CC 04-16-19 #11 Senate Bills 50 and 330 Late Written CommunicationsLiang Chao
From: Liang Chao
Sent: Tuesday , April 16 , 2019 4:48 PM
Steven Scharf To:
Subject: Concerns on SB 330
General Concerns
• "A number of sections in the bill are also confusing, and the multiple repeated sections
raise the concern that the bill may not be internally consistent."
• "It also confers substantial benefits to developers without provisions to
requireaffordabilityfor theprojectsthat will benefit from the restrictions placed on local
planning departments." (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
• "it is difficult to judge if the requirements in the bill will really produce more housing faster
and more affordably." (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
• "A tight definition of "housing emergency" and who determines when it starts,and ends
would also make for a cleaner process, rather than changing the entitlement procedures
for projects every year based on fluctuations in the housing market." ((Letter by American
Planning Association, California Chapter on 4/1 0 Version of SB 330)
Freezing requirements in effect on January 1, 2018
"-Freezing requirements in effect on January 1, 2018 leaves a lot of critical requirements off the
table. For instance,all of the housing requirements imposed in legislation last year could not be
imposed, or new requirements related to a newly adopted General Plan or approved housing
element, or wildfire, seismic, energy and inclusionary requirements. Many new building and
efficiency measures are actually useful and do not increase costs." (Letter by American Planning
Association, California Chapter on 4/10 Version of SB 330)
c::> Cities cannot increase the percentage of affordable units or fire safety standards .
Voter Initiative or Referendum Voided
"In 1911, California voters amended the Constitution to provide voters the power to enact initiatives and referenda. The
voter initiative is a "reserved power;" it is not a right granted to them, but a power reserved by them. As such, the
power of initiative is integral to California's political process. SB 330 removes the ability of local elected officials, and
more importantly, local voters, to enact new growth management ordinances or even enforce existing ones ."
(Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
Complete Initial Application:
"SB 330 freezes in time the standards that were in place when a complete initial application, a new term created in
the bill, is filed. But these completed applications do not include all the information a local government needs to
understand a development's impacts, make a decision on the project, or to even necessarily know which standards
apply to it. That's why it's important to have a completed final application . Should the Legislature prevent new
ordinances from applying before a local government has a chance to understand the impacts of a development?"
(Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
Objective standards:
1
• "The standardized checklist in(b) is a reasonable concept, but the checklist should be
developed by the jurisdiction, with requirements limited to those materials identified in
advance. OPR could then develop a standard form for those jurisdictions without capacity
to do their own."." (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on 4/10
Version of SB 330)
• The term "Objective standards" was just introduced in Sb 35 in 2018/ The Cities have not
had time to introduce objective standards in the General plan and Muni. Code. SB 330
would not allow cities to adopt any revision to clarify vague standards, leaving Cities with
no standards in their plan. And SB 330 planes the burden of proof in local agency with a
hefty fine.
NOT ALLOW Parking Requirement:
"Regardless of the size of the housing project, proximity or availability of high quality public transit, SB 330 would strictly
prohibit local agencies from imposing any type of parking standard." (Letter by League of California Cities on 3/25
Version of SB 330)
"SB 330 voids local parking requirements in areas that it affects, regardless of whether residents can realistically go
without cars .... for developments that aren't close to transit or are built in smaller cities that may not have the density of
amenities to allow going car-free" (Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
Freeze impact fees-requiring local residents to subsidize market-rate development without any guarantee for lower
rent.
"Freeze impact fees -This measure would lock in place nearly all fees or exactions imposed on development projects.
These fees are imposed in order for the local jurisdiction to provide the public improvements and public services
necessary to meet the needs of the new residents. Cities can only charge a fee to cover the cost of delivering the
service." (Letter by League of California Cities on 3/25 Version of SB 330)
Limit Hearings:
SB 330 would limit the number of hearings to three, regardless of the project size or complexity, in addition to a limit of
12 month for project approval, including CEQA analysis. A project which might accommodate a small city of tens of
thousands people and workers have the same limit of three hearings and the same limit of 12 months for approval as a
development of 5 units .
Project only needs to comply with either Zoning Ordinances OR General Plan.
SB 330 would ignore zoning ordinances for specific areas so that a project could effectively has no density limit if such
limit is not specified in the General Plan.
"SB 330 provides that a project isn't inconsistent with local zoning if it meets the objective standards for density and
other metrics in the general plan, but that misunderstands how general plans and zoning ordinances are applied. For
example, a general plan may specify a range of densities for an area , which is only then specifically applied through the
zoning ordinance." (Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
"Complete Initial Application" does not include enough information
"Definition of "complete initial application"-As stated above, APA strongly objects to the addition
of a new complete application layer. And, the new definition in S. 65941.1 does not include
enough information to lock in a project as envisioned in this bill. The list of required information
doesn't include for instance ownership verification, public notice information, materials required
by the subdivision ordinance (if a map requested), landscape plan, or full environmental
checklist/EA/or local equivalent." (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
2
• ~. J
' No accountability for developers
o "Since there is no deadline by which the developer has to pull the building permit, ... "
(Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on 4/10 Version of SB 330)
• "Language should be added to prevent the clock from running while a developer is
withholding information." (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/1 0 Version of SB 330)
3
The Honorable Mike McGuire
Chair, Senate Governance and Finance
California State Capitol, Room 5061
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 50 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing development: incentives.
Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator McGuire:
The City of Cupertino opposes SB 50.
CC. L(-/ 6-/ 9
¥11
The fundamental problem in California is that insufficient affordable housing is being built. We
have an affordable housing crisis. Unfortunately, SB 50 will worsen the affordable housing crisis
in California.
Cupertino has significant concerns with the following:
SB 50 undermines our General Plan, and Housing Element (which are certified by HCD). By
allowing developers to override state approved housing plans, SB 50 seriously calls to question
the need for cities to develop community based plans in the first place.
SB 50 does not address the key issue of housing development for Cupertino (and many other
cities)--developers with RHNA entitlements are refusing to actually construct their projects. In
Cupertino, where we have exceeded our RHNA entitlement by about 40%, out of 1408 entitled
units, including 10% BMR, only 19 units are under construction. Developers have a long list of
reasons why they do not want to use their entitlements, including the requirement to include
affordable units. Developers that fail to use their RHNA entitlements in a timely manner should
lose their entitlements and their property should be purchased under eminent domain so that
housing, both market rate and BMR, can be developed.
SB 50 rewards construction of 85-ft towers next to single-family homes. SB 50 encourages 75-ft
and 85-ft-tall luxury towers in single-family areas that are either too close to transit or too close
to jobs and good schools. The height limit is NOT 45 feet and 55 feet, the density bonus allows
up to thirty additional feet.
SB 50 discourages alternative transportation. While getting people out of single occupancy
vehicles is a worthwhile goal, the reality is that in cities without mass transit, residents will still
use cars. Without sufficient parking vehicles will be parked on the street in adjoining
neighborhoods, further endangering pedestrians and cyclists. The proper place for parking in
multi-unit developments is underground, but developers don't want to incur this expense and
they want to export the parking problem to public streets.
Despite being allowed to not provide sufficient parking, there is nothing in SB 50 that mandates
that the cost savings of not providing parking be passed on to renters and purchasers.
Under SB 50, housing developers and transit agencies would have the power to determine
housing densities, heights up to 85 feet, parking requirements, and design review standards for
"transit-rich housing projects" within one-half mile of a major transit stop. For those "transit-rich
housing projects" within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor, ~----
developers would be able to determine housing density, and limit parking requirements to 0.5
spots per unit.
< • ..
SB 50 hurts cities with no mass transit service, either existing or planned. Cupertino would be
subjected to densification in areas where all nearly residents would be forced to drive
everywhere, creating more traffic congestion and more degradation of the environment. SB 50
will create a transportation crisis while failing to solve the affordable housing crisis.
SB 50's definition of a "high-quality bus corridor" is ludicrous. Transit agencies like VTA continue
to cut service and there are no guarantees that existing service will continue at the present
levels. 15 minute headways on a slow bus line, that doesn't go between housing rich areas and
job-rich areas (such as the 22 and 23 lines in Santa Clara County), should not be the
parameters used to define a "high-quality bus corridor."
SB 50 allows some communities to be exempt if they develop their own plan that is consistent
with the objectives of the bill. All jurisdictions should have the ability to have a community-led
planning process that takes into account local needs and input as long as state objectives are
still met.
SB 50 does not take into account the existing jobs/housing balances of cities that have been
responsible in terms of not permitting excessive office space without commensurate housing.
Responsible cities with very good jobs/housing balances, like Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and San
Jose, are lumped in with cities that have very poor jobs/housing balances, like Santa Clara, Palo
Alto, and San Francisco.
SB 50 will increase displacement of housing insecure families as high-cost luxury housing
replaces naturally affordable housing. We are already seeing Ellis Act evictions spreading
throughout the Bay Area as property owners exit the rental housing business. SB 50 increases
the incentives to redevelop affordable housing into high-cost housing. SB 50 will have the .
unintended consequence of increased homelessness and more individuals and families living in
vehicles.
SB 50 is not data-driven , it is developer-driven. Cities that have met their RHNA entitlements are
being punished for circumstances beyond their control.
SB 50 drives up the value of land , exacerbating the affordable housing crisis. Upzoning
increases land speculation without actually increasing construction.More market-rate housing
will be built in areas that are already expensive and congested.
SB 50 does not identify the funding for the infrastructure needs that densification brings. Cities
and school districts need to provide roads, sewers , parks, and schools, for new residents.
Mitigation fees are insufficient to fund this infrastructure. Cupertino Union School District is one
of the lowest funded school districts in the state, despite being a high-quality school district. The
schools that will be impacted by SB 50 are already severely overcrowded and there are not
sufficient funds to add additional school facilities.
HCD should not be tasked with identifying "job-rich" areas, without any accountability or
transparency. "Job-rich" is the wrong criteria to be using. The criteria should be areas with a jobs
to housing imbalance.
SB 50 does not require that net job growth (or loss) be used when determining a "job-rich" area.
In Cupertino, Apple Inc., purchased a large parcel of land from Hewlett-Packard. As HP shrunk,
9,800 Hewlett Packard employees left Cupertino. 13,000 employees occupy the new Apple
campus, but most of them came from other Apple facilities.
SB 50 does not require higher percentages of BMR housing as height and density increase.
SB 50 does not prohibit developers from paying in-lieu fees instead of providing inclusionary
housing but in-lieu fees are too low to provide an equivalent amount of BMR housing.
SB50 does not prohibit developers from constructing lower-quality, smaller, BMR units than the
market-rate units. lnclusionary BMR housing should not be permitted to be sub-standard.
In conclusion, SB 50 is a real estate bill. It is intended solely to enrich private developers. It will
not provide the affordable housing needed by housing-insecure Californians.
Cupertino acknowledges that there is an affordable housing shortage in California. It is
imperative that laws intended to address the affordable housing shortage look at the big picture
and do not worsen this shortage.
For these reasons, the City of Cupertino opposes SB 50. Amending SB 50 to fix all its flaws is
impractical.
Sincerely,
Steven Scharf
Mayor
City of Cupertino
cc. The Honorable Scott Wiener
The Honorable Jim Beall
The Honorable Evan Low
League of California Cities, cityletters@cacities.org
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From:Govind Tatachari <gtc2k7@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 9:22 PM
To:City Clerk; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey;
Cupertino City Manager's Office
Subject:Adopt positions opposing new housing related bills
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Clerk, Council members and City Manager,
This is regarding the Agenda item 11, Subject - Adopt positions opposing Senate Bills 50 and 330.
As you are aware. a cluster of housing related new 2019 Assembly and Senate bills in various stages of the
legislative process of hearing and voting by various committees.
Thank you for having a study session earlier this year on the new housing related bills. Due to the limitations of
time and effort, I was able to take a look at only a handful of them.
Most of the new housing related bills are alarming (except for those related to ADUs) since they neither
guarantee nor mandate affordable housing production. They seem to favor market-rate housing. Worse still, it
seems there is big impact of new housing related bills in terms of stamping out local democracy and local
control over city level zoning as drafted.
While the bills might be revised as part of the legislative process, please consider taking a position on all of the
following bills as soon as possible: Senate Bills (SB 4, SB 50, and SB 330) and Assembly Bills (AB 68, AB 69,
AB 587, AB 725 and AB 1487).
In my understanding, the challenge with ADU related bills as drafted is that they can be applied recursively to
the subdivided lot and in addition to the other housing bills would cause a cluster of high-story buildings within
even smaller sized lots. Would appreciate if the City can clarify it this is NOT so.
Thanking you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Govind Tatachari
Cupertino Resident
Total Control Panel Login
To: cityclerk@cupertino.org
From: gtc2k7@gmail.com
Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (55): Pass
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From:Cupertino ForAll <cupertinoforall@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:22 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao;
Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey
Subject:Public Comment for 4/16/2019 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11
Mayor Scharf and city council-members,
On behalf of Cupertino for All, I write to you to express our concern over the proposal that the city adopt
positions officially opposing the pro-housing bills SB 50 and SB 330. Neither bill is finalized yet, and we
believe they merit more productive attention.
We’d hope that the city of Cupertino would use its platform to share constructive criticism with Sacramento,
addressing the legitimate concerns that have been raised. If Cupertino merely declares its opposition without
offering effective alternatives, then we risk cementing our exclusionary image.
The region is waiting for Cupertino to demonstrate that it is serious about solving the housing crisis. How you
address the state’s efforts on housing will speak volumes.
—
Marie Liu – Chair
Cupertino For All
Total Control Panel Login
To: cityclerk@cupertino.org
From: cupertinoforall@gmail.com
Message Score: 20 High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender Custom (55): Pass
Block gmail.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
1
Kirsten Squarcia
From:Liang Chao
Sent:Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:56 AM
To:Timm Borden; City Clerk; Steven Scharf
Subject:RE: Concerns on SB 330
Here are the documents that I used for SB 330:
Letter from League of California Cities “Notice of Opposition (as amended 3/25/19)”
http://blob.capitoltrack.com/19blobs/23b532a4‐4406‐4d07‐9b03‐0296b2f68369
Letter from American Planning Association, California Chapter “SB 330(Skinner) –Oppose Unless Amended”
https://www.apacalifornia.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/04/SB‐330‐OUA‐S‐Gov‐Fin‐4‐3‐19.pdf
Bill Analysis of SB 330 for 4/5 Senate Government and Finance Committee:
file:///C:/Users/lchao/Downloads/201920200SB330_Senate%20Governance%20And%20Finance_.pdf
From: Liang Chao
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:26 AM
To: Timm Borden <Timmb@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf
<SScharf@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Concerns on SB 330
Here is the document Timm copied for all council members at 4/16 council meeting.
Please put it in the Council meeting record.
Liang
From: Liang Chao <liangchao@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:47 PM
To: Steven Scharf
Subject: Concerns on SB 330
General Concerns
“A number of sections in the bill are also confusing, and the multiple repeated sections
raise the concern that the bill may not be internally consistent.”
“It also confers substantial benefits to developers without provisions to
requireaffordabilityfor theprojectsthat will benefit from the restrictions placed on local
2
planning departments.” (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
“it is difficult to judge if the requirements in the bill will really produce more housing faster
and more affordably.” (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
“A tight definition of “housing emergency” and who determines when itstarts,and ends
would also make for a cleaner process, rather than changing the entitlement procedures
for projects every year based on fluctuations in the housing market.” ((Letter by American
Planning Association, California Chapter on 4/10 Version of SB 330)
Freezing requirements in effect on January 1, 2018
“-Freezing requirements in effect on January 1, 2018 leaves a lot of critical requirements off the
table. For instance,all of the housing requirements imposed in legislation last year could not be
imposed, or new requirements related to a newly adopted General Plan or approved housing
element, or wildfire, seismic, energy and inclusionary requirements. Many new building and
efficiency measures are actually useful and do not increase costs.” (Letter by American Planning
Association, California Chapter on 4/10 Version of SB 330)
Cities cannot increase the percentage of affordable units or fire safety standards.
Voter Initiative or Referendum Voided
“In 1911, California voters amended the Constitution to provide voters the power to enact initiatives and referenda. The
voter initiative is a “reserved power;” it is not a right granted to them, but a power reserved by them. As such, the
power of initiative is integral to California’s political process. SB 330 removes the ability of local elected officials, and
more importantly, local voters, to enact new growth management ordinances or even enforce existing ones.”
(Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
Complete Initial Application:
“SB 330 freezes in time the standards that were in place when a complete initial application, a new term created in
the bill, is filed. But these completed applicationsdo not include all the information a local government needs to
understand a development’s impacts, make a decision on the project, or to even necessarily know which standards
apply to it. That’s whyit’s important to have a completed final application. Should the Legislature prevent new
ordinances from applying before a local government has a chance to understand the impacts of a development?”
(Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
3
Objective standards:
“The standardized checklist in(b) is a reasonable concept, but the checklist should be
developed by the jurisdiction, with requirements limited to those materials identified in
advance. OPR could then develop a standard form for those jurisdictions without capacity
to do their own.” .” (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on 4/10
Version of SB 330)
The term “Objective standards” was just introduced in Sb 35 in 2018/ The Cities have not
had time to introduce objective standards in the General plan and Muni. Code. SB 330
would not allow cities to adopt any revision to clarify vague standards, leaving Cities with
no standards in their plan. And SB 330 planes the burden of proof in local agency with a
hefty fine.
NOT ALLOW Parking Requirement:
“Regardless of the size of the housing project, proximity or availability of high quality public transit, SB 330 would strictly
prohibit local agencies from imposing any type of parking standard.” (Letter by League of California Cities on 3/25
Version of SB 330)
“SB 330 voids local parking requirements in areas that it affects, regardless of whether residents can realistically go
without cars…. for developments that aren’t close to transit or are built in smaller cities that may not have the density of
amenities to allow going car‐free” (Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
Freeze impact fees – requiring local residents to subsidize market‐rate development without any guarantee for lower
rent.
“Freeze impact fees – This measure would lock in place nearly all fees or exactions imposed on development projects.
These fees are imposed in order for the local jurisdiction to provide the public improvements and public services
necessary to meet the needs of the new residents. Cities can only charge a fee to cover the cost of delivering the
service.” (Letter by League of California Cities on 3/25 Version of SB 330)
Limit Hearings:
SB 330 would limit the number of hearings to three, regardless of the project size or complexity, in addition to a limit of
12 month for project approval, including CEQA analysis. A project which might accommodate a small city of tens of
4
thousands people and workers have the same limit of three hearings and the same limit of 12 months for approval as a
development of 5 units.
Project only needs to comply with either Zoning Ordinances OR General Plan.
SB 330 would ignore zoning ordinances for specific areas so that a project could effectively has no density limit if such
limit is not specified in the General Plan.
“SB 330 provides that a project isn’t inconsistent with local zoning if it meets the objective standards for density and
other metrics in the general plan, but that misunderstands how general plans and zoning ordinances are applied. For
example, a general plan may specify a range of densities for an area, which is only then specifically applied through the
zoning ordinance.” (Legislative Analysis on 4/4 Version of SB 330)
“Complete Initial Application” does not include enough information
“Definition of “complete initial application”-As stated above, APA strongly objects to the addition
of a new complete application layer. And, the new definition in S. 65941.1 does not include
enough information to lock in a project as envisioned in this bill. The list of required information
doesn’t include for instance ownership verification, public notice information, materials required
by the subdivision ordinance (if a map requested), landscape plan, or full environmental
checklist/EA/or local equivalent.” (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
No accountability for developers
“Since there is no deadline by which the developer has topull the building permit,…” (Letter
by American Planning Association, California Chapter on 4/10 Version of SB 330)
“Language should be added to prevent the clock from running while a developer is
withholding information.” (Letter by American Planning Association, California Chapter on
4/10 Version of SB 330)
4/17/2019 Microsoft Word - SB 330 AUA S Gov & Fin 4 3 19.doc - SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.pdf
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.apacalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.…1/4
4/17/2019 Microsoft Word - SB 330 AUA S Gov & Fin 4 3 19.doc - SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.pdf
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.apacalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.…2/4
4/17/2019 Microsoft Word - SB 330 AUA S Gov & Fin 4 3 19.doc - SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.pdf
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.apacalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.…3/4
4/17/2019 Microsoft Word - SB 330 AUA S Gov & Fin 4 3 19.doc - SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.pdf
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.apacalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SB-330-OUA-S-Gov-Fin-4-3-19.…4/4
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Mike McGuire , Chair
2019 - 2020 Regular
Bill No: SB 330 Hearing Date: 4/10/19
Author: Skinner Tax Levy: No
Version: 4/4/19 Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Favorini-Csorba
HOUSING CRISIS ACT O F 2019
Enacts the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” which, until January 1, 2030: (1) make s changes to
local approval processes, (2) modifies the Permit Streamlining Act, (3) imposes restrictions on
certain types of development standards, and (4) creates separate building standards for occupied
substandard buildings.
Background
Planning and approving new housing is mainly a local responsibility. The California
Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police,
sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with genera l laws.” It is from this
fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their
authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public —including
land use authority.
Planning and Zoning Law. State law provides additional powers and duties for cities and
counties regarding land use. The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to
adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. A general
plan must include specified mandatory “elements,” including a housing element that establishes
the locations and densities of housing, among other requirements. Cities’ and counties’ major
land use decisions—including most zoning ordinances and other aspects of development
permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. The Planning and Zoning Law also
establishes a planning agency in each city and county, which may be a separate planning
commission, administrative body, or the legislative body of the city or county itself. Cities and
counties must provide a path to appeal a decision to the planning commission and/or the city
council or county board of supervisors.
When approving development projects, counties and cities can require applica nts to mitigate the
project's effects by paying fees. The California courts have upheld these mitigation fees for
sidewalks, parks, school construction, and many other public purposes. When imposing a fee as
a condition of approving a development project, local officials must determine a reasonable
relationship between the fee's amount and the cost of the public facility.
State housing law. The Legislature has enacted a variety of statutes to facilitate and encourage
the provision of housing, particularly affordable housing and housing to support individuals with
disabilities or other needs. Among them is the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), enacted in
1982 in response to concerns over a growing rejection of housing development by local
governments due to not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) sentiments among local residents (SB 2011,
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 2 of 9
Greene). The HAA, also known as the “Anti-NIMBY” legislation, restricts a local agency’s
ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential proje cts. The
HAA limits the ability of local governments to reject or render infeasible housing developments
based on their density without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental
effects of the action. Specifically, when a proposed de velopment complies with objective
general plan and zoning standards, including design review standards, a local agency that intends
to disapprove the project, or approve it on the condition that it be developed at a lower density,
must make written findings based on substantial evidence that the project would have a specific,
adverse impact on the public health or safety and that there are no feasible methods to mitigate or
avoid those impacts other than disapproval of the project.
Permit Streamlining Act. The 1977 Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act
fairly and promptly on applications for development permits, including wireless facilities. Public
agencies must compile lists of information that applicants must provide and explain the cr iteria
they will use to review permit applications. Public agencies have 30 days to determine whether
applications for development projects are complete; failure to act results in an application being
"deemed complete." However, local governments may continue to request additional
information, potentially extending the time before the clock begins running.
Once a complete application for a development has been submitted, the Act requires local
officials to act within a specific time period after completing any environmental review
documents required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Specifically, local
governments must act within (1) 60 days after completing a negative declaration or determining
that a project is exempt from review, or (2) 180 days after certifying an environmental impact
report (EIR). If the local government fails to approve or disapprove the application in the
applicable time period, the application is deemed granted, and the applicant may file suit in state
court to order the local government to issue the permit.
California’s housing challenges. California faces a severe housing shortage. In its most recent
statewide housing assessment, HCD estimated that California needs to build an additional
100,000 units per year over recent averages of 80,000 units per year to meet the projected need
for housing in the state. A variety of causes have contributed to the lack of housing production.
Recent reports by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and others point to local ap proval
processes as a major factor. They argue that local governments control most of the decisions
about where, when, and how to build new housing, and those governments are quick to respond
to vocal community members who may not want new neighbors. The building industry also
points to CEQA review, and housing advocates note a lack of a dedicated source of funds for
affordable housing.
Many local governments have adopted policies that limit or outright prohibit new residential
development within their jurisdictions, or implement restrictive zoning ordinances, or otherwise
impose costly procedural and design requirements on building. The author wants to remove
some of these barriers in areas where housing is most acutely needed.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 330 enacts the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” which, until January 1, 2030: (1) makes
changes to local approval processes, (2) modifies the Permit Streamlining Act, (3) imposes
restrictions on certain types of development standards, and (4) creates separate building
standards for occupied substandard buildings.
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 3 of 9
Approval process changes. SB 330 establishes a process for submitting a complete initial
application—separate from and prior to the complete application required for the Permit
Streamlining Act clock to begin running—and restricts the changes that local governments may
apply to a project after a completed initial application is submitted.
SB 330 deems a complete initial application to have been submitte d by a housing development
applicant if they have provided the following information about the project:
The specific location.
The major physical alterations to the property on which the project is to be located.
A site place showing the location on the property, as well as the massing, height, and
approximate square footage, of each building that is to be occupied.
The proposed land uses by number of units or square feet using the categories in the
applicable zoning ordinance.
The proposed number of parking spaces.
Any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants.
Any species of special concern known to occur on the property.
Any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property.
The number of below market rate units and their afforda bility levels.
However, if a project applicant revises the project to change the number of units or square
footage by 20 percent or more, excluding density bonus, the initial application is no longer
complete.
SB 330 directs HCD to adopt a standardized form that applicants may use for submitting an
initial application, and provides that the adoption of the form is not subject to the Administrative
Procedures Act.
SB 330 prohibits a city or county from conducting more than three de novo hearings on a
proposed housing development if it complies with the applicable, objective general plan and
zoning standards in effect at the time a complete initial application. The city or county must
consider and either approve or disapprove the application at any of the t hree hearings consistent
with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act. In addition to those
requirements, the city or county must either approve or disapprove the permit within 12 months
from when the date on which the application is de emed complete. However, SB 330 stops the
clock from running while the applicant is revising their application materials.
SB 330 states that a project cannot be found inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity
with the zoning, and the project does not require rezoning, if the zoning does not allow the
maximum residential use, density, and intensity allowable on the site by the land use or housing
element of the general plan.
SB 330 amends the HAA to prohibit a local agency from applying ordinanc es, policies, and
standards to a development after a completed initial application is submitted. The bill allows
local governments to apply new standards after the complete initial application is submitted in
the following circumstances:
A development fee or exaction is indexed to inflation in the ordinance.
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 4 of 9
A local government finds that a new standard is needed to mitigate or avoid a specific,
adverse impact to public health or safety based on a preponderance of the evidence in the
record, and there is no feasible alternative to mitigate it.
A new policy, standard, or ordinance is needed to mitigate an impact of the project to a
less than significant level pursuant to CEQA.
The housing development project has not commenced construction within three years
following the date that the project received final approval, as defined.
The housing development project is revised following submittal of a complete initial
application such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction
changes by 20 percent or more, excluding the application of density bonus.
A local agency may also subject new square footage or units to the ordinances, policies, and
standards in effect when the complete initial application is submitted.
A development applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in a proposed
development, or a housing organization can file a lawsuit if a local agency requires a housing
development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect
when a complete initial application was submitted.
Permit Streamlining Act changes. SB 330 also amends the existing application process under
the Permit Streamlining Act. Specifically, SB 330 requires a public agency to provide an
applicant with an exhaustive list of items in their application that was not complete. That list
must be limited to those items actually required on the agency’s checklist that is required by
existing law. In any subsequent review of the application de termined to be incomplete, the local
agency cannot request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the
initial list of items that were not complete. When determining if the application is complete, the
public agency must limit its review to only determining whether the application includes the
missing information. SB 330 also requires e ach city and each county to make copies of any list
of required application information available both (1) in writing to those persons to whom the
agency is required to make information available, and (2) publicly available on the ir website.
The bill also requires any determination of whether the site of a proposed housing development
is a historic site to be made at the time when the application for the project is deemed complete
under the Permit Streamlining Act.
SB 330 provides that the timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act are mandatory.
Restrictions on local development standards and policies. SB 330 imposes restrictions on
several types of development standards in an affected city or county. SB 330 defines “affected
city” to be those that meet all the following conditions:
The percentage by which the city’s average rate of rent exceeded 130 percent of the
national median rent in 2017 , based on the federal 2013-2017 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates.
The percentage by which the vacancy rate for residential rental units is less than the
national vacancy rate, based on the federal 2013 -2017 American Community Survey 5 -
year estimates.
The city has a population of more than 5,000, or has a population of 5,000 or less but is
located within an urban core.
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 5 of 9
SB 330 defines an affected county to mean a county where at least half the cities are affected
cities.
In an affected city or county, SB 330 prohibits a local government from adopting a development
policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or
zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use, as defined to include
specified zoning standards, or 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 under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the
affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018 .
Imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development,
including mixed-use development, within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the
affected county or city, other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the
health and safety. A city or county cannot enforce the moratorium until HCD approves
it.
Imposing or enforcing design standards established on or after January 1, 2018, that are
not objective design standards.
Limiting the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and
construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the
affected county or affected city, as applicable.
Capping the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually
or for some other time period.
Limit ing the population of the affected county or affected city, as applicable.
However, a local government may change land use designations or zoning ordinances to allow a
less intensive use if it concurrently increases intensity elsewhere it ensure that there is no net loss
of residential capacity. SB 330 also allows a local government to enact a policy that prohibits
commercial use of land that is designated for residential use, such as short -term occupancy of a
residence.
SB 330 also prohibits an affected city or county from:
Imposing any new, or increasing or enforcing any existing, requirement that a proposed
housing development include parking.
Charging a development fee or exaction, including water or sewer connection fees, in an
amount that exceeds the amount that would have applied to the project o n January 1,
2018, except if that fee or exaction is indexed to inflation, or if that fee is charged in lieu
of an inclusionary housing requirement.
Charging any development fees or exactions to deed -restricted units affordable to lower
income persons and families, as defined.
An affected city or county cannot deny a housing project solely because the applicant does not
pay a fee that is prohibited by the bill.
SB 330 provides that if the affected county or affected city approves an application for a
conditional use permit for a proposed housing development project and that project would have
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 6 of 9
been eligible for a higher density under the affected county’s or affected city’s general plan land
use designation and zoning ordinances as in effect prior to January 1, 2018, the affected county
or affected city must allow the project at that higher density.
A development that would require demolition of specified types of affordable housing units or
rental units cannot benefit from SB 330’s provisions unless (1) the developer agrees to provide
relocation benefits to the current residents and offers them first right of refusal in the new
development, and (2) the development is at least as dense as the existing residential use of
property.
SB 330 nullifies any development policy, standard, or condition enacted on or after January 1,
2018, that does not comply with the above prohibitions. The bill states that it must be construed
broadly to maximize the development of housing, and that any exceptions shall be construe d
narrowly.
SB 330 applies its provisions to the electorate of an affected city or county, and voids any voter
initiative or other policy that requires local voter approval for an increase the allowable intensity
of housing, to establish housing as an allowable use, or to provide services and infrastructure
necessary to develop housing.
SB 330 exempts the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as defined in existing law, from its
provisions, and provides that it does not affect the California Coastal Ac t of 1976, nor does it
prevent the operation of CEQA.
Substandard buildings. SB 330 also establishes a process for legalizing occupied substandard
buildings. The bill requires HCD to develop building standards and other rules that apply to an
occupied substandard building, defined to be a building in which one or more persons reside that
an enforcement agency finds is in violation of any health and safety requirements. SB 330
applies these standards, once developed, in lieu of the requirements that ap ply to buildings under
existing law. The standards developed by HCD must:
Require that an occupied substandard building include adequate sanitation and exit
facilities and comply with seismic safety standards;
Permit those conditions prohibited under existing substandard building laws that do not
endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfar e of the public or the occupant;
and
Meet rules and regulations developed by the State Fire Marshal.
SB 330 deems the occupied substandard building in compliance with state building codes and
health and safety laws if it meets the substandard building requirements developed by HCD for a
period of seven years. After that time, the current building standar ds in force at the time apply.
SB 330 sunsets all its provisions on January 1, 2030 and provides throughout the bill that nothing
in the bill supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of CEQA . The bill also
states that its provisions are severable, makes technical and conforming changes, and includes
findings and declarations to support its purposes.
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 7 of 9
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. California is in the midst of a housing crisis. Rents across the state
significantly exceed the rest of the United States, and homeownership has fallen to abysmal
levels. Demand is clearly high, but builders find themselves unable to meet that demand because
of local rules that limit the number of units or simply prohibit building altogether. At a time
when housing is so desperately needed, there are some local policies that should just be off
limits. SB 330 is a targeted approach that prohibits the most egregious practices in the areas that
are hardest hit by the housing crisis. It repeals local voter initiatives enacted by NIMBYs that
have prevented well-meaning local officials from taking the steps they need to ensure that
housing can get built. It prevents local governments from downzoning unless they upzone
elsewhere, and it stops them from changing the rules on builders who are in the midst of going
through the approval process. SB 330 also limits the application of parking ratios and design
standards that drive up the cost of building. These are not uncontrove rsial changes, but SB 330
sunsets its provisions so that the Legislature can evaluate its effectiveness. The first rule of holes
says that when you’re in one, stop digging: SB 330 applies this principle to one of the state’s
greatest challenges.
2. Home rule. California is a diverse state, with 482 cities and 58 counties. Local elected
officials for each of those municipalities are charged by the California Constitution with
protecting their citizens’ welfare. One chief way local governments do this is by exercising
control over what gets built in their community. Local officials weigh the need for new housing
against the concerns and desires of their constituents. Where appropriate, those officials impose
enact ordinances to shape their communities or set standards to make sure that the impacts of
new development are considered and mitigated , based on local conditions. SB 330 runs
roughshod over the unique features of California’s communities by imposing blanket
prohibitions on certain types of development regulation.
3. Time marches on. Local governments update their development policies and standards over
time to reflect new circumstances within their jurisdiction or to respond to mistakes made in the
past. In some cases, this may mean amending those standards while a city or county is actively
considering a project for approval. SB 330 freezes in time the standards that were in place when
a complete initial application, a new term created in the bill, is filed. But these completed
applicatio ns do not include all the information a local government needs to understand a
development’s impacts, make a decision on the project, or to even necessarily know which
standards apply to it. That’s why it’s important to have a completed final application. Should
the Legislature prevent new ordinances from applying before a local government has a chance to
understand the impacts of a development?
4. Power to the people. In 1911, California voters amended the Constitution to provide voters
the power to enact initiatives and referenda. The voter initiative is a “reserved power;” it is not a
right granted to them, but a power reserved by them. As such, the power of initiative is integral
to California’s political process. SB 330 removes the ability of loc al elected officials, and more
importantly, local voters, to enact new growth management ordinances or even enforce existing
ones. Locals adopt these measures for a variety of reasons , some more noble than others: for
example, some are adopted out of environmental concerns, such as preventing sprawl or
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 8 of 9
reducing pressure to convert agricultural land to urban uses, while others are intended to block
new neighbors from moving in. To avoid universally overturning the will of the voters and to
draw a distinction between some, the Committee may wish to consider amending SB 330 to
allow the continuation some duly adopted growth management ordinances , such as those that
may need enhanced open-space protections, that still allow for affordable housing developme nt,
and that have been in effect for a longer period of time.
5. Gridlock. Ask any local elected official: Californians love their cars and consider it of
paramount importance that they have somewhere to park them. For this reason, many local
governments impose minimum parking requirements. But building new parking is expensive
and potentially increases the cost of new development. Developers, for their part, would prefer
to only build the parking they absolutely need to include in order to rent or se ll their units. SB
330 voids local parking requirements in areas that it affects, regardless of whether residents can
realistically go without cars. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 330 to allow
some parking requirements to remain in force for developments that aren’t close to transit or are
built in smaller cities that may not have the density of amenities to allow going car -free, or
otherwise allowing local governments to impose some parking limits where they are truly
needed.
6. Time is money. Developers face lots of costs when they try to get a project built: the “hard”
construction costs of the actual structure, plus the “soft” costs of completing all the procedural
steps and documentation that are needed to secure approval, plus the time value of money. SB
330 aims to reduce these costs in several ways, including by imposing a 12 -month time limit on
approval and limiting the number of hearings on development applications that are consistent
with local zoning to three. But this reduction in the number of hearings constrains public input
on new developments. Given that the bill caps the total time to approval, developers’ soft costs
may be sufficiently reduced to encourage new production without having to limit public
comment. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 330 to increase or remove the
limit on the number of hearings allowed on development approvals that is imposed by the bill.
7. Whither general plans? The general plan is often called the “constitutio n for future
development.” It serves an important role in shaping the location and type of development that
will occur, ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to support that development, providing
adequate open space, and mitigating future risks from fire, floods, and climate change. Zoning
ordinances then effectuate the requirements in the housing element and general plan—those
ordinances are specific where the general plan is, well, general. SB 330 provides that a project
isn’t inconsistent with local zoning if it meets the objective standards for density and other
metrics in the general plan, but that misunderstands how general plans and zoning ordinances are
applied. For example, a general plan may specify a range of densities for an area, w hich is only
then specifically applied through the zoning ordinance. AB 3194 (Daly) of last year initially
made similar changes to the HAA as SB 330 does, but was amended to more accurately reflect
the way zoning works in practice. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 330 to
track the changes made in the final version of AB 3194.
8. Pay the man. Local governments have seen their revenues significantly constrained over the
past several decades. Local governments have seen their sources of revenue slashed by a series
of propositions, while demand for public services have increased. As a result, cities and counties
follow a simple principle: new developments should pay for the impacts that they have on the
community and the burden they impose on public services. Developer fees pay for important
public services, including schools, new infrastructure for water and wastewater, roads, transit,
SB 330 (Skinner) 4/4/19 Page 9 of 9
and parks. SB 330 prevents most increases in fees, even if they follow the stringent requirements
of the Constitution and state law, and outright exempts affordable units, even though those units
are likely to generate similar demands for public services. Without the ability to charge
appropriate fees, residents may find that their services are scaled back.
9. Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies
for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. Because SB
330 expands the penalties under state housing law and requires new duties of local planning
officials, Legislative Counsel says it creates a new state mandate. But the bill disclaims the
state's responsibility for reimbursing local governments for enforcing t hese new crimes. That's
consistent with the California Constitution, which says that the state does not have to reimburse
local governments for the costs of new crimes (Article XIIIB, 6[a] [2]). SB 330 also says that if
the Commission on State Mandates d etermines that the bill imposes a reimbursable mandate,
reimbursement must be made pursuant to existing statutory provisions.
10. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their
own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide
laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts determine whether
a topic is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. SB 330 says that its
statutory provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a
legislative finding that the provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of
housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern.
11. Double referral. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of SB 330: first
to the Governance and Finance Committee to hear issues relating to local permitting, and then to
the Senate Housing Committee.
12. Related legislation. The Legislature is considering numerous bills to increase the production
of housing in the state. Most notably, SB 4 (McGuire) and SB 50 (Wiener), increase zoning near
transit and in other parts of the state.
Support and Opposition (4/5/19)
Support: Bay Area Council; Bridge Housing Corporation; Building Industry Association of the
Bay Area; California Building Industry Association; California Community Builders; California
Yimby; Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; Silicon Valley At Home
(Sv@Home); TMG Partners.
Opposition: League of California Cities.
-- END --