ARTICLE
On June 30, 2017, the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce hosted a lunchtime speaking event at the Seacliff Inn in Aptos. Our guest speaker for this Friday lunch event (just before the busy 4th of July holiday) was State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). We had a sold-out crowd eager to listen and learn about the Senator’s legislative proposal (SB 35) that would streamline the planning and entitlement process to produce more affordable housing. According to the legislative analysis,“SB 35 created a streamlined approval process for infill projects with two or more residential units in localities that have failed to produce sufficient housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. The streamlined approval process requires some level of affordable housing to be included in the housing development. To receive the streamlined process for housing developments, the developer must demonstrate that the development meets a number of requirements. Localities must provide written documentation to the developer if there is a failure to meet the specifications for streamlined approval, within specified periods of time. If the locality does not meet those deadlines, the development shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for streamlined approval.” It was approved by the State Legislature in September 2017 and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. SB 35 was described as the first of many state legislative efforts to help produce more housing and especially more affordable housing for very low and low-income earners. It has been used as a land use option by affordable home builders and market rate home builders throughout the state and on a few occasions in Santa Cruz City and Santa Cruz County. Like any state legislation that overrides local jurisdictions’ land use decision-making process, SB is controversial and is seen as an overreach by the state. However, with California’s mounting housing crisis continuing to be a top policy priority for Governor Newsom, the current legislative session in Sacramento has numerous bills that are in the process of addressing more changes to stimulate housing production. Our newly elected state assembly members were advocating for affordable housing during their 2022 campaigns. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin in her re-election website lists "tackling the housing shortage and homeless is one of her priorities.” Assemblymember Dawn Addis, who represents the southern section of Santa Cruz County also examples a similar position in supporting affordable housing. But when it comes to choosing between housing and environmental protection both legislators defer to their environmental constituencies when reviewing housing legislation. The fine line that continues to define a legislator’s policy over politics is embedded in what they say during a legislative committee debate on a bill and how they vote on the legislation. On Monday, July 10, 2023, the State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources took up Senator Wiener’s latest effort to address affordable housing. According to the legislative analysis: “SB 423 extends and expands by right approval (i.e., not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other discretionary review by the relevant city or county) of both affordable and market-rate multifamily housing projects pursuant to SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017, including extending the sunset from 2026 to 2036, relaxing specified construction labor requirements, expanding to parcels where parking is a permitted use, and removing the exclusion of the coastal zone.” SB 423 has already passed the State Senate where it was approved on a 29-5 vote with six senators not voting. It should be noted that Senator John Laird voted in support of SB 423. The supporters and opposition to SB 423 are similar to the proponents and opponents of SB 35. Labor Unions, Affordable housing advocates, and business organizations line up in support of SB 423, while local governments (cities and counties) oppose the legislation. A large delegation of environmental organizations opposes the legislation unless amended. Producing legislation can be described as a sausage-making process, where the language of a bill is twisted and contorted in such a way as to increase the likelihood the bill will move through the legislative hearing process and make its way to the Governor’s desk. During Monday afternoon’s Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, I listened to the lengthy debate about SB 423. As a listener from my home office, we were not allowed to participate in the discussion. You needed to be in the State Capitol committee room to participate. And even being in the building did not provide for every voice to be heard. The Committee Chair Luz Rivas, a Los Angeles County assembly member worked hard to keep the discussion moving forward, allowing the author, Senator Wiener the courtesy of explaining the intent of his legislation while also giving ample opportunity for the opponents to share their reasons for opposing the bill. After the opening comments — the Chair asked for supporters to line up and give short (very brief) comments in support of the bill. And similarly, the opponents followed suit with their comments. Even though I was not in the room, I could hear that there was a split opinion between those in support and those opposed. After the public input, Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) took the lead in speaking in support of SB 423. He made a motion to vote on the bill as amended. Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa) offered to second the motion. Then there was a long pause as Chair Luz Rivas made it very clear she wanted the full committee's input before a roll call vote. Here is where the discussion became complicated. Committee members made very articulate comments in favor of or in opposition to the bill. There seemed to be confusion about which amendments were part of the final bill. Our Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Dawn Addis were very concise in defining this legislation (and the proposed amendments) as an affront to best practices on environmental coastal protection, sea level rise, and climate change. The amendments — which were subject to lengthy closed-door over-the-weekend conversations between the Assembly leadership, the Committee Chair, and the Senator -- provided some vague understanding of the final version. Unless you were in the committee room or had access to the amendments you were at a loss to the correct bill language. From what I could discern, the amendments in play were about wildfire lines within the coastal zone, climate change, labor standards, and precise sea level rise of 66 inches or 5 feet commonly referred to as the best science available. Without their recorded comments, I concluded that both our Assemblymembers did not want to override the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) responsibility to make decisions on proposed developments within the coastal zone. I do not question their rationale, but the legislation, as written and my interpretation of SB 423, this bill would not take away CCC’s discretion, and allow for the local government decision-making process to continue within local zoning requirements. The nuisance of the bill language is always a subject of individual interpretation. When the roll call vote was called, SB 423 received 7 Yes votes, 0 No votes, and four committee members responded with an NVR or no vote recorded. Assemblymembers Addis and Pellerin cast an NVR. It is hard to rush judgment on one member’s vote in a committee based on the bill’s current language as presented but it does create a question for the constituents where the legislator actually stands on the issue. Now, SB 423 will move to the Assembly Appropriation Committee for further discussion and if approved by that Committee it would move to the Assembly Floor for a vote. An interesting twist to be played out before that final vote: Will the new Assembly Speaker, Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) weigh in on the specific language of SB 423? Stay tuned as the sausage-making process continues.
On June 30, 2017, the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce hosted a lunchtime speaking event at the Seacliff Inn in Aptos. Our guest speaker for this Friday lunch event (just before the busy 4th of July holiday) was State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). We had a sold-out crowd eager to listen and learn about the Senator’s legislative proposal (SB 35) that would streamline the planning and entitlement process to produce more affordable housing.
According to the legislative analysis,“SB 35 created a streamlined approval process for infill projects with two or more residential units in localities that have failed to produce sufficient housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. The streamlined approval process requires some level of affordable housing to be included in the housing development. To receive the streamlined process for housing developments, the developer must demonstrate that the development meets a number of requirements. Localities must provide written documentation to the developer if there is a failure to meet the specifications for streamlined approval, within specified periods of time. If the locality does not meet those deadlines, the development shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for streamlined approval.” It was approved by the State Legislature in September 2017 and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.
SB 35 was described as the first of many state legislative efforts to help produce more housing and especially more affordable housing for very low and low-income earners. It has been used as a land use option by affordable home builders and market rate home builders throughout the state and on a few occasions in Santa Cruz City and Santa Cruz County. Like any state legislation that overrides local jurisdictions’ land use decision-making process, SB is controversial and is seen as an overreach by the state.
However, with California’s mounting housing crisis continuing to be a top policy priority for Governor Newsom, the current legislative session in Sacramento has numerous bills that are in the process of addressing more changes to stimulate housing production. Our newly elected state assembly members were advocating for affordable housing during their 2022 campaigns. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin in her re-election website lists "tackling the housing shortage and homeless is one of her priorities.”
Assemblymember Dawn Addis, who represents the southern section of Santa Cruz County also examples a similar position in supporting affordable housing. But when it comes to choosing between housing and environmental protection both legislators defer to their environmental constituencies when reviewing housing legislation. The fine line that continues to define a legislator’s policy over politics is embedded in what they say during a legislative committee debate on a bill and how they vote on the legislation.
On Monday, July 10, 2023, the State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources took up Senator Wiener’s latest effort to address affordable housing. According to the legislative analysis: “SB 423 extends and expands by right approval (i.e., not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other discretionary review by the relevant city or county) of both affordable and market-rate multifamily housing projects pursuant to SB 35 (Wiener), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017, including extending the sunset from 2026 to 2036, relaxing specified construction labor requirements, expanding to parcels where parking is a permitted use, and removing the exclusion of the coastal zone.” SB 423 has already passed the State Senate where it was approved on a 29-5 vote with six senators not voting. It should be noted that Senator John Laird voted in support of SB 423.
The supporters and opposition to SB 423 are similar to the proponents and opponents of SB 35. Labor Unions, Affordable housing advocates, and business organizations line up in support of SB 423, while local governments (cities and counties) oppose the legislation. A large delegation of environmental organizations opposes the legislation unless amended.
Producing legislation can be described as a sausage-making process, where the language of a bill is twisted and contorted in such a way as to increase the likelihood the bill will move through the legislative hearing process and make its way to the Governor’s desk.
During Monday afternoon’s Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, I listened to the lengthy debate about SB 423. As a listener from my home office, we were not allowed to participate in the discussion. You needed to be in the State Capitol committee room to participate. And even being in the building did not provide for every voice to be heard. The Committee Chair Luz Rivas, a Los Angeles County assembly member worked hard to keep the discussion moving forward, allowing the author, Senator Wiener the courtesy of explaining the intent of his legislation while also giving ample opportunity for the opponents to share their reasons for opposing the bill. After the opening comments — the Chair asked for supporters to line up and give short (very brief) comments in support of the bill. And similarly, the opponents followed suit with their comments. Even though I was not in the room, I could hear that there was a split opinion between those in support and those opposed.
After the public input, Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) took the lead in speaking in support of SB 423. He made a motion to vote on the bill as amended. Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa) offered to second the motion. Then there was a long pause as Chair Luz Rivas made it very clear she wanted the full committee's input before a roll call vote.
Here is where the discussion became complicated. Committee members made very articulate comments in favor of or in opposition to the bill. There seemed to be confusion about which amendments were part of the final bill. Our Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin and Dawn Addis were very concise in defining this legislation (and the proposed amendments) as an affront to best practices on environmental coastal protection, sea level rise, and climate change. The amendments — which were subject to lengthy closed-door over-the-weekend conversations between the Assembly leadership, the Committee Chair, and the Senator -- provided some vague understanding of the final version. Unless you were in the committee room or had access to the amendments you were at a loss to the correct bill language. From what I could discern, the amendments in play were about wildfire lines within the coastal zone, climate change, labor standards, and precise sea level rise of 66 inches or 5 feet commonly referred to as the best science available.
Without their recorded comments, I concluded that both our Assemblymembers did not want to override the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) responsibility to make decisions on proposed developments within the coastal zone. I do not question their rationale, but the legislation, as written and my interpretation of SB 423, this bill would not take away CCC’s discretion, and allow for the local government decision-making process to continue within local zoning requirements. The nuisance of the bill language is always a subject of individual interpretation.
When the roll call vote was called, SB 423 received 7 Yes votes, 0 No votes, and four committee members responded with an NVR or no vote recorded. Assemblymembers Addis and Pellerin cast an NVR.
It is hard to rush judgment on one member’s vote in a committee based on the bill’s current language as presented but it does create a question for the constituents where the legislator actually stands on the issue. Now, SB 423 will move to the Assembly Appropriation Committee for further discussion and if approved by that Committee it would move to the Assembly Floor for a vote. An interesting twist to be played out before that final vote: Will the new Assembly Speaker, Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) weigh in on the specific language of SB 423? Stay tuned as the sausage-making process continues.