California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted 11 D cosponsors

SB 6 — Local planning: housing: commercial zones.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022.

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 December 07, 2020. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · 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.

  • 18 sponsors

    1 primary, 17 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (11 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 9 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

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. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all households pursuant to specified law, existing law requires the local government to rezone sites within specified time periods and that this rezoning accommodate 100% of the need for housing for very low and low-income households on sites that will be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for specified developments. This bill, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, if specified conditions are met, including requirements relating to density, public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures, site location and size, consistency with sustainable community strategy or alternative plans, prevailing wage, and a skilled and trained workforce. The bill would authorize an interested party, including a labor organization that represents workers in the geographic area of the project, to bring an action for injunctive relief against a developer or prime contractor that proceeds with a project in violation of specified bidding requirements. This bill would require a development proponent to provide written notice of their pending application to each commercial tenant on the parcel when the application is submitted and provide relocation assistance to each eligible commercial tenant, as described. The bill would require a local agency to require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to the bill's provisions be for a term longer than 30 days. This bill would authorize a local agency to exempt a parcel from these provisions if the local agency makes specified written findings supported by substantial evidence, as provided. The bill would specify that it does not alter or affect the application of any housing, environmental, or labor law applicable to a housing development authorized by these provisions, including, but not limited to, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Housing Accountability Act, obligations to affirmatively further fair housing, and any state or local affordability laws or tenant protection laws. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies of the outcomes of these provisions that include specified information, including, among other things, the number of projects built and the number of units built. The bill would provide that these provisions become operative on July 1, 2023, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2033. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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, as defined for purposes of the act, 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. That act states that it shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring 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, except as provided. That act further provides that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill would provide that for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed housing development project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if the housing development project is consistent with the standards applied to the parcel pursuant to specified provisions of the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022. The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2026, also authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including a requirement that the site on which the development is proposed is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least 23 of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. Under that law, the proposed development is also required to be consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time the development is submitted to the local government. This bill would permit the development to be proposed for a site zoned for office or retail commercial use and that meets the requirements of the above-described Middle Class Housing Act of 2022. The bill would also provide that a project shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards, objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if the project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 and if none of the square footage in the project is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel, as defined. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65913.4 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2668 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2668 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to local planning and zoning, 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 specified reasons.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

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

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 5228.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  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 12. Noes 2.) (August 11).

  12. August 3 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

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

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

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

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 32. Noes 2. Page 1236.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 1178.) (May 20).

  21. Set for hearing May 20.

  22. May 10 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  23. Set for hearing May 10.

  24. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 986.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  26. Set for hearing April 29.

  27. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 479.) (March 11). Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

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

  29. Set for hearing March 11.

  30. Referral to Com. on JUD. rescinded because of the limitations placed on committee hearings due to ongoing health and safety risks of the COVID-19 virus.

  31. Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F., HOUSING, and JUD.

  32. (Corrected December 9).

  33. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 7.

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

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 17 co-sponsors · 104 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (17)

Not signed on (104)

104 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 104 →

"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 34 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 18005
Democratic 12001
Republican 4000
Total 34006
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Roth — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Pan — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Wilk — Not Voting
Glazer — Not Voting
Borgeas — Not Voting
Melendez — Not Voting
Bates — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique 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
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 67 Yea · 0 Nay · 13 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 33006
Republican 6003
Democratic 28004
Total 670013
% of votes cast 84%0%0%16%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Cooley — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Levine — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Smith — Not Voting
Voepel — Not Voting
Waldron — Not Voting
Kiley — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Not Voting
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
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
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5101
Democratic 7000
Republican 0101
Total 12202
% of votes cast 75%13%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Holden — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Vince Fong — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 1001
Republican 0100
Total 6101
% of votes cast 75%13%0%13%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Kiley — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 32 Yea · 2 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 17204
Democratic 13000
Republican 2002
Total 32206
% of votes cast 80%5%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Kamlager — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Roth — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Bates — Nay
Borgeas — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Wilk — Not Voting
Glazer — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4100
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 6100
% of votes cast 86%14%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Nay
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Democratic 1000
Republican 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kamlager — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2001
Republican 1000
Democratic 5000
Total 8001
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie 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 SB 6 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. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all households pursuant to specified law, existing law requires the local government to rezone sites within specified time periods and that this rezoning accommodate 100% of the need for housing for very low and low-income households on sites that will be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for specified developments. This bill, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, if specified conditions are met, including requirements relating to density, public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures, site location and size, consistency with sustainable community strategy or alternative plans, prevailing wage, and a skilled and trained workforce. The bill would authorize an interested party, including a labor organization that represents workers in the geographic area of the project, to bring an action for injunctive relief against a developer or prime contractor that proceeds with a project in violation of specified bidding requirements. This bill would require a development proponent to provide written notice of their pending application to each commercial tenant on the parcel when the application is submitted and provide relocation assistance to each eligible commercial tenant, as described. The bill would require a local agency to require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to the bill's provisions be for a term longer than 30 days. This bill would authorize a local agency to exempt a parcel from these provisions if the local agency makes specified written findings supported by substantial evidence, as provided. The bill would specify that it does not alter or affect the application of any housing, environmental, or labor law applicable to a housing development authorized by these provisions, including, but not limited to, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Housing Accountability Act, obligations to affirmatively further fair housing, and any state or local affordability laws or tenant protection laws. The bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to undertake at least 2 studies of the outcomes of these provisions that include specified information, including, among other things, the number of projects built and the number of units built. The bill would provide that these provisions become operative on July 1, 2023, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2033. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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, as defined for purposes of the act, 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. That act states that it shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring 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, except as provided. That act further provides that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill would provide that for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed housing development project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if the housing development project is consistent with the standards applied to the parcel pursuant to specified provisions of the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022. The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2026, also authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including a requirement that the site on which the development is proposed is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least 23 of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. Under that law, the proposed development is also required to be consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time the development is submitted to the local government. This bill would permit the development to be proposed for a site zoned for office or retail commercial use and that meets the requirements of the above-described Middle Class Housing Act of 2022. The bill would also provide that a project shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards, objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if the project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 and if none of the square footage in the project is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel, as defined. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65913.4 of the Government Code proposed by AB 2668 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2668 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to local planning and zoning, 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 specified reasons.
Who sponsors SB 6?
SB 6 is sponsored by Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic), Eggman, Atkins, Durazo, Maria Elena (Democratic), Hertzberg, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Cortese, Dave (Democratic), Hueso, Roth, McGuire, Mike (Democratic), Arambula, Joaquin (Democratic), Cooper, Gipson, Mike A. (Democratic), Quirk-Silva, Sharon (Democratic), Rivas, Robert (Democratic), Rubio, Susan (Democratic), Gonzalez, Lena A. (Democratic), and Wendy Carrillo.
What is the current status of SB 6?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 07, 2020. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 6?
Track SB 6 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 6

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 SB 6

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →