CC SR 20210615 05 - SB9 & SB10 Letters of OppositionCITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/15/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a status report and authorize the Mayor to
sign opposition letters to SB 9 and SB 10.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1)Receive and file a status report on SB 9 and SB 10, related to local land use
authority, which recently passed the California State Senate and were ordered to
the Assembly;
(2)Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in opposition to SB 9, which would require
ministerial approval of duplexes and lot splits on single -family residential zoned
parcels; and,
(3)Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in opposition to SB 10, which would allow local
jurisdictions to adopt ordinances to upzone parcels near high -quality transit or
urban infill areas.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.Draft Letter in opposition to SB 9 (page A-1)
B.Draft Letter in opposition to SB 10, as amended May 26, 2021 (page B-1)
C.February 2, 2021 SB 9 staff report (page C-1)
D.February 2, 2021 SB 10 staff report (page D-1)
E.Text of SB 9 (as amended April 27, 2021)
F.Text of SB 10 (as amended May 26, 2021)
G.City Council Policy Number 29 (page G-1)
1
BACKGROUND:
Legislative Advocacy
It is the practice of City Staff to send legislative position letters directly to the bill author,
the City’s representatives (Senator Allen and Assemblymember Muratsuchi), and
relevant committee chairs immediately following City Council authorization, and to submit
letters to the California Legislative Position Letter Portal. Through the Positi on Letter
Portal, the City’s position (support or opposition) is registered for every bill analysis
prepared, which is available for review for all elected representatives and their staffs.
Additionally, the City’s letters are entered into public record for the relevant committee
hearings.
The main route for the City to influence state policy is through advocating with Senator
Allen and Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Additionally, the City works with the other
Peninsula cities to issue joint letters, as well as with the League of California Cities (Cal
Cities), California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) and South Bay Council of
Governments (SBCCOG) on regional concerns such as local land use authority. In
particular, Cal Cities typically takes a very active approach to legislative advocacy on
behalf of cities, working with legislative staff members to propose specific amendments
to bills in order to protect local control. As Cal Cities helps represent all California cities,
it can be successful in implementing certain changes to bills. The City additionally
reissues position letters when bills reach the second house or are passed to the Governor.
Senate Bills 9 and 10
On February 2, 2021, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign letters of opposition
to SB 9 and SB 10 (Attachments C and D), both bills relating to restricting local land use
authority. Staff submitted the letters to the bills’ authors and relevant Senate committees.
Both Senator Allen and Assemblymember Muratsuchi and their st aff are aware of the
City’s strong opposition to SB 9 and SB 10,
SB 9, authored by Senator Atkins (D-39-San Diego), would require ministerial approval
of duplex housing developments, lot splits, or both, in single -family residential zones. SB
9 passed the California State Senate and was ordered to the Assembly on May 26, 2021.
The City opposed this bill because it limits local land use authority and due to its
widespread impact on the City’s ability to review certain proposed housing developments.
The Peninsula cities also sent a joint letter of opposition to SB 9 on February 26, 2021.
Senator Allen, who represents Rancho Palos Verdes, did not vote on SB 9 when it
reached the Senate floor.
As of the writing of this report, SB 9 is set to be heard in the Assembly Local Government
Committee. On June 4, Staff re-submitted the City’s opposition letter to the committee,
and it was entered into the public record.
2
SB 10, authored by Senator Wiener (D-11-San Francisco), would authorize a local
jurisdiction to pass an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential
density, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site. The City opposed
this bill because it limited local land use authority whereby neighboring jurisdictions could
adopt such ordinances, which would impact residents along the border, but would
eliminate public oversight via exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) review process.
Senator Allen voted no on SB 10 when it reached the Senate floor.
Staff will re-submit the City’s opposition letter to SB 10 once it has been assigned to an
Assembly committee.
Cal Cities and CCCA have opposed SB 9. The SBCCOG opposed both SB 9 and SB 10.
As of May 20, 2021, over 115 cities have issued lette rs of opposition to SB 9, in addition
to over 75 organizations and neighborhood groups, and 235 individuals.
As of May 20, 2021, 18 cities have issued letters of opposition to SB 10, in addition to 63
organizations and neighborhood groups, and 185 individuals.
After being passed by the Senate, SB 9 and SB 10 will be reviewed by policy and fiscal
committees in the Assembly before being voted on the Assembly floor. If any
amendments are made to the text of either bill, it will return to the Senate for concu rrence
or will be referred to a conference committee if the changes cannot be agreed to. If a
compromise is reached, the bill will return to each house for a vote. Once both houses
approve the bill, it will go to the Governor for his signature or veto. The Governor may
also allow a bill to become a law without his signature.
During the committee process, bill analysis documents are prepared that explain current
law, what the bill is intended to do, and some background information. Typically, the
analysis also lists organizations that support or oppose the bill, which is provided to all
committee members and is a matter of public record.
DISCUSSION:
When bills pass to the second house, the City must either resubmit existing position letters
to the committees, or may submit new letters. SB 9 has remained substantially the same
as when the City opposed it in February, and the draft letter of opposition (Attachment A)
maintains the City’s core arguments that SB9 infringes on local land use authority and
may have detrimental impacts on the safety and welfare of residents.
3
SB 10 was amended to remove the City’s core concern that it waived the CEQA review
process, but a new letter of opposition has been drafted expressing concerns that the bill
could override voter-approved initiatives (Attachment B).
A more detailed update to SB 9 and 10 is discussed below.
SB 9: Duplexes and Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones
If passed, SB 9 would require local jurisdictions to ministerially approve duplexes and/or
lot subdivisions resulting in up to four units on an existing single-family residential-zoned
lot.
This bill was introduced during the last legislative session as SB 1120, and it was poised
to be approved by both houses, but due to strict time restraints as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic, the clock ran out. Senator Atkins reintroduced that bill as SB 9 and it has
passed from the Senate to the Assembly. It is anticipated that the bill will once again pass
both houses.
By nature, ministerial or by-right approval processes fail to recognize local ordinances
and housing elements certified by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), as well as the unique factors of a community such as local terrain
and existing infrastructure needed to support such potential growth.
SB 9 has the potential to increase residential density in single -family residential zoning
districts. For the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, this is a concern due to the City being
primarily located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Increasing
residential density without the ability for City oversight of such development, may pose a
challenge for evacuations in the event of an emergency.
The bill is intended to provide homeowners with the option to quadruple the number of
housing units on their property to increase the housing stock in the state. The City is
concerned that requiring ministerial approval of such developments fundamentally fails to
recognize local land use authority, local decision making, and community input.
Furthermore, this bill essentially nullifies the City’s voter-approved view ordinance and
other ordinances adopted to preserve the City’s quality of life.
SB 10: Increasing Residential Density Through City Ordinance s
The City’s main opposition to SB 10 was that it would allow cities to adopt zoning
ordinances that bypass California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for housing
developments of up to 10 units per parcel in a transit - or jobs-rich area, or an urban infill
site. Under this circumstance, a neighboring city could adopt such an ordinance, which
would impact residents along the border to that city, but they would not have the ability to
participate in the public approval process afforded by CEQA.
However, the bill was amended on May 26 to remove applicability of the bill to “jobs -rich”
areas, and prohibit a residential or mixed-use project with more than 10 units on a parcel
4
zoned pursuant to this bill from being approved ministerially or by right or otherwise
exempt from CEQA.
If SB 10 were to pass, as currently amended, it would give cities the option to upzone in
a transit-rich area or an urban infill site. Developments on such sites, under the bill as
currently written, would be subject to the jurisdiction’s permitting/approval process, which
generally includes public notice and CEQA review. Therefore, the bill simply affirms cities’
existing authority to change zoning by ordinance.
When the bill was introduced last year, it died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
This year, it has passed the Senate, with these amendments, and is once more in the
Assembly.
Although the City’s main concerns have been removed from the bill, some cities have
voter-adopted initiatives related to density, and this bill may allow cities to overturn these
initiatives through the ordinance process. As such, and to express the City’s position that
local jurisdictions must maintain local land use authority at all levels, Staff recommends
the City continue to oppose SB 10. A new letter has been drafted to reflect this position
(Attachment B).
CONCLUSION:
SB 9 and SB 10 have passed the Senate and are expected to continue moving through
the Assembly. If the Assembly passes the bills with any changes, they will return to the
Senate for concurrence and then could be passed to the Governor. At this stage in the
legislative process, position letters will be sent to committees as assigned. If the bills are
passed to the Governor, the City’s opposition letters will be sent to Governor Newsom.
City Council Policy Number 29 (Attachment G): Legislative Activities of the City Council,
provides the policy by which, if the majority of the City Council votes to support or oppose
legislation, Staff shall prepare the appropriate correspondence to the appropriate
representatives expressing the position of the City. The City Council opposed SB 9 and
SB 10 at the meeting on February 2, 2021. The draft letters (Attachment s A and B) affirm
the City’s opposition of SB 9 and SB 10, for submission to the Assembly committees.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letters.
2. Direct Staff not to send opposition letters on either or both SB 9 and 10.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
5
June 15, 2021 Via Position Letter Portal
The Honorable Toni Atkins
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 9
Dear Senator Atkins:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes continues to oppose SB 9, which would require
ministerial approval, to streamline the process for homeowners to create a duplex or
subdivide an existing lot up to four units in residential areas.
The bill overrides local control over zoning codes, requiring cities to ministerially
approve two residential units as well as lot splits on every single family parcel with no
public input or consideration. The bill also circumvents the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), which was established to require the thoughtful consideration of
development on the environment and infrastructure and the Californ ia Coastal Act of
1976, which recognizes that there are unique zoning and land management
requirements in coastal areas. Both of these state laws specifically require community
participation and input. It is for these reasons that the City Council, representing our
residents, unanimously oppose SB 9.
Aside from the gross disregard for local control, this bill puts existing Rancho Palos
Verdes residents in danger. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes primarily resides in a Cal
Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Due to topography and large
amount of dedicated open space, egress is limited. In the event of a wildfire, quickly and
safely evacuating the existing population would pose a significant challenge. Increased
density as contemplated under SB 9 would exacerbate this problem and could result in
the significant loss of life and property.
While we appreciate the intent to ensure that all Californians have access to affordable
housing, this bill will not do that. Instead, it will increase unintended hazards and erode
A-1
Senator Atkins
June 15, 2021
Page 2
local control. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes strongly opposes SB
9.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
cc: Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair, Assembly Committee on Local Government
David Chiu, Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
A-2
June 15, 2021 Via Position Letter Portal
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 10, as Amended May 26, 2021
Dear Senator Wiener:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes reaffirms its opposition to SB 10, which would allow
local governments to adopt an ordinance to zone a parcel for up to 10 residential units,
if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site.
While we appreciate the removal of the provisions granting ministerial approval to such
developments thereby allowing for public review of developments which may be created
near borders whereby one jurisdiction adopted such an ordinance and another did not,
this bill continues to provide the opportunity for cities to overturn voter approved
initiatives.
Some jurisdictions have adopted voter approved initiatives establishing specific
procedures related to residential density. A governing body should not be able to utilize
the ordinance process in SB 10 to overturn any voter approved initiatives. Such
initiatives are one of the most direct means that voters have of expressing their will for
their communities and allowing an elected body to overturn these initiatives would be an
affront to the democratic process.
Furthermore, as amended May 26, 2021, the bill simply affirms the existing process for
many cities to rezone by ordinance. Cities already have authority to rezone parcels
based on community needs. At best, this bill is redundant, at worst, this bill may pose a
threat to the democratic process and imposes on local land use authority.
Therefore, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes continues to oppose SB 10.
B-1
Senator Wiener
June 15, 2021
Page 2
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
cc: Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair, Assembly Committee on Local Government
David Chiu, Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
B-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/02/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to
SB 9.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter in opposition to SB 9 (page A-1)
B. Text of SB 9 (as introduced December 7, 2020) (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In the last legislative session, Senator Toni Atkins of San Diego wrote, and the state
Legislature nearly passed SB 1120, which would require a proposed housing
development that contains two residential units to be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review or hearing, within a single-family zone, if the proposed housing
meets certain requirements. The City Council opposed this bill on August 4, 2020 and
the bill died in Conference Committee on August 31, 2020.
At the start of the current legislative session, Senator Atkins introduced SB 9, which
similarly circumvents local planning and zoning control and public input by requiring the
ministerial approval of housing developments containing two residential units and lot
splits without a public hearing. In summary, if the proposed housing development meets
certain requirements, primarily designed to prevent the demolition of existing affordable
C-1
housing or displacement of moderate, low or very-low income families or historic
properties, it can be approved ministerially.
If enacted, SB 9 would undermine local land use authority by imposing state legislation
on local government agencies and municipalities. This legislation undermines other
state laws including the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) by establishing a ministerial review process without discretionary
review or public hearing. Further, SB 9 makes no consideration of the constraints of
local terrain and the ability to evacuate the community safely and effectively in the event
of a wildfire or other natural disasters. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes primarily lies
within a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which is not
considered in this legislation.
The City Council has strongly opposed legislation that seeks to limit local land use
authority. Given this bill’s widespread impact on the City’s ability to review certain
proposed housing developments, Staff recommends the City Council authorize the
Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Atkins, as drafted, or with revisions, opposing SB 9.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letter.
2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
C-2
February 2, 2021 Via Email
The Honorable Toni Atkins
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 9
Dear Senator Atkins:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 9, which would limit local land use
authority.
The bill overrides local control over zoning codes, requiring cities to ministerially
approve two residential units as well as lot splits on every single family parcel with no
public input or consideration. The bill also circumvents the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), which was established to require the thoughtful consideration of
development on the environment and infrastructure and the California Coastal Act of
1976, which recognizes that there are unique zoning and land management
requirements in coastal areas. Both of these state laws specifically require community
participation and input. It is for these reasons that the City Council, representing our
residents, unanimously oppose SB 9.
Aside from the gross disregard for local control, this bill puts existing Rancho Palos
Verdes residents in danger. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes primarily resides in a Cal
Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Due to topography and large
amount of dedicated open space, egress is limited. In the event of a wildfire, quickly and
safely evacuating the existing population would pose a significant challenge. Increased
density as contemplated under SB 9 would exacerbate this problem and could result in
the significant loss of life and property.
While we appreciate the intent to ensure that all Californians have access to affordable
housing, this bill will not do that. Instead, it will increase unintended hazards and erode
local control. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 9.
C-3
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
C-4
SENATE BILL No. 9
Introduced by Senators Atkins, Caballero, Rubio, and Wiener
(Coauthors: Senators Gonzalez and McGuire)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Robert Rivas)
December 7, 2020
An act to amend Section 66452.6 of, and to add Sections 65852.21
and 66411.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 9, as introduced, Atkins. Housing development: approvals.
The Planning and Zoning Law provides for the creation of accessory
dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted
an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified
standards and conditions.
This bill, among other things, would require a proposed housing
development containing 2 residential units within a single-family
residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary
review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain
requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing
development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that
is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents
to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very
low income, that the proposed housing development does not allow for
the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural
walls, except as provided, and that the development is not located within
a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources
Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as
a city or county landmark or historic property or district.
The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require
in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not
C-5
limited to, authorizing a city or county to impose objective zoning
standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of up to 2 units, prohibiting the
imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and
setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances.
The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control
the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of
a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s
processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing
of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps.
Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved
tentative map expires 24 months after its approval or conditional
approval or after any additional period of time as prescribed by local
ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided.
This bill, among other things, would require a city or county to
ministerially approve a parcel map or tentative and final map for an
urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited
to, that the urban lot split would not require the demolition or alteration
of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that
restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate,
low, or very low income, that the parcel is located within a residential
zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not
included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a
site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or
historic property or district.
The bill would set forth what a local agency can and cannot require
in approving an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, authorizing
a city or county to impose objective zoning standards, objective
subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless
those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the
construction of 2 units on either of the resulting parcels, prohibiting the
imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and
setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances.
The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may
be provided by ordinance, as described above, from 12 months to 24
months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead
agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the
completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it
2
C-6
proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on
the environment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial
projects.
This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described
above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those
processes from CEQA.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and
regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process,
within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on various coastal
resources planning and management policies set forth in the act.
This bill would exempt a local government from being required to
hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for
housing developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above
provisions.
By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use
regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
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.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65852.21 is added to the Government
line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 65852.21. (a) A proposed housing development containing
line 4 two residential units within a single-family residential zone shall
line 5 be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a
line 6 hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the
line 7 following requirements:
line 8 (1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is
line 9 located within a city the boundaries of which include some portion
line 10 of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the
line 11 United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal
3
C-7
line 1 parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban
line 2 cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
line 3 (2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in
line 4 subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision
line 5 (a) of Section 65913.4.
line 6 (3) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any local
line 7 law, the proposed housing development would not require
line 8 demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
line 9 (A) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance,
line 10 or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and
line 11 families of moderate, low, or very low income.
line 12 (B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control
line 13 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
line 14 (C) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three
line 15 years.
line 16 (4) The parcel subject to the proposed housing development is
line 17 not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has
line 18 exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing
line 19 with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw
line 20 accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date
line 21 that the development proponent submits an application.
line 22 (5) The proposed housing development does not allow the
line 23 demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior
line 24 structural walls, unless the housing development meets at least
line 25 one of the following conditions:
line 26 (A) If a local ordinance so allows.
line 27 (B) The site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three
line 28 years.
line 29 (6) The development is not located within a historic district or
line 30 property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as
line 31 defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within
line 32 a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or
line 33 historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
line 34 (b) (1) Notwithstanding any local law and except as provided
line 35 in paragraph (2), a city or county may impose objective zoning
line 36 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
line 37 review standards that do not conflict with this section.
line 38 (2) (A) The city or county shall not impose objective zoning
line 39 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
4
C-8
line 1 standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the
line 2 construction of up to two units.
line 3 (B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no setback shall be
line 4 required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the
line 5 same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
line 6 (ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in all other circumstances
line 7 not described in clause (i), a local government may require a
line 8 setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
line 9 (c) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with
line 10 subdivision (b), a local agency may require any of the following
line 11 conditions when considering an application for two residential
line 12 units as provided for in this section:
line 13 (1) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a
line 14 local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of
line 15 the following instances:
line 16 (A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance
line 17 of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision
line 18 (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major
line 19 transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources
line 20 Code.
line 21 (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the
line 22 parcel.
line 23 (2) For residential units connected to an onsite wastewater
line 24 treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five
line 25 years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last
line 26 10 years.
line 27 (d) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created
line 28 pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
line 29 (e) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, a local agency shall not
line 30 be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that
line 31 use both the authority contained within this section and the
line 32 authority contained in Section 66411.7.
line 33 (f) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of
line 34 subdivision (b), an application shall not be rejected solely because
line 35 it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the
line 36 structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient
line 37 to allow separate conveyance.
line 38 (g) Local agencies shall include units constructed pursuant to
line 39 this section in the annual housing element report as required by
5
C-9
line 1 subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
line 2 65400.
line 3 (h) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
line 4 (1) A housing development contains two residential units if the
line 5 development proposes two new units or if it proposes to add one
line 6 new unit to an existing unit.
line 7 (2) The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective
line 8 subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards”
line 9 mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment
line 10 by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to
line 11 an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and
line 12 knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the
line 13 public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied
line 14 in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a city
line 15 or county, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay
line 16 zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density
line 17 bonus ordinances.
line 18 (i) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the
line 19 provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this
line 20 section shall not be considered a project under Division 13
line 21 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
line 22 (j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in
line 23 any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
line 24 Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section
line 25 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local
line 26 government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal
line 27 development permit applications for a housing development
line 28 pursuant to this section.
line 29 SEC. 2. Section 66411.7 is added to the Government Code, to
line 30 read:
line 31 66411.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
line 32 division and any local law, a city or county shall ministerially
line 33 approve, as set forth in this section, a parcel map or tentative and
line 34 final map for an urban lot split that meets all the following
line 35 requirements:
line 36 (1) The parcel map or tentative and final map subdivides an
line 37 existing parcel to create two new parcels of equal size.
line 38 (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), both newly
line 39 created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
6
C-10
line 1 (B) A local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum
line 2 lot size subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision.
line 3 (3) The parcel being subdivided meets all the following
line 4 requirements:
line 5 (A) The parcel is located within a residential zone.
line 6 (B) The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located
line 7 within a city the boundaries of which include some portion of
line 8 either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the
line 9 United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal
line 10 parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban
line 11 cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
line 12 (C) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in
line 13 subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision
line 14 (a) of Section 65913.4.
line 15 (D) The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition
line 16 or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
line 17 (i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance,
line 18 or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and
line 19 families of moderate, low, or very low income.
line 20 (ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control
line 21 through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
line 22 (iii) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real
line 23 property has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75
line 24 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to
line 25 withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years
line 26 before the date that the development proponent submits an
line 27 application.
line 28 (iv) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three
line 29 years.
line 30 (E) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property
line 31 included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in
line 32 Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that
line 33 is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic
line 34 property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
line 35 (F) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise
line 36 of an urban lot split as provided for in this section.
line 37 (G) Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any
line 38 person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided
line 39 an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this
line 40 section.
7
C-11
line 1 (b) An application for an urban lot split shall be approved in
line 2 accordance with the following requirements:
line 3 (1) A local agency shall approve or deny an application for an
line 4 urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review.
line 5 (2) A local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it
line 6 conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the
line 7 Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section
line 8 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
line 9 (3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agency shall not
line 10 impose regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the
line 11 construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created
line 12 as a condition of issuing a parcel map or tentative and final map
line 13 for an urban lot split.
line 14 (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding
line 15 any local law, a city or county may impose objective zoning
line 16 standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design
line 17 review standards applicable to a parcel created by an urban lot
line 18 split that do not conflict with this section.
line 19 (2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards,
line 20 objective subdivision standards, and objective design review
line 21 standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the
line 22 construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels.
line 23 (3) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), no setback shall be
line 24 required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the
line 25 same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
line 26 (B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in all other circumstances
line 27 not described in subparagraph (A), a local government may require
line 28 a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
line 29 (d) In addition to any conditions established in accordance with
line 30 subdivision (c), a local agency may require any of the following
line 31 conditions when considering an application for an urban lot split:
line 32 (1) Easements required for the provision of public services and
line 33 facilities.
line 34 (2) A requirement that the parcels have access to, provide access
line 35 to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
line 36 (3) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a
line 37 local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of
line 38 the following instances:
line 39 (A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance
line 40 of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision
8
C-12
line 1 (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major
line 2 transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources
line 3 Code.
line 4 (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the
line 5 parcel.
line 6 (e) A local agency shall require that the uses allowed on a lot
line 7 created by this section be limited to residential uses.
line 8 (f) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created
line 9 pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
line 10 (g) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial
line 11 approval of a permit application for the creation of an urban lot
line 12 split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
line 13 (h) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, a local agency shall not
line 14 be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that
line 15 use both the authority contained within this section and the
line 16 authority contained in Section 65852.21.
line 17 (i) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), an
line 18 application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent
line 19 or connected structures provided that the structures meet building
line 20 code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate
line 21 conveyance.
line 22 (j) Local agencies shall include the number of applications for
line 23 urban lot splits pursuant to this section in the annual housing
line 24 element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2)
line 25 of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
line 26 (k) For purposes of this section, the terms “objective zoning
line 27 standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective
line 28 design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal
line 29 or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly
line 30 verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
line 31 criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant
line 32 or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These
line 33 standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use
line 34 specifications adopted by a city or county, and may include, but
line 35 are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans,
line 36 inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
line 37 (l) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the
line 38 provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this
line 39 section shall not be considered a project under Division 13
line 40 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
9
C-13
line 1 (m) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or
line 2 in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
line 3 Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section
line 4 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local
line 5 government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal
line 6 development permit applications for urban lot splits pursuant to
line 7 this section.
line 8 SEC. 3. Section 66452.6 of the Government Code is amended
line 9 to read:
line 10 66452.6. (a) (1) An approved or conditionally approved
line 11 tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or
line 12 conditional approval, or after any additional period of time as may
line 13 be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12
line 14 24 months. However, if the subdivider is required to expend two
line 15 hundred thirty-six thousand seven hundred ninety dollars
line 16 ($236,790) or more to construct, improve, or finance the
line 17 construction or improvement of public improvements outside the
line 18 property boundaries of the tentative map, excluding improvements
line 19 of public rights-of-way which that abut the boundary of the
line 20 property to be subdivided and which that are reasonably related
line 21 to the development of that property, each filing of a final map
line 22 authorized by Section 66456.1 shall extend the expiration of the
line 23 approved or conditionally approved tentative map by 36 48 months
line 24 from the date of its expiration, as provided in this section, or the
line 25 date of the previously filed final map, whichever is later. The
line 26 extensions shall not extend the tentative map more than 10 years
line 27 from its approval or conditional approval. However, a tentative
line 28 map on property subject to a development agreement authorized
line 29 by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4 of
line 30 Division 1 may be extended for the period of time provided for in
line 31 the agreement, but not beyond the duration of the agreement. The
line 32 number of phased final maps that may be filed shall be determined
line 33 by the advisory agency at the time of the approval or conditional
line 34 approval of the tentative map.
line 35 (2) Commencing January 1, 2012, and each calendar year
line 36 thereafter, the amount of two hundred thirty-six thousand seven
line 37 hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) shall be annually increased by
line 38 operation of law according to the adjustment for inflation set forth
line 39 in the statewide cost index for class B construction, as determined
line 40 by the State Allocation Board at its January meeting. The effective
10
C-14
line 1 date of each annual adjustment shall be March 1. The adjusted
line 2 amount shall apply to tentative and vesting tentative maps whose
line 3 applications were received after the effective date of the
line 4 adjustment.
line 5 (3) “Public improvements,” as used in this subdivision, include
line 6 traffic controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges,
line 7 overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain
line 8 facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, and lighting facilities.
line 9 (b) (1) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including
line 10 any extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall
line 11 not include any period of time during which a development
line 12 moratorium, imposed after approval of the tentative map, is in
line 13 existence. However, the length of the moratorium shall not exceed
line 14 five years.
line 15 (2) The length of time specified in paragraph (1) shall be
line 16 extended for up to three years, but in no event beyond January 1,
line 17 1992, during the pendency of any lawsuit in which the subdivider
line 18 asserts, and the local agency which that approved or conditionally
line 19 approved the tentative map denies, the existence or application of
line 20 a development moratorium to the tentative map.
line 21 (3) Once a development moratorium is terminated, the map
line 22 shall be valid for the same period of time as was left to run on the
line 23 map at the time that the moratorium was imposed. However, if the
line 24 remaining time is less than 120 days, the map shall be valid for
line 25 120 days following the termination of the moratorium.
line 26 (c) The period of time specified in subdivision (a), including
line 27 any extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall
line 28 not include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving
line 29 the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map is or was
line 30 pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of the time
line 31 period is approved by the local agency pursuant to this section.
line 32 After service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit upon
line 33 the local agency, the subdivider may apply to the local agency for
line 34 a stay pursuant to the local agency’s adopted procedures. Within
line 35 40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either
line 36 stay the time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay.
line 37 The local agency may, by ordinance, establish procedures for
line 38 reviewing the requests, including, but not limited to, notice and
line 39 hearing requirements, appeal procedures, and other administrative
line 40 requirements.
11
C-15
line 1 (d) The expiration of the approved or conditionally approved
line 2 tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or
line 3 parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within
line 4 the tentative map shall be filed with the legislative body without
line 5 first processing a new tentative map. Once a timely filing is made,
line 6 subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited
line 7 to, processing, approving, and recording, may lawfully occur after
line 8 the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to the county
line 9 surveyor or city engineer shall be deemed a timely filing for
line 10 purposes of this section.
line 11 (e) Upon application of the subdivider filed prior to before the
line 12 expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative
line 13 map, the time at which the map expires pursuant to subdivision
line 14 (a) may be extended by the legislative body or by an advisory
line 15 agency authorized to approve or conditionally approve tentative
line 16 maps for a period or periods not exceeding a total of six years. The
line 17 period of extension specified in this subdivision shall be in addition
line 18 to the period of time provided by subdivision (a). Prior to Before
line 19 the expiration of an approved or conditionally approved tentative
line 20 map, upon an application by the subdivider to extend that map,
line 21 the map shall automatically be extended for 60 days or until the
line 22 application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved,
line 23 or denied, whichever occurs first. If the advisory agency denies a
line 24 subdivider’s application for an extension, the subdivider may
line 25 appeal to the legislative body within 15 days after the advisory
line 26 agency has denied the extension.
line 27 (f) For purposes of this section, a development moratorium
line 28 includes a water or sewer moratorium, or a water and sewer
line 29 moratorium, as well as other actions of public agencies which that
line 30 regulate land use, development, or the provision of services to the
line 31 land, including the public agency with the authority to approve or
line 32 conditionally approve the tentative map, which thereafter prevents,
line 33 prohibits, or delays the approval of a final or parcel map. A
line 34 development moratorium shall also be deemed to exist for purposes
line 35 of this section for any period of time during which a condition
line 36 imposed by the city or county could not be satisfied because of
line 37 either of the following:
line 38 (1) The condition was one that, by its nature, necessitated action
line 39 by the city or county, and the city or county either did not take the
line 40 necessary action or by its own action or inaction was prevented or
12
C-16
line 1 delayed in taking the necessary action prior to before expiration
line 2 of the tentative map.
line 3 (2) The condition necessitates acquisition of real property or
line 4 any interest in real property from a public agency, other than the
line 5 city or county that approved or conditionally approved the tentative
line 6 map, and that other public agency fails or refuses to convey the
line 7 property interest necessary to satisfy the condition. However,
line 8 nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require any public
line 9 agency to convey any interest in real property owned by it. A
line 10 development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall be
line 11 deemed to have been imposed either on the date of approval or
line 12 conditional approval of the tentative map, if evidence was included
line 13 in the public record that the public agency which that owns or
line 14 controls the real property or any interest therein may refuse to
line 15 convey that property or interest, or on the date that the public
line 16 agency which that owns or controls the real property or any interest
line 17 therein receives an offer by the subdivider to purchase that property
line 18 or interest for fair market value, whichever is later. A development
line 19 moratorium specified in this paragraph shall extend the tentative
line 20 map up to the maximum period as set forth in subdivision (b), but
line 21 not later than January 1, 1992, so long as the public agency which
line 22 that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein fails
line 23 or refuses to convey the necessary property interest, regardless of
line 24 the reason for the failure or refusal, except that the development
line 25 moratorium shall be deemed to terminate 60 days after the public
line 26 agency has officially made, and communicated to the subdivider,
line 27 a written offer or commitment binding on the agency to convey
line 28 the necessary property interest for a fair market value, paid in a
line 29 reasonable time and manner.
line 30 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access
line 31 to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a
line 32 municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of
line 33 the California Constitution. Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act
line 34 adding Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code
line 35 and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the
line 36 Government Code apply to all cities, including charter cities.
line 37 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 38 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 39 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 40 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
13
C-17
line 1 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
line 2 17556 of the Government Code.
O
14
C-18
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/02/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to
SB 10.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter in opposition to SB 10 (page A-1)
B. Text of SB 10 (as introduced December 7, 2020) (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In the last legislative session, Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco introduced SB
902, seeking to limit local land use authority related to housing in “jobs-rich” areas, to
allow, but not require, local governments to adopt zoning ordinances that bypass
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for housing developments of up to
10 units per parcel in a transit- or jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site. The City Council
opposed SB 902 on July 7, 2020 and the bill died in committee on August 20, 2020.
Senator Wiener reintroduced the bill as SB 10 at the start of the current legislative
session. SB 10 would also require that cities allow midrise, medium-density housing on
sites that are either within one-half mile of high-quality public transportation or within a
jobs-rich, high-opportunity neighborhood close to key job centers without affordability
requirements or sensitivity to the character of existing neighborhoods.
D-1
If enacted, SB 10 would undermine local land use authority by imposing state legislation
on local government agencies and municipalities. Staff remains concerned that the
legislation has the potential to negatively impact cities that do not elect to use the
zoning tool created by the bill. If a neighboring city were to rezone a parcel for such a
project along the City border, residents would be impacted, but would be unable to
voice their concerns via the CEQA review process.
Additionally, SB 10’s definition of “jobs-rich areas” is unclear. The bill leaves these
areas to be determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development
and the Office of Planning and Research.
For these reasons, Staff recommends the City Council authorize the M ayor to sign a
letter to Senator Wiener, as drafted, opposing SB 10.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letter.
2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
D-2
February 2, 2021 Via Email
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 10
Dear Senator Wiener:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 10, which would limit local land use
authority related to housing in “jobs-rich” areas.
Like its predecessor, SB 902, the bill has the potential to negatively impact cities that do
not elect to use the zoning tool it creates. If a neighboring city were to rezone a parcel
for a project of up to 10 units along the City border, our residents would be impacted,
but would be unable to voice their concerns via the entitlement and CEQA review
processes.
Additionally, SB 10 leaves “jobs-rich areas” to be determined by the Department of
Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research. More
specificity is needed to meaningfully understand where these projects could be built.
While we appreciate efforts to ensure that all Californians have access to affordable
housing, instead, this bill, like many other housing bills, erodes local control and
pursues a once-size-fits-all approach that does not work for many cities, like ours. For
these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 10.
Sincerely,
D-3
Eric Alegria
Mayor
cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
D-4
SENATE BILL No. 10
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthors: Senators Atkins and Caballero)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Robert Rivas)
December 7, 2020
An act to add Section 65913.5 to the Government Code, relating to
land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 10, as introduced, Wiener. Planning and zoning: housing
development: density.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a
general plan for land use development within its boundaries that
includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law requires
an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to
a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing
if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable
housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income
households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified
conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary
decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for
various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction
of affordable housing.
This bill would, notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting
zoning ordinances, authorize a local government to pass an ordinance
to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel,
at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a
transit-rich area, a jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site, as those terms
are defined. In this regard, the bill would require the Department of
Housing and Community Development, in consultation with the Office
D-5
of Planning and Research, to determine jobs-rich areas and publish a
map of those areas every 5 years, commencing January 1, 2022, based
on specified criteria. The bill would specify that an ordinance adopted
under these provisions is not a project for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act. The bill would prohibit a residential or
mixed-use residential project consisting of 10 or more units that is
located on a parcel rezoned pursuant to these provisions from being
approved ministerially or by right.
This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill
address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair
and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65913.5 is added to the Government
line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 65913.5. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any local restrictions on
line 4 adopting zoning ordinances enacted by the jurisdiction, including
line 5 restrictions enacted by a local voter initiative, that limit the
line 6 legislative body’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances, a local
line 7 government may pass an ordinance to zone a parcel for up to 10
line 8 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by the
line 9 local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in one
line 10 of the following:
line 11 (A) A transit-rich area.
line 12 (B) A jobs-rich area.
line 13 (C) An urban infill site.
line 14 (2) An ordinance adopted in accordance with this subdivision
line 15 shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13
line 16 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
line 17 (3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to parcels located within a very
line 18 high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department
line 19 of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within
line 20 a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps
line 21 adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant
line 22 to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This paragraph
line 23 does not apply to parcels excluded from the specified hazard zones
line 24 by a local agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or
2
D-6
line 1 sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant
line 2 to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures
line 3 applicable to the development.
line 4 (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a residential or
line 5 mixed-use residential project consisting of more than 10 new
line 6 residential units on one or more parcels that have been zoned to
line 7 permit residential development pursuant to this section shall not
line 8 be approved ministerially or by right, and shall not be exempt from
line 9 Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
line 10 Resources Code.
line 11 (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a project to create no more
line 12 than two accessory dwelling units and no more than two junior
line 13 accessory dwelling units per parcel pursuant to Sections 65852.2
line 14 and 65852.22 of the Government Code.
line 15 (3) A project may not be divided into smaller projects in order
line 16 to exclude the project from the prohibition in this subdivision.
line 17 (c) For purposes of this section:
line 18 (1) “High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed
line 19 route bus service that meets all of the following criteria:
line 20 (A) It has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes
line 21 during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive,
line 22 and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on
line 23 Monday through Friday.
line 24 (B) It has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes
line 25 during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, on Monday through
line 26 Friday.
line 27 (C) It has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during
line 28 the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday.
line 29 (2) (A) “Jobs-rich area” means an area identified by the
line 30 Department of Housing and Community Development in
line 31 consultation with the Office of Planning and Research that is high
line 32 opportunity and either is jobs rich or would enable shorter commute
line 33 distances based on whether, in a regional analysis, the tract meets
line 34 both of the following:
line 35 (i) The tract is high opportunity, meaning its characteristics are
line 36 associated with positive educational and economic outcomes for
line 37 households of all income levels residing in the tract.
line 38 (ii) The tract meets either of the following criteria:
line 39 (I) New housing sited in the tract would enable residents to live
line 40 near more jobs than is typical for tracts in the region.
3
D-7
line 1 (II) New housing sited in the tract would enable shorter commute
line 2 distances for residents, relative to existing commute patterns and
line 3 jobs-housing fit.
line 4 (B) The Department of Housing and Community Development
line 5 shall, commencing on January 1, 2022, publish and update, every
line 6 five years thereafter, a map of the state showing the areas identified
line 7 by the department as “jobs-rich areas.”
line 8 (3) “Transit-rich area” means a parcel within one-half mile of
line 9 a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public
line 10 Resources Code, or a parcel on a high-quality bus corridor.
line 11 (4) “Urban infill site” means a site that satisfies all of the
line 12 following:
line 13 (A) A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if,
line 14 and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an
line 15 urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States
line 16 Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or
line 17 parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban
line 18 cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
line 19 (B) A site in which at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the
line 20 site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the
line 21 purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street
line 22 or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.
line 23 (C) A site that is zoned for residential use or residential
line 24 mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that
line 25 allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential
line 26 uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the
line 27 development designated for residential use.
line 28 (d) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring the adequate
line 29 production of affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern
line 30 and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of
line 31 Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section
line 32 applies to all cities, including charter cities.
O
4
D-8
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 29
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 08/01/95 (amended 02/19/02, 03/04/14 and
04/20/21)
SUBJECT: City Council Position on Legislative Items
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City that staff shall monitor regional, County, State and
Federal legislative matters and initiatives, and consider the potential impact(s)
such legislative initiatives on the City or the region. Thereafter, staff shall prepare
and present periodic updates on such legislative matters for the City Council to
consider whether to take a position(s) on the same and, if so, what position(s) to
take.
The legislation monitored will include both those issues that the City Council
determines either to support or oppose and those that the City Council may choose
to identify as issues of concern, but not take a position on. The determination of
what position to take on pending legislation shall be solely that of the City Council.
Staff will periodically, at the request of a Council member, place matters of pending
legislation on the City Council agenda for consideration. Staff will provide regular
updates on the status of any legislative action affecting any issues of concern to
the City Council through the Weekly Administrative Report.
If the majority of the Council votes to take a position on a certain legislation, staff
shall prepare the appropriate correspondence , for the Mayor’s signature, to the
relevant Federal, State, County and/or regional legislative representative(s)
expressing the position of the City, and copies provided to the City Council. Such
correspondence shall be posted on the City’s website under the Legislation Corner
homepage.
Individual Council members may wish to support or oppose a specific piece of
legislation irrespective of whether the City Council has or has not taken a position
on such legislation. Any legislative activity by an individual Council member,
including preparing legislative correspondence, may be conducted by a ny Council
member, who shall state that he or she is not acting on behalf of the City and is
representing his or her own personal views. However, staff shall not assist in any
legislative activity of an individual Council member, including the preparation of
legislative correspondence, unless the legislative item has appeared on a Council
agenda and has received a majority vote of the Council.
G-1
The League of California Cities’ “Legislative Bulletin” and any appropriate
publication that summarizes legislation shall be provided as part of the City
Manager’s Weekly Administrative Report to each member of the Council for
review.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council initially adopted a policy for Council involvement in Federal and
State legislative advocacy in 1995. Although the policy seems to have worked
adequately over the first seven years, by 2002 it was thought that it did not allow
the City to respond rapidly to requests to support or oppose legislation that may
be before a committee or on the floor or the Assembly or before Congress and
needs immediate action on the part of supporters or opponents. Therefore, the
policy was amended in 2002 to address these perceived deficiencies. In 2014, the
policy was amended again to revise the procedure for monitoring legislation, and
to explicitly include legislative issues at the County and regional level.
The City Council’s revised legislative policy establishes an internal process for
identifying, tracking and advocating its position on pending legislation
synchronized to the fast-paced “legislation time clock.” Through this proactive
policy, the City Council hopes to have a stronger “voice” in the Peninsula/South
Bay region, Los Angeles County, Sacramento and Washington, DC.
G-2