California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 8 — Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021.

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 74% · 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.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • 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, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, requires a housing development project be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. The act defines "housing development project" to mean a use consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 23 of the square footage designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing. This bill would clarify, for various purposes of the act, that "housing development project" includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals, projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. The bill would specify that this clarification is declaratory of existing law, except that the clarification does not affect a project for which an application was submitted to the city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2022. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted in certain circumstances, including when the housing development project has not commenced construction within 2.5 years following the date that the project received final approval. This bill would specify that the act does not prohibit a housing development project that is an affordable housing project, as defined, from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if the project has not commenced construction within 3.5 years. Existing law prohibits an affected county or an affected city from approving a housing development project that requires the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, as defined, unless the developer agrees to provide the occupants of any protected units with relocation benefits and a right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development affordable to the household at an affordable rent or an affordable housing cost. This bill would limit the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to only the occupants of protected units that are lower income households, as defined. The bill would also specify that the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal does not apply to an occupant of a short-term rental that is rented for a period of fewer than 30 days. The bill would exempt from these provisions, a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but before January 1, 2020, that is located in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000, and that has adopted a rent or price control ordinance. This bill would exempt certain protected units from the above requirement to provide a right of first refusal, including a development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished. The bill would also exempt protected units in a housing development where 100% of the units are reserved for lower income households, not including any manager's units, unless the occupant of a protected unit qualifies for residence in the new development and the occupant is not precluded from occupancy due to unit size limitations or other requirements of one or more funding source of the housing development. Existing law requires the department to determine the affected cities and affected counties for purposes of the act, by June 30, 2020, and authorizes the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties once on or after January 1, 2021, as specified. Existing law provides that the department's determinations remain valid until January 1, 2025. This bill would authorize the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties a 2nd time on or after January 1, 2025. The bill would provide that the department's determinations remain valid until January 1, 2030. Existing law prohibits an affected county or affected city from reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed and in effect on January 1, 2018. This bill would clarify that this prohibition applies to the general plan land use designations, specific plan land use designations, and zoning districts in effect at the time of the proposed change. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. This bill would define "concurrently" to mean that the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body or, if the action that would result in a net loss of residential capacity is requested by an applicant for a housing development project, within 180 days. The bill would, in the case of an initiative measure, define "concurrently" to mean that the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity. Existing law makes the act inoperative on January 1, 2025. This bill would extend the operation of the act until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of local officials and a crime with respect to housing, 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 65940 and 65941.1 of the Government Code proposed by SB 37 to be operative only if this bill and SB 37 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 30. Noes 3. Page 2278.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 67. Noes 1. Page 2567.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (August 19).

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

  12. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 30).

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 22). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

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

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

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

  17. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 30. Noes 2. Page 1228.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  18. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  20. Set for hearing May 17.

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

  22. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 1. Page 986.) (April 29).

  23. Set for hearing April 29.

  24. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 632.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  25. Set for hearing March 25.

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

  27. Re-referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and HOUSING.

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

  29. Referred to Com. on RLS.

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

  31. 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 · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Skinner

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

Passed 30 Yea · 3 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 17303
Democratic 12001
Republican 1003
Total 30307
% of votes cast 75%8%0%18%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Gonzalez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Pan — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Glazer — Nay
Bates — Nay
Melendez — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Borgeas — 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 Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 67 Yea · 1 Nay · 11 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 39005
Democratic 20105
Republican 8001
Total 671011
% of votes cast 85%1%0%14%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Voepel — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Levine — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Smith — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Mathis — Not Voting
Nazarian — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Not Voting
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Not Voting
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
Bryan, Isaac G. 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 Not Voting
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Not Voting
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
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
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.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12000
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 16000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Voepel — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 7 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3000
Democratic 3100
Republican 1000
Total 7100
% of votes cast 88%13%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Voepel — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2001
Democratic 4000
Republican 0001
Total 6002
% of votes cast 75%0%0%25%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Kiley — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Maienschein — Not Voting
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 30 Yea · 2 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 17204
Democratic 12001
Republican 1003
Total 30208
% of votes cast 75%5%0%20%
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
Glazer — Nay
Bates — Nay
Borgeas — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Wilk — Not Voting
Melendez — 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 Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 8 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2100
Republican 1000
Democratic 5000
Total 8100
% of votes cast 89%11%0%0%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Bates — Nay
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 8 do?
Existing law, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, requires a housing development project be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, except as specified. The act defines "housing development project" to mean a use consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 23 of the square footage designated for residential use, and transitional or supportive housing. This bill would clarify, for various purposes of the act, that "housing development project" includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals, projects that involve both discretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. The bill would specify that this clarification is declaratory of existing law, except that the clarification does not affect a project for which an application was submitted to the city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2022. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted in certain circumstances, including when the housing development project has not commenced construction within 2.5 years following the date that the project received final approval. This bill would specify that the act does not prohibit a housing development project that is an affordable housing project, as defined, from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if the project has not commenced construction within 3.5 years. Existing law prohibits an affected county or an affected city from approving a housing development project that requires the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, as defined, unless the developer agrees to provide the occupants of any protected units with relocation benefits and a right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development affordable to the household at an affordable rent or an affordable housing cost. This bill would limit the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to only the occupants of protected units that are lower income households, as defined. The bill would also specify that the requirement to provide relocation benefits and a right of first refusal does not apply to an occupant of a short-term rental that is rented for a period of fewer than 30 days. The bill would exempt from these provisions, a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but before January 1, 2020, that is located in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000, and that has adopted a rent or price control ordinance. This bill would exempt certain protected units from the above requirement to provide a right of first refusal, including a development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished. The bill would also exempt protected units in a housing development where 100% of the units are reserved for lower income households, not including any manager's units, unless the occupant of a protected unit qualifies for residence in the new development and the occupant is not precluded from occupancy due to unit size limitations or other requirements of one or more funding source of the housing development. Existing law requires the department to determine the affected cities and affected counties for purposes of the act, by June 30, 2020, and authorizes the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties once on or after January 1, 2021, as specified. Existing law provides that the department's determinations remain valid until January 1, 2025. This bill would authorize the department to update the list of affected cities and affected counties a 2nd time on or after January 1, 2025. The bill would provide that the department's determinations remain valid until January 1, 2030. Existing law prohibits an affected county or affected city from reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed and in effect on January 1, 2018. This bill would clarify that this prohibition applies to the general plan land use designations, specific plan land use designations, and zoning districts in effect at the time of the proposed change. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. This bill would define "concurrently" to mean that the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body or, if the action that would result in a net loss of residential capacity is requested by an applicant for a housing development project, within 180 days. The bill would, in the case of an initiative measure, define "concurrently" to mean that the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity. Existing law makes the act inoperative on January 1, 2025. This bill would extend the operation of the act until January 1, 2030. By extending the duties of local officials and a crime with respect to housing, 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 65940 and 65941.1 of the Government Code proposed by SB 37 to be operative only if this bill and SB 37 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Who sponsors SB 8?
SB 8 is sponsored by Skinner and Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 8?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 07, 2020. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 8?
Track SB 8 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 8

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 8

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →