certain housing development projects to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. Existing law authorizes a local agency to require a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would, notwithstanding those provisions or any other law and with certain exceptions, require that a housing development project only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law, except as provided, requires that a public hearing be held on an application for a variance from the requirements of a zoning ordinance, an application for a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit, a proposed revocation or modification of a variance or use permit or equivalent development permit, or an appeal from the action taken on any of those applications. That law requires that notice of a public hearing be provided in accordance with specified procedures. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would prohibit a city or county from conducting more than 5 hearings, as defined, held pursuant to these provisions, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing, if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, as defined. The bill would require the city or county to consider and either approve or disapprove the housing development project at any of the 5 hearings consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act. (3) The Permit Streamlining Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each state agency and each local agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. That law requires the state or local agency to make copies of this information available to all applicants for development projects and to any persons who request the information. The bill, until January 1, 2025, for purposes of any state or local law, ordinance, or regulation that requires a city or county to determine whether the site of a proposed housing development project is a historic site, would require the city or county to make that determination, which would remain valid for the pendency of the housing development, at the time the application is deemed complete, except as provided. The bill, until January 1, 2025, would also require that each local agency make copies of any above-described list with respect to information required from an applicant for a housing development project available both (A) in writing to those persons to whom the agency is required to make information available and (B) publicly available on the internet website of the local agency. The Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to approve or disapprove of a development project within certain timeframes, as specified. The act requires a public agency, upon its determination that an application for a development project is incomplete, to include a list and a thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. Existing law authorizes the applicant to submit the additional material to the public agency, requires the public agency to determine whether the submission of the application together with the submitted materials is complete within 30 days of receipt, and provides for an appeal process from the public agency's determination. Existing law requires a final written determination by the agency on the appeal no later than 60 days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would provide that a housing development project, as defined, shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing specified information about the proposed project to the city or county from which approval for the project is being sought. The bill would require each local agency to compile a checklist and application form that applicants for housing development projects may use for that purpose and would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt a standardized form for applicants seeking approval from a local agency that has not developed its own application form. After the submittal of a preliminary application, the bill would provide that a housing development project would not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application under these provisions if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20% or more until the development proponent resubmits the information required by the bill so that it reflects the revisions. The bill would require a development proponent to submit an application for a development project that includes all information necessary for the agency to review the application under the Permit Streamlining Act within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application. The bill, until January 1, 2025, would require the lead agency, as defined, if the application is determined to be incomplete, to provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete, as specified. The Permit Streamlining Act generally requires that a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project approve or disapprove a project within 120 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of an environmental impact report prepared for certain development projects, but reduces this time period to 90 days from the certification of an environmental impact report for development projects meeting certain additional conditions relating to affordability. Existing law defines "development project" for these purposes to mean a use consisting of either residential units only or mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that satisfy certain other requirements. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would reduce the time period in which a lead agency under these provisions is required to approve or disapprove a project from 120 days to 90 days, for a development project generally described above, and from 90 days to 60 days, for a development project that meets the above-described affordability conditions. The bill would recast the definition of "development project" for these purposes to mean a housing development project, as defined in the Housing Accountability Act. (4) The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries that relates to its planning. That law authorizes the legislative body, if it deems it to be in the public interest, to amend all or part of an adopted general plan, as provided. That law also authorizes the legislative body of any county or city, pursuant to specified procedures, to adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes. This bill, until January 1, 2025, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, except as specified, would prohibit a county or city, including the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, in which specified conditions exist, determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development as provided, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the county or city, except as provided; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards, as defined; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued by, or the population of, the county or city, unless the limit was approved prior to January 1, 2005, in a predominantly agricultural county, as defined. The bill would, notwithstanding these prohibitions, allow a city or county to prohibit the commercial use of land zoned for residential use consistent with the authority of the city or county conferred by other law. The bill would state that these prohibitions would apply to any zoning ordinance adopted or amended on or after the effective date of these provisions, and that any development policy, standard, or condition on or after that date that does not comply would be deemed void. This bill would also require a project that requires the demolition of housing to comply with specified requirements, including the provision of relocation assistance and a right of first refusal in the new housing to displaced occupants, as provided. The bill would provide that these provisions do not supersede any provision of a locally adopted ordinance that places greater restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households. The bill would require a county or city subject to these provisions to include information necessary to determine compliance with these provisions in the list or lists that specify the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project under the Permit Streamlining Act. The bill would state that these prohibitions would prevail over any conflicting provision of the Planning and Zoning Law or other law regulating housing development in this state, except as specifically provided. The bill would also require that any exception to these provisions, including an exception for the health and safety of occupants of a housing development project, be construed narrowly. (5) 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 cities, including charter cities. (6) By imposing various new requirements and duties on local planning officials with respect to housing development, and by changing the scope of a crime under the State Housing Law, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (7) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 30. Noes 4. Page 2608.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 67. Noes 8. Page 3044.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 30).

  9. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.

  10. August 28 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  11. August 21 hearing postponed by committee.

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

  13. (Received at desk July 10 pursuant to JR 61(a)(10)).

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (July 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

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

  17. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 19).

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

  19. Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.

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

  21. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 7. Page 1353.) Ordered to the Assembly.

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

  23. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 1096.) (May 16).

  24. Set for hearing May 16.

  25. May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

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

  27. Set for hearing May 13.

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

  29. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 2. Page 774.) (April 22).

  30. Set for hearing April 22.

  31. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 713.) (April 10). Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  32. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  33. Set for hearing April 10.

  34. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

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

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

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

Sponsors

  • Skinner · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Skinner

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 SB330 Skinner Concurrence

Passed 30 Yea · 4 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 19305
Democratic 10000
Republican 1101
Total 30406
% of votes cast 75%10%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Glazer — Nay
Moorlach — Not Voting
Allen — Not Voting
Borgeas — Not Voting
Bates — Not Voting
Morrell — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
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 Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

SB 330 Skinner Senate Third Reading By Daly

Passed 67 Yea · 8 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 43504
Democratic 19300
Republican 5000
Total 67804
% of votes cast 85%10%0%5%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Fong — Yea
Salas — Yea
Brough — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Ting — Yea
Levine — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Low — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Wood — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chu — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Weber — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Nay
Smith — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Burke — Not Voting
Nazarian — Not Voting
Frazier — Not Voting
O'Donnell — Not Voting
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 Nay
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
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 Nay
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 →

