California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 290 — Density Bonus Law: qualifications for incentives or concessions: student housing for lower income students: moderate-income persons and families: local government constraints.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 340, 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 February 01, 2021. 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

Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to, among other things, construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents, including lower income students. Existing law requires the amount of a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions a qualifying developer receives to be pursuant to a certain formula based on the total number of units in the housing development, as specified. This bill would require a unit designated to satisfy the inclusionary zoning requirements of a city or county to be included in the total number of units on which a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions are based. The bill would require a city or county to grant one incentive or concession for a student housing development project that will include at least 20% of the total units for lower income students. Existing law requires a city or county to grant a density bonus and certain incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a common interest development that will contain a specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified, if all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. This bill would instead require a city or county to grant that density bonus and those incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a housing development that will contain that specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified. Existing law, upon the request of the developer, prohibits a city or county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit, if the development meets specified affordability requirements, including at least 20% low-income units or at least 11% very low income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. This bill, would, additionally, upon the request of the developer, prohibit a city or county from imposing the above-described parking ratio, if the development meets specified affordability requirements, including at least 40% moderate-income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. Existing law requires the planning agency of the city or county to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Planning and Research, and the legislative body of the city or county, by April 1 of each year, an annual report that includes, among other things, the city or county's progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs. This bill would require the planning agency to include in that report the number of units in a student housing development for lower income students for which the developer was granted a density bonus. Existing law authorizes a city or county to refuse a concession or incentive if the city or county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the concession or incentive would have a specified adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment, or real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Existing law also prohibits certain provisions from being interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if, among other reasons, the waiver or reduction would have a specified adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specified adverse impact. This bill would remove the specified adverse impact on the physical environment from the list of reasons for which a city or county is authorized to refuse a concession, an incentive, or a waiver or reduction of a development standard. This bill would make findings and declarations related to the modifications to the Density Bonus Law made by this bill. By imposing additional requirements on local governments with respect to density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 340, Statutes of 2021.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

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

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 32. Noes 4. Page 2211.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 66. Noes 1. Page 2478.) 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 13. Noes 0.) (July 14).

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 22). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

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

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

  15. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 33. Noes 4. Page 1232.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  16. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  17. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1186.) (May 20).

  18. Set for hearing May 20.

  19. May 3 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  20. Set for hearing May 3.

  21. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 814.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. Set for hearing April 15.

  23. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 552.) (March 18). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  24. Set for hearing March 18.

  25. Joint Rule 55 suspended. (Ayes 32. Noes 4. Page 272.)

  26. (Ayes 32. Noes 4.)

  27. Art. IV. Sec. 8(a) of the Constitution dispensed with.

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

  29. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 4.

  30. 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 · 2 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 SB290 Skinner Concurrence

Passed 32 Yea · 4 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 19301
Democratic 12001
Republican 1102
Total 32404
% of votes cast 80%10%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Pan — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Nay
Borgeas — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
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 Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 290 Skinner Senate Third Reading By Quirk-Silva

Passed 66 Yea · 1 Nay · 12 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 20105
Unaffiliated 39005
Republican 7002
Total 661012
% of votes cast 84%1%0%15%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Levine — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
Medina — Yea
Smith — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
Frazier — Not Voting
McCarty — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
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 Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Not Voting
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex 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
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4001
Unaffiliated 7002
Republican 2000
Total 13003
% of votes cast 81%0%0%19%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
McCarty — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Not Voting
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 33 Yea · 4 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 19301
Democratic 13000
Republican 1102
Total 33403
% of votes cast 83%10%0%8%
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
Wilk — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Roth — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Borgeas — Nay
Bates — Nay
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 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 Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4100
Democratic 1000
Republican 0100
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%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 Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4001
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance]

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4001
Unaffiliated 2100
Republican 0001
Total 6102
% of votes cast 67%11%0%22%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bates — Nay
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Not Voting

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 290 do?
Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to, among other things, construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents, including lower income students. Existing law requires the amount of a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions a qualifying developer receives to be pursuant to a certain formula based on the total number of units in the housing development, as specified. This bill would require a unit designated to satisfy the inclusionary zoning requirements of a city or county to be included in the total number of units on which a density bonus and the number of incentives or concessions are based. The bill would require a city or county to grant one incentive or concession for a student housing development project that will include at least 20% of the total units for lower income students. Existing law requires a city or county to grant a density bonus and certain incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a common interest development that will contain a specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified, if all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. This bill would instead require a city or county to grant that density bonus and those incentives or concessions if the developer agrees to construct a housing development that will contain that specified percentage of units for persons and families of moderate income, as specified. Existing law, upon the request of the developer, prohibits a city or county from imposing a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit, if the development meets specified affordability requirements, including at least 20% low-income units or at least 11% very low income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. This bill, would, additionally, upon the request of the developer, prohibit a city or county from imposing the above-described parking ratio, if the development meets specified affordability requirements, including at least 40% moderate-income units, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. Existing law requires the planning agency of the city or county to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Planning and Research, and the legislative body of the city or county, by April 1 of each year, an annual report that includes, among other things, the city or county's progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs. This bill would require the planning agency to include in that report the number of units in a student housing development for lower income students for which the developer was granted a density bonus. Existing law authorizes a city or county to refuse a concession or incentive if the city or county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the concession or incentive would have a specified adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment, or real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Existing law also prohibits certain provisions from being interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if, among other reasons, the waiver or reduction would have a specified adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specified adverse impact. This bill would remove the specified adverse impact on the physical environment from the list of reasons for which a city or county is authorized to refuse a concession, an incentive, or a waiver or reduction of a development standard. This bill would make findings and declarations related to the modifications to the Density Bonus Law made by this bill. By imposing additional requirements on local governments with respect to density bonuses, 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 290?
SB 290 is sponsored by Skinner.
What is the current status of SB 290?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 01, 2021. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 290?
Track SB 290 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 290

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 290

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →