California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

SB 563 — Second Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act: housing developments: homelessness prevention programs: enhanced infrastructure financing plan review and amendment process.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

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

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the Second Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act, or NIFTI-2, authorizes a city or county to adopt a resolution to allocate its tax revenues to an enhanced infrastructure financing district, including revenues derived from local sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or transactions and use taxes imposed in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, if certain conditions are or will be met. Among those conditions, existing law includes requirements that the area financed with those funds is within 12 mile of a major transit stop, as specified, and that the boundaries of the enhanced infrastructure financing district are coterminous with the city or county that established the district. Existing law also requires the infrastructure financing plan to require specified minimum percentages of the funds to be used to develop affordable housing, as specified, and to give first priority to income-qualified households displaced from the district, as specified, and secondary priority to households with a member or members employed within 2 miles of the district. Existing law authorizes the remaining funds to be used for certain affordable housing, mixed-use, transit, or greenhouse gas emission reduction related projects or programs. This bill would revise NIFTI-2 to, among other things, remove the requirements that the area financed be within 12 mile of a major transit stop and that the boundaries of the district be coterminous with the city or county. The bill would require specified minimum percentages of the funds be used for homelessness prevention programs or development of affordable housing that is within 12 mile of a major transit stop, as specified. The bill would revise the description of tax revenue that may be allocated to a district. The bill would require first priority for the housing be given to households who were displaced from the district within the past 10 years, and secondary priority for households with a member or members who are employed within 2 miles of the housing or who live within the district and are children, elderly, or disabled. The bill would require first priority for the homelessness prevention programs to be given to households living within the district with a member or members who are employed within the district or who are children, elderly, or disabled, and secondary priority for households not living within the district with a member or members who are employed within the district or who are children, elderly, or disabled. The bill would authorize the remaining funds to be used for certain transit related projects in specified areas within a 12 mile of a major transit stop. The bill would also authorize the remaining funds to be used for certain homelessness prevention, affordable housing, enhanced transit ridership, or greenhouse gas emission reduction projects or programs throughout the district. The bill would prohibit a project receiving financing from an enhanced infrastructure financing district unless various requirements regarding the use of a skilled and trained workforce, as defined, on the project are satisfied. The bill would prescribe enforcement procedures and penalties in this regard. By requiring that a developer certify specified information with respect to these requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury. This bill would prohibit a city or county that allocates tax revenues to a district pursuant to NIFTI-2 from approving a development project within the district that will require the demolition of housing or certain classes of housing units unless the project will create at least as many units or 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 the subdivision of residential rental units or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households. This bill would authorize a district to receive funds, real property, or other in-kind resources from private persons, the state, or the federal government. The bill would also authorize a district to receive real property or other in-kind resources from the city or county. Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and prescribes its powers and duties. Existing law establishes in state government the Strategic Growth Council and requires the council to, among other duties, manage and award grants and loans to support the planning and development of sustainable communities. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon appropriation, to disburse each year matching funds to a district formed by a city and county, or jointly formed by a city and a county, based on the funds and other resources contributed by those local governments, as specified. The bill would require the department to administer this matching fund program in consultation with the Strategic Growth Council and the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council. The bill would prescribe requirements for applications for state matching funds and their use and would authorize the council to establish other requirements in this regard. The bill would also prescribe requirements for the department in approving these applications, including that it approve all plans for qualifying homelessness prevention programs and affordable housing requirements. The bill would require districts that receive funds to provide reports to the department and, under certain circumstances, to develop a corrective action plan based on council recommendations. The bill would require the department to issue findings if a district fails to provide or comply with a corrective action plan and to stop providing funds, and prohibit application for additional funds, if the district has not satisfied funding requirements. The bill would condition a district's receipt of any matching funds on compliance with specified requirements by the constituent entities of the district. Existing law exempts the adoption of an enhanced infrastructure financing plan that allocates tax revenues pursuant to NIFTI-2 from certain provisions generally applicable to enhanced infrastructure financing districts, and instead requires the district to follow specific notice, protest, and election proceedings for the adoption, review, and amendment of the enhanced infrastructure financing plan. With regard to the review and amendment of the plan, existing law requires the public finance authority to adopt annually, after holding a public hearing, a report containing, among other information, a description of the projects undertaken in the fiscal year and a chart comparing the actual revenues and expenses of the authority to the budgeted revenues and expenses. Existing law requires the authority every 10 years at that public hearing to conduct a protest proceeding to consider whether the landowners and residents within the district wish to present oral or written protests against the enhanced infrastructure financing district, as specified. This bill, instead, would require the authority every 15 years at that public hearing to consider whether the landowners and residents within the district wish to propose amendments to the plan, and would authorize the authority to consider and adopt amendments to the plan at the conclusion of the hearing. After considering any amendments, the bill would require the authority to conduct a protest proceeding to consider whether the landowners or residents within the district wish to present oral or written protests against the enhanced infrastructure financing district undertaking new projects under the plan, as specified. The bill would make other related changes. 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. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 20 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 20.

  4. May 17 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing May 17.

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

  7. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 987.) (April 29).

  8. Set for hearing April 29.

  9. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 728.) (April 8).

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

  12. Set for hearing April 8.

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

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

  15. (Ayes 32. Noes 4.)

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

  17. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 21.

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

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

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

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

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4000
Republican 2000
Unaffiliated 2000
Total 8000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Glazer — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Laird, John Democratic 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 7 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2100
Democratic 5000
Republican 0100
Total 7200
% of votes cast 78%22%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 Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety 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 563 do?
Existing law, the Second Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act, or NIFTI-2, authorizes a city or county to adopt a resolution to allocate its tax revenues to an enhanced infrastructure financing district, including revenues derived from local sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or transactions and use taxes imposed in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, if certain conditions are or will be met. Among those conditions, existing law includes requirements that the area financed with those funds is within 12 mile of a major transit stop, as specified, and that the boundaries of the enhanced infrastructure financing district are coterminous with the city or county that established the district. Existing law also requires the infrastructure financing plan to require specified minimum percentages of the funds to be used to develop affordable housing, as specified, and to give first priority to income-qualified households displaced from the district, as specified, and secondary priority to households with a member or members employed within 2 miles of the district. Existing law authorizes the remaining funds to be used for certain affordable housing, mixed-use, transit, or greenhouse gas emission reduction related projects or programs. This bill would revise NIFTI-2 to, among other things, remove the requirements that the area financed be within 12 mile of a major transit stop and that the boundaries of the district be coterminous with the city or county. The bill would require specified minimum percentages of the funds be used for homelessness prevention programs or development of affordable housing that is within 12 mile of a major transit stop, as specified. The bill would revise the description of tax revenue that may be allocated to a district. The bill would require first priority for the housing be given to households who were displaced from the district within the past 10 years, and secondary priority for households with a member or members who are employed within 2 miles of the housing or who live within the district and are children, elderly, or disabled. The bill would require first priority for the homelessness prevention programs to be given to households living within the district with a member or members who are employed within the district or who are children, elderly, or disabled, and secondary priority for households not living within the district with a member or members who are employed within the district or who are children, elderly, or disabled. The bill would authorize the remaining funds to be used for certain transit related projects in specified areas within a 12 mile of a major transit stop. The bill would also authorize the remaining funds to be used for certain homelessness prevention, affordable housing, enhanced transit ridership, or greenhouse gas emission reduction projects or programs throughout the district. The bill would prohibit a project receiving financing from an enhanced infrastructure financing district unless various requirements regarding the use of a skilled and trained workforce, as defined, on the project are satisfied. The bill would prescribe enforcement procedures and penalties in this regard. By requiring that a developer certify specified information with respect to these requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury. This bill would prohibit a city or county that allocates tax revenues to a district pursuant to NIFTI-2 from approving a development project within the district that will require the demolition of housing or certain classes of housing units unless the project will create at least as many units or 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 the subdivision of residential rental units or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households. This bill would authorize a district to receive funds, real property, or other in-kind resources from private persons, the state, or the federal government. The bill would also authorize a district to receive real property or other in-kind resources from the city or county. Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development and prescribes its powers and duties. Existing law establishes in state government the Strategic Growth Council and requires the council to, among other duties, manage and award grants and loans to support the planning and development of sustainable communities. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development, upon appropriation, to disburse each year matching funds to a district formed by a city and county, or jointly formed by a city and a county, based on the funds and other resources contributed by those local governments, as specified. The bill would require the department to administer this matching fund program in consultation with the Strategic Growth Council and the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council. The bill would prescribe requirements for applications for state matching funds and their use and would authorize the council to establish other requirements in this regard. The bill would also prescribe requirements for the department in approving these applications, including that it approve all plans for qualifying homelessness prevention programs and affordable housing requirements. The bill would require districts that receive funds to provide reports to the department and, under certain circumstances, to develop a corrective action plan based on council recommendations. The bill would require the department to issue findings if a district fails to provide or comply with a corrective action plan and to stop providing funds, and prohibit application for additional funds, if the district has not satisfied funding requirements. The bill would condition a district's receipt of any matching funds on compliance with specified requirements by the constituent entities of the district. Existing law exempts the adoption of an enhanced infrastructure financing plan that allocates tax revenues pursuant to NIFTI-2 from certain provisions generally applicable to enhanced infrastructure financing districts, and instead requires the district to follow specific notice, protest, and election proceedings for the adoption, review, and amendment of the enhanced infrastructure financing plan. With regard to the review and amendment of the plan, existing law requires the public finance authority to adopt annually, after holding a public hearing, a report containing, among other information, a description of the projects undertaken in the fiscal year and a chart comparing the actual revenues and expenses of the authority to the budgeted revenues and expenses. Existing law requires the authority every 10 years at that public hearing to conduct a protest proceeding to consider whether the landowners and residents within the district wish to present oral or written protests against the enhanced infrastructure financing district, as specified. This bill, instead, would require the authority every 15 years at that public hearing to consider whether the landowners and residents within the district wish to propose amendments to the plan, and would authorize the authority to consider and adopt amendments to the plan at the conclusion of the hearing. After considering any amendments, the bill would require the authority to conduct a protest proceeding to consider whether the landowners or residents within the district wish to present oral or written protests against the enhanced infrastructure financing district undertaking new projects under the plan, as specified. The bill would make other related changes. 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 563?
SB 563 is sponsored by Allen, Benjamin (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 563?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 563?
Track SB 563 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 563

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 563

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →