ARTICLE
For the last five California legislative sessions (2017-2021) housing legislation has been front and center in the debate to address the state’s lack of affordable housing, middle-income housing, and the continued skyrocketing housing market. It is no surprise that as the current legislative cycle winds down in the next three weeks, several housing bills may make it across the finish line and to the Governor’s desk. Here is a snapshot view of the legislative calendar: Sept. 3: Last day to amend bills on the Senate or Assembly Floor Sept. 6 Labor Day (Legislature in Recess) Sept. 10: Last day for each house to pass bills Important Dates Occurring within the Interim Study Session Interim Study Recess begins at end of Sept. 10 session Oct. 10: Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 10 and/or in the Governor’s possession after Sept. 10. One additional twist is the Governor’s Recall Special Election — Sept. 14, where a sitting Governor still maintains power to sign or veto legislation even if the recall is successful. According to the Secretary of State, “On the 38th day after the election, if the recall is successful, the Secretary of State will certify the election results, and the new governor would take the oath of office and assume the position for the remainder of the term [through January 2, 2023).” So regardless of the outcome, Governor Newsom will hold the key to signing or vetoing any legislation through October 10. The Santa Cruz County Chamber has been tracking several bills with keen interest since the legislative session began last December. Two bills, in particular, are SB 10 (Wiener) and SB 9 (Atkins). Let’s start with SB 10, an amended version of the bill that passed the state Assembly (41-9) and is headed back to the State Senate for concurrence. The bill would give cities the option to up-zone infill land sites and areas near transit centers. Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, introduced the bill in December to allow cities to override zoning restrictions if they so choose without going through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The zoning changes would be voluntary, unlike those called for under Wiener's contentious SB 50. That broad housing density bill, introduced several years in a row, would have mandated height and density requirements for developments around transit hubs and job-rich areas, including single-family neighborhoods. The bill died on the Senate floor without a vote last year. The amended version of SB 10 would allow the construction of up to 10 units on urban infill sites and near transit centers — rather than job centers as originally envisioned by Wiener — by right in qualifying single-family zoning areas. The bill also allows for the addition of another two accessory dwelling units and two junior accessory dwelling units. You can read the Silicon Valley Business Journal article here: Silicon Valley Bus Journal - State zoning bills advance SB 9 (Atkins) would allow property owners to subdivide their single-family zoned lots to construct up to two duplexes or two hours with attached units via ministerial approval similar to the 2017 passed legislation SB 35 (Wiener) process. SB 9 is being spearheaded by Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who amended the bill last week in response to opposition over its potential to incentivize real estate speculation. As amended, SB 9 would require applicants to sign an affidavit stating their intent to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years, with exemptions given to community land trusts or qualified nonprofits. It also authorizes local governments to deny a proposed housing development or lot split on the condition that a building official makes a written finding that the development would have a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated. As of this writing, SB 9 is set for an Assembly Floor vote on Thursday, August 27. According to the Business Journal article, “Both SB 9 and 10 stand to bring about significant and needed changes to the state's housing landscape, according to proponents, who among other things argue that single-family zoning is a construct of systemic racism. But for many, the changes proposed under SB 9 and 10 remain too radical. Cities across the state, from Los Angeles to South San Francisco, have formally opposed the rezoning efforts unless amended.” With housing legislation comes a debate around who should make the decision on how, when, and where housing is built and what type of zoning regulations should be modified to allow or not allow housing. The proponents for more housing have clearly stated that the local government has not done its fair share to produce much-needed housing statewide. It is evident in Santa Cruz County where the cost of housing far outstrips a low- to middle-income family to afford to live in the region without subsidized housing options. The opposition argues that the housing location, neighborhood compatibility, building height, conceptual design, increased traffic, and a host of other environmental reasons make many projects unsuitable for Santa Cruz County. The Santa Cruz County Chamber supported SB 35 in 2017 and wrote a letter in support of SB 50 in 2019. SB 35 is now being considered in an affordable housing project at 831 Water Street in Santa Cruz. The Santa Cruz City Council will hold a study session at a special meeting set for Sept. 7 to discuss the parameters of SB 35. The Council will return on Sept. 14 to consider whether the project meets the criteria to be ministerially approved. Once again, the push and pull between local government and the state on housing policy will continue to be a wedge between additional housing or maintaining the status quo. Stay tuned to more conversation about these bills and the housing projects in the pipeline.
For the last five California legislative sessions (2017-2021) housing legislation has been front and center in the debate to address the state’s lack of affordable housing, middle-income housing, and the continued skyrocketing housing market. It is no surprise that as the current legislative cycle winds down in the next three weeks, several housing bills may make it across the finish line and to the Governor’s desk. Here is a snapshot view of the legislative calendar:
Sept. 3: Last day to amend bills on the Senate or Assembly Floor Sept. 6 Labor Day (Legislature in Recess) Sept. 10: Last day for each house to pass bills Important Dates Occurring within the Interim Study Session Interim Study Recess begins at end of Sept. 10 session Oct. 10: Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature on or before Sept. 10 and/or in the Governor’s possession after Sept. 10.
One additional twist is the Governor’s Recall Special Election — Sept. 14, where a sitting Governor still maintains power to sign or veto legislation even if the recall is successful. According to the Secretary of State, “On the 38th day after the election, if the recall is successful, the Secretary of State will certify the election results, and the new governor would take the oath of office and assume the position for the remainder of the term [through January 2, 2023).”
So regardless of the outcome, Governor Newsom will hold the key to signing or vetoing any legislation through October 10.
The Santa Cruz County Chamber has been tracking several bills with keen interest since the legislative session began last December. Two bills, in particular, are SB 10 (Wiener) and SB 9 (Atkins). Let’s start with SB 10, an amended version of the bill that passed the state Assembly (41-9) and is headed back to the State Senate for concurrence. The bill would give cities the option to up-zone infill land sites and areas near transit centers.
Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, introduced the bill in December to allow cities to override zoning restrictions if they so choose without going through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The zoning changes would be voluntary, unlike those called for under Wiener's contentious SB 50. That broad housing density bill, introduced several years in a row, would have mandated height and density requirements for developments around transit hubs and job-rich areas, including single-family neighborhoods. The bill died on the Senate floor without a vote last year.
The amended version of SB 10 would allow the construction of up to 10 units on urban infill sites and near transit centers — rather than job centers as originally envisioned by Wiener — by right in qualifying single-family zoning areas. The bill also allows for the addition of another two accessory dwelling units and two junior accessory dwelling units. You can read the Silicon Valley Business Journal article here: Silicon Valley Bus Journal - State zoning bills advance
SB 9 (Atkins) would allow property owners to subdivide their single-family zoned lots to construct up to two duplexes or two hours with attached units via ministerial approval similar to the 2017 passed legislation SB 35 (Wiener) process. SB 9 is being spearheaded by Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who amended the bill last week in response to opposition over its potential to incentivize real estate speculation. As amended, SB 9 would require applicants to sign an affidavit stating their intent to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years, with exemptions given to community land trusts or qualified nonprofits. It also authorizes local governments to deny a proposed housing development or lot split on the condition that a building official makes a written finding that the development would have a specific adverse impact on public health, safety, or the physical environment that cannot be mitigated. As of this writing, SB 9 is set for an Assembly Floor vote on Thursday, August 27.
According to the Business Journal article, “Both SB 9 and 10 stand to bring about significant and needed changes to the state's housing landscape, according to proponents, who among other things argue that single-family zoning is a construct of systemic racism. But for many, the changes proposed under SB 9 and 10 remain too radical. Cities across the state, from Los Angeles to South San Francisco, have formally opposed the rezoning efforts unless amended.”
With housing legislation comes a debate around who should make the decision on how, when, and where housing is built and what type of zoning regulations should be modified to allow or not allow housing. The proponents for more housing have clearly stated that the local government has not done its fair share to produce much-needed housing statewide. It is evident in Santa Cruz County where the cost of housing far outstrips a low- to middle-income family to afford to live in the region without subsidized housing options. The opposition argues that the housing location, neighborhood compatibility, building height, conceptual design, increased traffic, and a host of other environmental reasons make many projects unsuitable for Santa Cruz County.
The Santa Cruz County Chamber supported SB 35 in 2017 and wrote a letter in support of SB 50 in 2019. SB 35 is now being considered in an affordable housing project at 831 Water Street in Santa Cruz. The Santa Cruz City Council will hold a study session at a special meeting set for Sept. 7 to discuss the parameters of SB 35. The Council will return on Sept. 14 to consider whether the project meets the criteria to be ministerially approved.
Once again, the push and pull between local government and the state on housing policy will continue to be a wedge between additional housing or maintaining the status quo. Stay tuned to more conversation about these bills and the housing projects in the pipeline.