With California's legislative season entering a critical juncture, cities are keeping a particularly close eye on Senate Bill 423, a bill that would indefinitely extend an existing law that creates a streamlined approval process for residential projects in cities that fail to meet their housing quotas.
Authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, the bill would remove the sunset date from SB 35, a 2017 law that targets cities that have not met their Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations. SB 423 has already secured approval from two Senate committees and, like all other Senate bills, faces a deadline of getting out of the upper Legislative chamber by June 2.
SB 35, which was also authored by Wiener, created a streamlined and ministerial process for housing developments that meet objective design standards such as height restrictions and density limits. According to a legislative analysis of the bill, all but 29 of the cities and counties in California are subject to SB 35 because they have failed to generate enough units in one or more income levels to meet their RHNA goals.
In a recent meeting in front of the Senate Finance and Government Committee, Wiener called SB 35 one of the state's "most successful housing laws." Since the law's adoption, most of the state's 100% affordable housing projects have been subject to SB 35, he said, and the bill has reduced the approval timelines for these projects "from years to months." The bill and its successor, SB 423, are necessary to address the state's housing shortage.
"California has an outrageous rate of homelessness. We have working class families who are leaving major metropolitan areas or leaving the state entirely, we have young people who aren't seeing the future for themselves in the state," Wiener said. "We are short millions of homes and we need to, at a minimum, double our housing production and probably beyond that."
SB 35 has a sunset date of Jan. 1, 2026. SB 423 would remove the sunset date and make several modifications to the legislation, including removing an existing exemption for coastal zones, wetlands and protected habitats. The proposed bill would also prohibit local governments from requiring developers to provide studies or other information not relating to the determination of whether the project complies with objective planning standards.
SB 423 has already won approval from the Senate Finance and Government Committee and the Housing Committee and is set to go in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 15.
While both Senate committees supported the bill, SB 423 is also generating opposition from cities who characterize SB 35 and SB 423 as attacks on local control. Redding, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and Fairfield are among cities that have come out against the bill and the League of California Cities has argued that the recent rule changes make it hard for cities to implement their housing plans. Jason Rhine, assistant director for legislative affairs at the League of California Cities, told the committee that the organization is particularly concerned about the elimination of the sunset provision.
"We believe at most you should extend the sunset, maybe add a few more years and get a good handle on where it's working or not, particularly if this bill passes," Rhine said.
Palo Alto, which has consistently fallen well below RHNA targets when it comes to affordable housing, will have a chance to join the opposition on May 15, when the City Council considers the city's positions on a variety of state bills. In the past, the city has taken an adversarial position toward housing legislation that creates streamlined and by-right processes for residential projects. The city has opposed recent legislation like Senate Bill 9, which enables lot splits to promote duplexes and triplexes, and Senate Bill 10, which allows cities to build housing at greater densities than would otherwise be allowed in transit-friendly areas. Mayor Lydia Kou cited both bills, as well as SB 35, in her "State of the City" address in March as examples of Sacramento stripping away local control.
"What it does do is take away the ability of local government to make local planning decisions about the built environment and it does not give opportunities to residents and neighbors to provide comments and input," Kou said during the address. "That goes against the whole meaning of democracy."
The May 15 meeting will give other council members their first chance to weigh in on SB 423 and other proposed legislation. The city's current legislative guidelines state that council "supports reasonable housing policies that recognize local autonomy to maintain the local public process and preserve local government's ability to determine land use policies and development standards." And a new report from the city's Sacramento lobbying firm, Townsend Public Affairs, lists the city's status on the bill as "pending opposition."
"Palo Alto has included in the Legislative Guidelines many principles to support local control of land use and this bill contrasts with that," the report states.
Comments
Registered user
Stanford
on May 15, 2023 at 2:31 pm
Registered user
on May 15, 2023 at 2:31 pm
Thank you for the article reporting on Senate Bill 423, which, if passed, would go into effect in 2024, two years before SB 35 is supposed to sunset. SB 423 would FOREVER make environmental and coastal protection irrelevant, further expand the power of not only developers , but also the power of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). I guess the bill author knows that the State Legislature's approach to housing, pioneered by him, will never end our affordable housing problem. He is also betting that HCD will forever be setting up cities to fail. Democracy is being taken away from us, starting at the local level.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 15, 2023 at 2:40 pm
Registered user
on May 15, 2023 at 2:40 pm
Why indefinitely? Have we learned nothing since the state ruled that the housing targets which are based on jobs are set in concrete for 8 -- EIGHT -- years even though the economy has drastically changed and the state's gone from having a huge surplus to a $31 BILLION deficit due to the layoffs, the stock market crash, rising interest rates etc etc.
Are any of us in the same place we were 8 years ago and/or will we be there indefinitely??
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on May 15, 2023 at 7:32 pm
Registered user
on May 15, 2023 at 7:32 pm
I understand that the state is facing a housing crisis, and I'm sympathetic to the need to build more housing. However, I believe that SB 423 is the wrong way to address this problem.
I'm concerned that SB 423 would undermine local control over land use planning. Cities and counties have a responsibility to ensure that new housing is built in a way that is compatible with their communities and that meets the needs of their residents. SB 423 would take away that authority and give it to developers.
I'm also concerned that SB 423 would lead to increased traffic congestion, pollution, and noise. New housing developments can put a strain on our infrastructure and make it more difficult to get around. SB 423 would make it easier for developers to build new housing without considering the impact on our environment and our quality of life.
Finally, I'm concerned that SB 423 would not do enough to ensure that new housing is affordable. The bill does not require developers to set aside any of their units for affordable housing. This means that SB 423 could actually make it harder for people to find affordable housing in our community.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on May 15, 2023 at 10:42 pm
Registered user
on May 15, 2023 at 10:42 pm
@Brian Hamachek Yet our city is not meeting the needs of its residents. Historically, racially, nor economically. You answered your own question. Unless you speak of a certain resident in a particular neighborhood, attached to one of the ten associations. Then of course you underline the exact reason why a larger force is stepping in to actually “meet the needs of its residents” not just a certain SFH few. For example the dilapidating Alma outdated, subpar, super over priced, slum-lording going on . It appears from your post you are safe, homed in good standard, equitable, quality housing and perhaps even have control of your own property. 46% of us residing in PA don’t. And yes. As a HOH, low income working mom: I cannot relocate from a 700 sqft to an 900sqft now because I cannot prove 3 x income to asking rent. That would put me in the 125K gross income range. I earn $22 an hour. Hello.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on May 15, 2023 at 11:15 pm
Registered user
on May 15, 2023 at 11:15 pm
@OnlineName. So I get it your tech stocks have diminished. I am sorry. Yet I am a local service worker supporting my kids on a low wage hourly sum of $22 (In and Out). Does that mean I yank my kids out of their successes at academics because PA can’t pony up to its social responsibility? Yes. for service worker wage earners who are extremely rent burdened right now, here in Palo Alto? My family is invested as 4th Gen Palo Altans. And I am being financially and psychologically forced out, because...while the town does back bends for Julia Morgan (McArther) Park)and Foon Chu Cannery site as historically, equitable locations of last Century inclusion while 21Century selling the sites to the highest bidders on such Antique Roadshow presentations. And. Presently there are plenty of residents crawling under a oppressive rent burdens... Go ahead tout historic sites as once the land of inclusion and fair labor practices, while selling the futures off to the past... while us in the present suffer under the hypocrisy. Gross neglect of our currency Econ labor stock of the hourly wage earner. This is where curb appeal meets the real .
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on May 16, 2023 at 1:50 am
Registered user
on May 16, 2023 at 1:50 am
@Gennady I just flashed on a thought. Why not investigate the history of Palo Alto and it’s housing/homes afforded to: A select few in the previous century. SFH owners who bought in the post WWII era up until prop 13 passed in 1979. Liberals voted this home owners tax credit in. How is that tax credit fairing in our home town PA? Surely there are an abundance of remaining residents still coveting thier low tax rate to those struggling to have a “buy” in. How does the credits hold for our Huge tech sectorStanford, Google, Facebook, Apple? Interesting to note. Apple is Cupertino,Google is Mountain View and Facebook is East PA .Yet. all these founders reside in Palo Alto. There have been housing pledges. What’s is the current on this front. Please review.