Do pass.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 12001
Total 17001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Fong — Yea
Brough — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Maienschein — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 28 Yea · 7 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 20502
Democratic 8001
Republican 0200
Total 28703
% of votes cast 74%18%0%8%
How each member voted (38)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Bates — Nay
Glazer — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Borgeas — Not Voting
Moorlach — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 4 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4100
Republican 0100
Total 4200
% of votes cast 67%33%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Total 6000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hill — 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 8 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 3201
Total 8201
% of votes cast 73%18%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Bates — Nay
Moorlach — 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 330 do?
(1) The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. The act specifies that one way to satisfy that requirement is to make findings that the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The act requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria that were in effect at the time the application was deemed to be complete, or to approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density, to base its decision upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that specified conditions exist, and places the burden of proof on the local agency to that effect. The act requires a court to impose a fine on a local agency under certain circumstances and requires that the fine be at least $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would specify that an application is deemed complete for these purposes if a preliminary application was submitted, as described below. Existing law authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the Housing Accountability Act. If, in that action, a court finds that a local agency failed to satisfy the requirement to make the specified findings described above, existing law requires the court to issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with the act within 60 days, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would additionally require a court to issue the order or judgment previously described if the local agency required or attempted to require certain housing development projects to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. Existing law authorizes a local agency to require a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would, notwithstanding those provisions or any other law and with certain exceptions, require that a housing development project only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law, except as provided, requires that a public hearing be held on an application for a variance from the requirements of a zoning ordinance, an application for a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit, a proposed revocation or modification of a variance or use permit or equivalent development permit, or an appeal from the action taken on any of those applications. That law requires that notice of a public hearing be provided in accordance with specified procedures. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would prohibit a city or county from conducting more than 5 hearings, as defined, held pursuant to these provisions, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing, if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, as defined. The bill would require the city or county to consider and either approve or disapprove the housing development project at any of the 5 hearings consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act. (3) The Permit Streamlining Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each state agency and each local agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. That law requires the state or local agency to make copies of this information available to all applicants for development projects and to any persons who request the information. The bill, until January 1, 2025, for purposes of any state or local law, ordinance, or regulation that requires a city or county to determine whether the site of a proposed housing development project is a historic site, would require the city or county to make that determination, which would remain valid for the pendency of the housing development, at the time the application is deemed complete, except as provided. The bill, until January 1, 2025, would also require that each local agency make copies of any above-described list with respect to information required from an applicant for a housing development project available both (A) in writing to those persons to whom the agency is required to make information available and (B) publicly available on the internet website of the local agency. The Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to approve or disapprove of a development project within certain timeframes, as specified. The act requires a public agency, upon its determination that an application for a development project is incomplete, to include a list and a thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. Existing law authorizes the applicant to submit the additional material to the public agency, requires the public agency to determine whether the submission of the application together with the submitted materials is complete within 30 days of receipt, and provides for an appeal process from the public agency's determination. Existing law requires a final written determination by the agency on the appeal no later than 60 days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would provide that a housing development project, as defined, shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing specified information about the proposed project to the city or county from which approval for the project is being sought. The bill would require each local agency to compile a checklist and application form that applicants for housing development projects may use for that purpose and would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt a standardized form for applicants seeking approval from a local agency that has not developed its own application form. After the submittal of a preliminary application, the bill would provide that a housing development project would not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application under these provisions if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20% or more until the development proponent resubmits the information required by the bill so that it reflects the revisions. The bill would require a development proponent to submit an application for a development project that includes all information necessary for the agency to review the application under the Permit Streamlining Act within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application. The bill, until January 1, 2025, would require the lead agency, as defined, if the application is determined to be incomplete, to provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete, as specified. The Permit Streamlining Act generally requires that a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project approve or disapprove a project within 120 days from the date of certification by the lead agency of an environmental impact report prepared for certain development projects, but reduces this time period to 90 days from the certification of an environmental impact report for development projects meeting certain additional conditions relating to affordability. Existing law defines "development project" for these purposes to mean a use consisting of either residential units only or mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that satisfy certain other requirements. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would reduce the time period in which a lead agency under these provisions is required to approve or disapprove a project from 120 days to 90 days, for a development project generally described above, and from 90 days to 60 days, for a development project that meets the above-described affordability conditions. The bill would recast the definition of "development project" for these purposes to mean a housing development project, as defined in the Housing Accountability Act. (4) The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and of any land outside its boundaries that relates to its planning. That law authorizes the legislative body, if it deems it to be in the public interest, to amend all or part of an adopted general plan, as provided. That law also authorizes the legislative body of any county or city, pursuant to specified procedures, to adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, and other purposes. This bill, until January 1, 2025, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, except as specified, would prohibit a county or city, including the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, in which specified conditions exist, determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development as provided, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the county or city, except as provided; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards, as defined; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued by, or the population of, the county or city, unless the limit was approved prior to January 1, 2005, in a predominantly agricultural county, as defined. The bill would, notwithstanding these prohibitions, allow a city or county to prohibit the commercial use of land zoned for residential use consistent with the authority of the city or county conferred by other law. The bill would state that these prohibitions would apply to any zoning ordinance adopted or amended on or after the effective date of these provisions, and that any development policy, standard, or condition on or after that date that does not comply would be deemed void. This bill would also require a project that requires the demolition of housing to comply with specified requirements, including the provision of relocation assistance and a right of first refusal in the new housing to displaced occupants, as provided. The bill would provide that these provisions do not supersede any provision of a locally adopted ordinance that places greater restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households. The bill would require a county or city subject to these provisions to include information necessary to determine compliance with these provisions in the list or lists that specify the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project under the Permit Streamlining Act. The bill would state that these prohibitions would prevail over any conflicting provision of the Planning and Zoning Law or other law regulating housing development in this state, except as specifically provided. The bill would also require that any exception to these provisions, including an exception for the health and safety of occupants of a housing development project, be construed narrowly. (5) 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 cities, including charter cities. (6) By imposing various new requirements and duties on local planning officials with respect to housing development, and by changing the scope of a crime under the State Housing Law, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (7) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
Who sponsors SB 330?
SB 330 is sponsored by Skinner.
What is the current status of SB 330?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 19, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 330?
Track SB 330 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 330

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 330

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →